Laserfiche WebLink
Rob Zuber <br />Page 8 <br />March 10, 2016 <br />the data summarized in the proposed text), which is approximately opposite to what has been <br />drawn on Map 10B. <br />Please address these issues and update Map 106 accordingly. <br />Rule 2.05.6(3) — Protection of the hvdroloeical balance <br />78. Table 2.05.6-4 gives an inventory of springs and seeps near the proposed Collom permit <br />expansion area. Since PR -4 changes the nature of the proposed expansion, some of the <br />information in the table is no longer precisely relevant <br />Please review Table 2.05.6-4 and update the information in column 3 (Direction from Proposed <br />Pit) to incorporate the changes to the proposed Collom pit. <br />This item has not yet been adequately addressed. <br />In the letter of November 20, 2015, CCC stated that Table 2.05.6-4 had been revised, but a <br />copy of the revised table was not found amongst the material submitted. <br />79. Figures 2.05.6-1 and -2 show a plan and cross-sectional view of the proposed Collom pit, with <br />dewatering wells and their cones of influence projected. Since PR -4 changes the details of the <br />proposed pit, some of the information shown may no longer be accurate. <br />Please review Figures 2.05.6-1 and -2 and verify that the information shown accurately reflects <br />the plan proposed by PR -4. (Refer also to items 65, 66 and 67 in this letter). Please also update <br />the permit boundary layer drawn on this figure. <br />CCC corrected a misconception regarding changes to the Collom pit proposed with PR -4. This <br />unambiguous clarification is appreciated. Minor changes were made to Figures 2.05.6-1 and -2 <br />to correct the permit boundary and the verbiage. <br />The response is sufficient <br />80. CCC has made the case that the Trout Creek Sandstone is hydrologically isolated from the <br />potential effects of mining, owing to vertical separation and the presence of the Km confining <br />layer. The Division concurs that, given those conditions, the probable hydrologic consequence of <br />the activity proposed in PR -4 on the Trout Creek Sandstone is that it will not be impacted; <br />however it will be necessary to verify this prediction before final bond release. CCC has not <br />proposed a monitoring point or points that would allow such a verification to be made. <br />a. Please elaborate on the vertical separation (refer also to item 68 in this letter) of the <br />Trout Creek Sandstone, and the thickness and lateral continuity of the Km layer in the <br />text. The discussion should include the impacts of the faults mentioned in item 10 of this <br />letter on the integrity of the confining layer. <br />CCC added text to section 2.04.6 of the proposed revised text (under the sub -heading <br />"stratigraphy" addressing the thickness and lateral continuity of the Trout Creek <br />