Laserfiche WebLink
• -4 • <br />The finding that the essential hydrologic functions would be preserved <br />or restored should be no problem as long as no additional facilities are <br />located with the AVF. If any of the existing surface facilities are <br />located within the boundaries of the AVF, the applicant should provide <br />a discussion of how the essential hydrologic functions would be restored <br />following the removal of those facilities. <br />Whether or not any additional AVF monitoring (beyond the normal hydrologic <br />monitoring) is needed for either the fish Creek or Foidel Creek AVF, will <br />be determined after reviewing the applicant's revised discussion of the <br />probable hydrologic consequences of the proposed mining operation. <br />I am concerned that the information provided in the Foidel Creek mine <br />permit application is limited to the study area established for the <br />Eckman Park Mine. Although that area encompassed all the affected areas <br />associated with the surface operation, it may not be sufficient for the <br />proposed underground mine. The discharge of mine water and spoil water <br />from the dewatering well to the Foidel Creek drainage could potentially <br />effect flow in the downstream reaches of Middle Creek and Trout Creek. <br />The applicant must either justify the extent of the current AVF study <br />area by showing no potential for effects outside of this area or expand <br />the AVF study area to include potentially affected downstream reaches <br />along Foidel Creek, Fish Creek, Middle Creek, and Trout Creek. <br />This completes my preliminary adequacy review for the Foidel Creek Mine. <br />Let me know if you or the applicant have any questions. <br />/ep <br />cc: Ed Bischoff <br />Jim Pendleton <br />Dave Craig <br />Bob Liddle <br />