Laserfiche WebLink
.; <br />' accurate topographic maps of the present and post-mining topography for all <br />disturbed areas of the permit <br />' accurate cross-section(s) at a sufficient frequency to approximate earth volumes for <br />all disturbed areas of the permit <br />' detailed text describing the earthmoving required based on the above information <br />TCC response <br />TCC is in the process of receiving updated topographic maps and it is anticipated <br />that they will be ready in approximately six weeks. Once the mapping is completed, <br />the backfilling and grading plan can be revised and modified accordingly. The <br />estimated volume in the Division's estimate can be used to provide an interim <br />amount. The attached bond summary reflects the changes that TCC proposes to the <br />Division's estimate. The bond, if the TCC estimate is used, comes to $6,207,316, <br />which is less than the Division's. <br />DMG response <br />This issue has been on-going since the bond was calculated by Tom Gillis in 1992. <br />Mr. Gillis indicated that the information in the permit was inadequate. Furthermore, <br />the Division has good reason to believe that the currently approved post-mining <br />topography cannot be achieved. Correcting this deficiency has been discussed <br />repeatedly with TCC and they continue to stall and procrastinate addressing this <br />issue. There is no evidence that the Division's calculation is enough bond to cover <br />the earth moving work. The Division has no accurate information on the <br />CURRENT topography. TCC appazently believes that they have been given the <br />choice to accept the current Division reclamation cost estimate number. They are <br />again mistaken. We asked the operator to provide the information as required by <br />the Rules. The estimator who completed the current calculation has specifically <br />asked for this information. The second issue is demonstrating whether the current <br />approved PMT can be achieved. If it cannot, why not? What is the new, proposed <br />PMT for the portal area? Do we need to wait an additional six weeks to get that? <br />We have been more than patient with TCC in regard to these issues. They have had <br />plenty of time to address the issue. I would suggest we try another method to get <br />TCC to present, useful, accurate information. They have wasted countless hours of <br />our time on this relatively simple and straight forward issue. At our meeting we gave <br />them a clear explanation of what we needed. It was my understanding that everyone <br />left that meeting with a cleaz understanding of what was required. <br />Original Question <br />5. In the past, facility and structure design information for those facilities and structures <br />transferred from the CYCC permit #C-81-071 was allowed to be incorporated by <br />reference into the Foidel Creek mine permit. Due to the number of facility changes, <br />