Laserfiche WebLink
B. G. Walker - 2 - June 24, 1999 <br />Please refer to page 4~9a (new 8-14-87) for a discussion of SAEs. During the original <br />(1986 - 1987) reclamation project, the SAES were lined with bales. The work performed <br />in 1998 disturbed the portal area again. It was seeded late in the year and the snow flew <br />before mulching could be performed. The area already has a good stand of grasses and <br />the PEC-MAT has an especially good growth. I believe the vegetated PEC-MAT is a <br />suitable alternative sedimentation control technique for this area. <br />Utilizing pond P-9 in the water treatment process is discussed in the permit (4-iii). The <br />Department of Health (DOH) will probably approve the use of Pond P-9 for water treatment <br />in the near future. The DOH (Jon Kubic) takes the approach that if the DMG has approved <br />pond removal, then they can approve the utilization of a sediment pond in the treatment <br />system. I assume the logic is that surface drainage does not exist from a regulatory view <br />point if sedimentation control is no longer required. Your discussion regarding the <br />potential need for sediment control as a result of augmented seeding etc. is noted. <br />Because of its location, the pond can easily be converted to a water treatment pond and <br />then, if needed, back to a sedimentation pond. <br />I feel the most important issue at the North Thompson Creek Mine is maintaining the water <br />treatment system. A passive treatment system is in place and it works. I look forward to <br />working through the above issues with you so we can get back to the basics of water <br />treatment and monitoring. <br />Please let me know if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />J. E. Stover P.E. <br />Consulting Engineer <br />