Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DMG Concern <br />2. The text says all Mine 2 ponds are in the Fish Creek drainage, <br />yet Pond K drains to Foidel Creek. Please correct this <br />information. <br />CYCC Response <br />{JL The revised page is enclosed. <br />DMG Concern <br />3. Please refer to the October 29, 1992 CYCC response to the <br />Divisions review of the 1991 AHR. Questions a) and b) under <br />General Comments were not corrected as stated in your <br />response. <br />CYCC Response <br />~~ The revised Table 1 pages are enclosed. In addition, measurement <br />requency information for a number of spoil springs was revised to <br />reflect the annual basis of the survey, as opposed to the M(Q <br />designation which only the major spoil springs fall under during a <br />typical year. CYCC has done this to alleviate potential confusion <br />regarding the spoil spring monitoring frequency, and this will be <br />reflected in future AHR reports as well. <br />DMG Concern <br />4. Site 109 discharge meter read 9,658,964 on April 22, 1991, <br />10,859,952 on May 14, 1991 and 12,368,842 on June 20, 1991, <br />yet Pond D supposedly showed no discharge over this period. <br />Please explain in detail. <br />f 1 c CYCC Response <br />v As noted in the 1991 AHR review, the flow data for Site 84 for the <br />period in question is correct. In early April, 1991 Mr. Berry of <br />the Division approved a field Minor Revision to allow the re- <br />routing of the ditch conveying Site 109 discharge to the Area 2 <br />pit. This allowed CYCC some flexibility in handling coal on the <br />pile immediately adjacent to the ditch in question (which was <br />placing a constraint on our ability to handle the coal during heavy <br />production episodes), and allowed the associated re-routing of the <br />lower ditch without having to fight periodic discharge while <br />working on the lower segment into Pond D. Flow from Site 109 was <br />re-routed into the Area 2 pit for approximately two months, after <br />which time the re-routed lower ditch segment to Pond D was utilized <br />and Site 109 flow to, and associated discharge from, Pond D <br />resumed. Flow from the Area 2 Pit to Pond D was not affected due to <br />the low water levels present in the pit at the time of the <br />diversion activities.. <br />