Laserfiche WebLink
<br />parameters for the site not being reported. CYCC apologizes for <br />this oversight, and we hope to prevent a recurrence. Review of <br />subsequent episodes indicate that the remaining data is correct for <br />Pond H. <br />~\~ Review of the inspection report in question indicates a trickle <br />C discharge was noted for Pond M. In the case of Pond M, it is <br />1 unclear as to the nature of the discharge noted in the inspection <br />/(~ ~~' report (ie collar seepage?). Some minor maintenance work was done <br />v~ on both Pond M and Pond G in 1992 to address some very minor collar <br />seepage, and notes from the CT+E monitoring fieldbook indicates <br />that on 4/28 there was no flow. Also, the CT+E representative <br />noted that the water level in the pond was below the orifice. <br />DMG Concern <br />Springs <br />1. No full suite sample could be found for the largest flowing <br />Mine 2 spring, as required by your hydrologic monitoring plan. <br />Please submit this information. <br />CYCC Response <br />As the Division will note from Table 49 of the 1992 AHR, there were <br />no significant spoil springs located on Mine 2 during the 1992 <br />~~ survey. Even those previously identified springs which are noted <br />in the table were only damp areas, and in the instance of seeps S <br />and T field parameters were obtained by sampling very shallow <br />~~~ (<2^), minute spots of water. Given that there were no sites which <br />C isplayed measurable flow, and CYCC did not feel that a <br />\`~n,~1 representative sample could be obtained from the seeps identified, <br />no full-suite sample was collected for the Mine 2 area in 1992. <br />CYCC feels that, based upon the conditions found in the field, a <br />representative sample could not be collected and as such that we <br />are in compliance with our plan. <br />DMG Concern <br />Water Quality <br />Water quality review includes review of the Foidel Creek Mine data <br />(No. C-82-056). <br />CYCC Comment <br />CYCC wishes to restate that it is not in agreement with the <br />Division regarding whether it is appropriate to address Foidel <br />Creek Mine AHR issues and permitting requirements within the <br />framework of the Eckman Park AHR review, given that these permits <br />are in fact separate entities. As previously noted, there are <br />separate and distinct issues associated with each operation, and it <br />requires additional effort to address these issues and insure the <br />