Laserfiche WebLink
Page 10 of 12 <br />is a significant safety margin). The referenced pond surveys (pgs 2.05 -77 through 78), <br />would require someone to go out on the ponds in a boat to take "sounding" measurements <br />at various locations. Given the obvious safety concerns associated with this approach, <br />and that late- season observations represented a reasonable alternative approach, it was <br />agreed that this approach would be acceptable, and became the standard going forward. <br />TC has used this approach for a number of years, and has scheduled and conducted pond <br />maintenance based on the late- season visual observations (typically conducted annually <br />in conjunction with the quarterly pond inspections) of sediment accumulations in the <br />pond inlet areas. In order to make the referenced permit text consistent with this practice, <br />the text has been revised. Copies of the revised pages accompany these responses for <br />replacement in the PAP. <br />Division Response: This response is adequate. <br />17. Division Initial Comment: Pages 2.05 -128 and 131 lists the current NPDES permits <br />associated with the Foidel Creek Mine. Please revise the text to include all NPDES <br />permits currently active at the site. <br />TC Response: The referenced text has been reviewed and updated, as appropriate. <br />Copies of the revised pages accompany these responses for replacement in the PAP. <br />Division Response: This response is adequate. <br />18. Division Initial Comment: Page 2.05 -129 states that all stream buffer zones will be <br />identified on Map 29. No stream buffer zones were identified on Map 29. Please revise <br />the text to identify the correct location of the stream buffer zones or revise Map 29 to <br />reflect the currently approved text. <br />TC Response: Map 29 previously showed stream buffer zone areas, as well as those <br />areas where a variance from the buffer zones requirements had been approved. As a <br />result of successive changes to the Map, the stream buffer zone information had been <br />lost. This information has been added back in to the Map, and copies of the revised Map <br />accompany these responses for replacement in the PAP. <br />Division Response: This response is adequate. <br />19. Division Initial Comment: Page 2.05 -134 identifies the year 1999 as a date that no <br />significant inflows from Trout Creek Sandstone has occurred and no evidence of <br />communication between mined through faults and the Trout Creek Sandstone has <br />occurred. Please confirm if any up to date mine inflow data shows that this statement is <br />current and remains correct. <br />TC Response: Ongoing groundwater monitoring and annual mine inflow studies, as <br />documented in the Annual Hydrology Reports, indicate no significant changes in mine <br />inflows from the Trout Creek Sandstone to the active or mined -out mine workings, or <br />