Laserfiche WebLink
An applicant must still provide the Division an adequate analysis of the hydrologic impacts to <br /> .` surrounding property owners and well owners as part of DMG application process. In addition, �l• _ <br /> the SEO approved plans and designs shall be used to calculate an appropriate financial warranty ,� <br /> ? �'�1 <br /> Where there is no SEO approved liner plan, the applicant will need to supply an interim � d <br /> reclamation plan. Such a plan will describe a reclamation plan for a site that does not include a E <br /> lined pit. Once SEO approval is obtained for the liner design and construction, the <br /> applicant/operator may submit a permit modification to the application in order to change the <br /> reclamation plan. Based on the degree of difference between the interim reclamation plan and <br /> 'the reclamation plan for a lined pit, the Division will determine if the change is a Technical <br /> Revision or an Amendment to the application or permit. <br /> An Illustrative Example: <br /> Introduction <br /> An applicant proposes the installation of a slurry wall around the pit area prior to commencement <br /> of mining. Design details and SEO approval letter are provided but no specifications or quality <br /> control/quality assurance plan is.included in the application. The applicant proposes to bond for <br /> the cost to install the slurry wall. Such a bond should serve as a contingency if leakage were to <br /> occur in eatcess of criteria established by the Office of the State Engineer or if the slurry wall <br /> were to be damaged by pit slope failure. The unit cost supplied by the applicant in Exhibit L <br /> used to establish the amount of required bond is ($X)per square foot of slurry wall assuming a <br /> wall depth of(Y) feet. <br /> Lined reservoirs that employ slurry walls to prevent hydrologic communication with ground <br /> water are a viable water storage alternative and are adequate to meet the developed water <br /> resources post mining land use. However, leakage of ground water through or around the slurry <br /> wall into the pit at a rate in excess of SEO requirements would constitute a failure to achieve the <br /> designated post mining land use. If an operator were to mine out a pit within the perimeter of a <br /> previously installed slurry wall, and it were subsequently determined that ground water was <br /> leaking into the pit at a rate in excess of SEO requirements,the operator would be faced with the <br /> following three options: <br /> • Improve the seal in the pit to meet the State Engineer's leakage criteria. <br /> • Change the post mining land use and provide water to augment for ground water leaking into <br /> the pit that is lost to evaporation. <br /> • Backfill the pit so that water is no longer exposed to the atmosphere. <br /> In the event the Division were to assume responsibility for reclamation of the pit through bond <br /> forfeiture, we may be confronted with the same situation and the same three options. Of these <br /> options, water augmentation in the river basin and back filling of the pit with inert fill would be <br /> the most costly. Also, neither of these options would result in reclamation to the developed <br /> water resources use. This leaves the option of assuring that leakage into the pit is less than SEO <br /> requirements through reinstallation or repair of the slurry wall. <br />