My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-12-18_PERMIT FILE - M2018060
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2018060
>
2018-12-18_PERMIT FILE - M2018060
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/19/2024 4:12:28 AM
Creation date
12/18/2018 4:01:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2018060
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
12/18/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review - Preliminary
From
DRMS
To
Applegate Group
Email Name
ECS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jared Dains <br /> December 18, 2018 <br /> Page 3 of 5 <br /> Because the post-mining land use contains a lined reservoir within the flood plain, armored <br /> inlet/outlet structures will need to be included as a key design feature for the reservoir. These <br /> structures are required to provide a pathway for flood flows to enter and leave the lined <br /> reservoir while preventing damage to the slurry wall. Costs to design/build these structures <br /> will also need to be included in the reclamation bond estimate,and they will need to be shown <br /> on the reclamation plan map as appropriate. <br /> EXHIBIT F-Reclamation Plan Map (Rule 6.4.6): The map(s) of the proposed affected land, by <br /> all phases of the total scope of the mining operation, shall indicate the following: <br /> (a) The expected physical appearance of the area of the affected land, correlated to the <br /> proposed mining and reclamation timetables. The map must show proposed <br /> topography of the area with contour lines of sufficient detail to portray the direction <br /> and rate of slope of all reclaimed lands. <br /> EXHIBIT G-Water Information (Rule 6.4.7): <br /> According to the well information presented in Exhibit B and Table G-2 there appear to be several <br /> other monitoring wells (wells 2-8, 25, 21, and 22 specifically) that are located either on, or very <br /> near, the proposed permitted area. Why were these wells not included in a groundwater monitoring <br /> plan? <br /> Groundwater Monitoring/Mitigation Plan comments: <br /> Please specify what wells will be utilized in the monthly groundwater level monitoring plan <br /> described. <br /> It appears that at least one of the monitoring wells currently listed (MW-15) is unusable. Will that <br /> well be repaired or replaced? <br /> DRMS requires, at a minimum, 5 consecutive quarters of baseline groundwater level data prior to <br /> dewatering to establish pre-mining conditions on-site at the chosen monitoring locations. If you can <br /> provide this data utilizing existing wells/data please do so, otherwise, please commit to providing <br /> the required 5 quarters of data prior to dewatering activities on-site. <br /> The 30 day notification period specified in the plan for Bucklen to evaluate/take action and notify <br /> DRMS in the event of a complaint of an impacted well is not acceptable. Please commit to no more <br /> than 5 working days to initiate action and notify DRMS, in writing, in the event of a complaint of an <br /> impacted well. <br /> DRMS also cannot accept the condition that wells must have been put to beneficial use prior to <br /> mining to be eligible for mitigation if impacted. If a well has been appropriately permitted by the <br /> State Engineer's Office it must be mitigated if impacted. It may be in Bucklen's interest to conduct <br /> pre-mining assessments of nearby wells, if access can be obtained,to document information such as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.