Laserfiche WebLink
made sure we bad adequate warranty to cover the cost o[ reclamation for the <br />structures placed with In the permit area. <br />13) Please refer to my comments on # 2 regarding IJDFCD'S Jurisdiction. <br />II) Exhibit "G" Water Information <br />2)The operator's response regarding why they do not need to provide an <br />agreement between the operator Aggregate industries and the Ditch owners <br />(Gartner Ditch and Brighton Ditch) is unacceptable. The ground water model is <br />based on one well pump test. The potential is there to impact the ditches, so the <br />operator bas to have the agreement, with both ditch owners to state that if <br />damage to the ditches can be established to occur due to mining and dewatering <br />activities, Aggregate Industries will mitigate the ditch owners, <br />3} The operator has to mitigate all wells with in 600 feet whether the wells have <br />been put to beneficial use prior to mining or not. The Division allowed <br />Aggregate Industries a lot of latitude, by limiting it to only 600 feet, As <br />Aggregate Industries is well aware, the 600 feet criteria is a guideline for the <br />State Engineer. The Division can require mitigation outside of the 600 feet <br />limit, to protect imapcts the hydrologic bataece, <br />4) I agree with aggregate Industries, as long as Aggregate Industries can <br />account for all anticipated ground water to be exposed, including mounding, <br />in their water substitute supply plan from the SEO, it should satisfy DMG. <br />All other responses were found to address the Division's concerns. <br />