Laserfiche WebLink
<br />PAR - C-80-007 <br />X. <br />- 14 - <br />March 31, 1986 <br />within the original permit application. However, in preparing our <br />findings for the original application, the Division did not include the <br />areas south of the drainage divide between the North Fork and the Dry <br />Fork within the anticipated mining. Therefore, we only stated that the <br />proposed limited extraction plan would be perfected through use of <br />subsidence monitoring data before such extraction was finally approved. <br />For purposes of preparing a detailed CHIS including the areas south of <br />the divide, WECC will need to more explicitly define the plan for <br />limited extraction and the areas within which it will be applied. It <br />will be necessary to define a discrete boundary for the buffer zones. <br />Buffer zones will need to be designated adjoining both the Dry Fork of <br />Minnesota Creek and Lick Creek. Buffer zones will need to be projected <br />from the alluvial deposit boundaries adjoining the surface channel, not <br />the centerline of the channel. Extraction will need to be limited to <br />some level significantly less than 50%, until the operator provides <br />subsidence monitoring and hydrology monitoring data with which to <br />verify the propriety of that extraction level. Finally, the width of <br />the appropriate buffer zone will need to be determined. <br />The 1630 permit revision <br />valid determination of a <br />divide, in order to assu <br />This same rationale coul <br />buffer zone widths of 56 <br />containing the channels. <br />of two substantial buffe <br />Bondi n9 <br />application, approved last fall, provided a <br />n analogous buffer zone width adjoining the <br />re prevention of impacts south of that divide. <br />d be applied to the streams, resulting in <br />0 feet on each side of the alluvial deposits <br />However, this will result in the delineation <br />r zones. <br />The reclamation cost estimate in the application of 1.9 million <br />does not coincide with the bond of 4.2 million which the Division <br />currently holds. Explain this discrepancy. Does this 1.9 million <br />figure include costs associated with the upper waste pile? The <br />cost estimate does not detail what refuse disposal site the <br />estimate is for on page 4.54. <br />/ph <br />2. The bonding liability entailed by each revision included in Volumes <br />8 through 11 should be summarized and included in the bonding <br />discussion in Section 4. <br />8869E <br />