Laserfiche WebLink
Dao Mathev~cs 2 June 9. 20 <br />14) DMG - A properly paginated reclamation cost estimate was submitted as revised Table 3.7-1, <br />Reclamation Cost Estimate. We have determined that an additional cost item needs to be included for <br />power line reclamation (please see Enclosure C). Please update the amended Tabfe 3.7-i to <br />incorporate the revised cost estimate pages, if you concur with the revised estimate. If you <br />believe adjustments to the DMG estimate are warranted, please provide proper supporting <br />documentation. Note that the liability increase of $9,614.00 estimated by the Division would <br />increase the required bond amount by $9,495.00 (to $309,945.00). <br />CAM - In the reclamation estimate part of Permit Renewal 2006, Task #019 lists Removal of a Line <br />Power Substation. Should Task number 041 be reduced by the $193.30 already shown in Task number <br />019? Otherwise, the Operator agrees with the Division's reclamation estimate. <br />19) DMG - We have several comments and requests regarding the updated Probable Hydrologic <br />Consequences (PHC) projections: <br />a) DMG - On page 2-44 of the application, it is stated, `there are no adjudicated groundwaterrights within <br />more than two miles of the proposed permit area" The Division concurs, however this does not exclude <br />the operatorfrom groundwaterqualitypmtection. There is an existing alluvial well in Section 29 permitted <br />for domestic use (Permit No. 256862). Since there is a domestic use well within relatively close proximity <br />to the mining activity and located in the East Salt Creek alluvium, `Domestic Use -Quality" classification <br />of the Basic Standards for Ground Water may apply fo the specified area ofthe mining activity and East <br />Salt Creek alluvium. <br />DMG - On page 2-45, it is stated, "Since there are no groundwater rights adjudicated in the area of the <br />mine there will be no impact on any waterinterests." This may not be the case with regard to groundwater <br />quality protection. There is no mention of the East Salt Creek alluvium being identified as an alluvial valley <br />floorin the PHC discussion. Section 2.4.2.1 Probably Hydrologic Consequences and Appendix N should <br />be revised to include a discussion of the probably effect mining may or may not have to the quantity and <br />quality of groundwater in the East Salt Creek alluvium. <br />DMG -Please revise Section 2.4.2.1 of the application to include a discussion of the existence of <br />one domestic use well located approximately one mile southwest of the confluence of McClave <br />Creek and East Salt Creek. Please revise Section 2.4.2.1 and if appropriate Appendix N to include <br />a discussion of the identification of East Salt Creek alluvial deposits as an alluvial valley floor, and <br />describe the effect that the mine (including mine water discharge at Outfall 002) has on the <br />groundwater hydrology of East Salt Creek alluvium. <br />CAM -Updated Section 2.4.2.1 to include three groundwater wells in the discussion and also added <br />paragraph addressing possible effects of mine discharge on East Salt Creek surface waters alluvial <br />groundwater. <br />CAM -After locating groundwater well, permit # 256862, on the State Engineer's website, it was <br />determined the well belongs to #11 Enterprises. This well is not being used for potable purposes, it is in a <br />remote area, and there are no residential dwellings in the vicinity. The only domestic' use possible forthe <br />well could be irrigation. The Division of Water Resources classifies a Domestic Well as able- "...to serve <br />up to three single-family dwellings, irrigate one acre orless of lawn and garden and provide water for the <br />individual's domestic animals and livestock'. Therefore, since the only use #11 may have for their well is <br />irrigation, it is accurate to assume there is not a domestic well used for potable purposes within a 2-mile <br />radius. Thus, the Operator should not be subject to the "Domestic Use -Quality" classification. <br />b) DMG - In the table given on page 3 of Appendix N, the values given in the column labeled "% <br />tncrease/Decrease" are incorrect. The values given in this column are in fact fractional rather than <br />percent increases. Please revise the values in the last column (multiply by 100) to show actual <br />percent increase, and submit an amended table. <br />CAM -Completely revised tables in Appendix N <br />