Laserfiche WebLink
ENVIRONMENT. INC. <br />AUGUST 7 2, 2004 <br />PAGE 2 <br />liners and monitoring will begin on a monthly basis. This <br />information will be correlated with the river flow by ob- <br />taining stream flow numbers from a local gaging station. <br />Correlating the groundwater elevations with the river flows <br />will show how they are dependent on each other. This will <br />protect the operator from claims that they are causing the <br />decreased water table elevation when it is a natural phenom- <br />enon. In the event there is a significant drop (4 feet or <br />more) in the water table, caused by the liner, a recharge <br />ditch will be installed along the west side of the liner and <br />irrigation water will be diverted to it to recharge the area <br />around the trees. This will only be done during growing <br />season and once a month in the winter. The data collected <br />will be provided to the Division at annual report time. <br />4. As noted above, the operator is not making any changes to <br />the current Stipulations on the permit. Monthly monitoring <br />will begin on 4 new wells down gradient from the lined area. <br />In addition, monthly monitoring will begin on the existing <br />wells in the Bluff Lake area to determine pre and post <br />lining water table elevations east of. the liners. This will <br />be expanded to include the ground monitoring wells proposed <br />in the original recharge plan as they are installed. once <br />enough data is collected to show the levels have stabilized <br />(approx 1.5 years) monitoring will be done bi-yearly. At <br />that time a Technical Revision will be submitted so the <br />Division can review the data. This may mean that if the <br />groundwater table is stable and consistent with river flows <br />there will be no need for continue monitoring. <br />5. I still maintain that any new structures placed within 200 <br />feet of an area designated to be mined, was placed there <br />with the structure owners full knowledge that mining would <br />take place in close proximity to the structures. It was <br />their responsibility to protect the mining rights of the <br />permitees and not cause any undue harm as the permit was <br />first in time. Leaving additional gravel in new"setbacks <br />causes undue harm. i agree that the mining operator has a <br />responsibility to avoid harming this at risk structure, but <br />maintaining an unwarranted setback or getting an agreement <br />places the burden on the mine operator not the owner that <br />placed the structure in harms way. if the structure owner <br />was worried about it being harmed they should have not <br />placed it in harms way or made provision to protect it. <br />In this case, the oil producer worked with the mine operator <br />to place the wells in locations that would have the least <br />impact on the mining operation. A surface use agreement was <br />worked out with the oil producers to allow mining close to <br />the wells and oil lines. For the new wells a 70 foot radius <br />will be maintained around the well head and the new gas line <br />setbacks will be 15 feet each side of the centerline of the <br />gasline. In the lined area the slopes will be mined 3:1 <br />starting at the setback line and in the unlined areas the <br />