Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />~,..) <br />•.... <br />An applicant must still provide the Division an adequate analysis of [he hydrologic impacts to <br />surrounding progeny owners and well owners as part of DN[G application process. In addition. <br />the SEO approved plans and designs shall be used to calculate an appropriate Financial warranty. <br />Where there is no SEO approved liner plan. the applicant will need to supply an intenm <br />reclamation plan. Such a plan will describe a reclamation plan for a si[e [hat does not include a <br />lined pit. Once SEO approval is obtained for the liner design and construction, the <br />applicandoperator may submit a permi[ modification [o the ;application in order to change the <br />reclamation plan. Based on the degree of difference between the interim reclamation plan and <br />[he reclamation plan for a lined pi[, the Division will determine if the change is a Technical <br />Revision or an Amendment to the application or permit. <br />An Illustrative Example: <br />Introduction <br />An applicant proposes the ins[allation of a slurry wall around the pit area prior [o commencemen <br />of mining. Desist details and SEO approval letter are provided bu[ no specifications or quality <br />controUquality assurance plan is included in the application. The applicant proposes to bond for <br />the cost to install the slurry wall. Such a bond should serve .is a contingency if leakage were to <br />occur in excess of criteria established by the Office of the State Engineer or if the slurry wall <br />were to be damaged by pit slope failure. The unit cost supplied by the applicant in Exhibit L <br />used to establish the amount of required bond is (SX) per square foot of slung wall assuming a <br />wall depth of (17 feet. <br />Lined reservoirs that employ slurry walls to prevent hydrologic communication with ground <br />water aze a viable water storage alternative and aze adequate to meet the developed water <br />resources post [Wining land use. However, leakage of ground water through or aoound the slurry <br />wall into the pit at a rate in excess of SEO requirements would constitute a failure to achieve [he <br />designated post witting land use. If an opetator were to mine: out a pit within the perimeter of a <br />previously installed slurry wall, and it were subsequently de[ermined that ground water was <br />leaking into the pit a[ a rate in excess of SEO requirements, the operator would be faced with the <br />following three options: <br />• Improve the seal in the pit to meet the State Engineer's leakage criteria. <br />• Change the post mining land use and provide water to augmen[ for ground water leaking into <br />[he pit [hat is lost [o evaporation. <br />• Backfill the pit so that water is no longer exposed to the atmosphere. <br />In [he event the Division were to assume responsibili[y for reclamation of the pi[ [hrough bond <br />forfeiture, we may be confronted with the same situa[ion and the same three options. Of these <br />options, water augmentation in the river basin and back filling of the pi[ with inert till would be <br />the mos[ cos[ly. Also, neither of these options would result in reclamation to the developed <br />water resources use. This leaves the option of assuring that leakage into the pit is less than SEO <br />requirements [hrough reinstalla[ion or repair of the slurry wa!I. <br />