GENERAL41680 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Cynthia Pazker Mitigation Possibilities July 13, 2001 Page 7 There is a wide variety of actions which could be taken to avoid or mitigate the adverse impacts identified above. We have not investigated the technical or economic feasibility of these suggestions, but we aze awaze that they have been implemented in various locations for various purposes. Some examples aze identified below, but this list should not be understood to be either comprehensive or complete - there aze certainly many other possibilities which are not mentioned here. • One option which should be evaluated carefully would be the possibility of changing from the "dry mining" process specified in the application to a "wet mining" process. This would avoid the need for significant and long term dewatering activities, such that many of the impacts described above could be avoided altogether. • Consideration should be given to carrying out the mining activities over a shorter duration, requiring a shorter period of dewatering activities as well (if the "dry mining process" is to be used.) The application indicates that the mining activities may take place over a period of 20 yeazs or longer. This appeazs to us to be a relatively slow rate of exploitation of the resource. • Other options include construction of subsurface water bamers (e.g. shiny trench/watls, etc) azound the azeas to be dewatered, and/or aquifer recharge facilities. These would be designed to maintain existing groundwater conditions in azeas of concern. We hope that you find these comments to be useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is any way in which we can be of assistance to you. Sincerely, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. by: Jo . Gerstle Attachments: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 ca Ms. Lori Potter, Esq. Dr. David Cooper Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Suite ZOQ, Boulder, CO 80302 Dxianw2 CREATED. IuIY t1, 3001 11'08 PM, PRIN~SD. July 13, ]A01 06:52 PM