Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c'. Please address the effect of your revised plans on dewatering and <br />associated impacts. Do you foresee the need to dewater a larger <br />area resulting in a larger cone of depression which will increase <br />the potential for injury to wells in the area? (We note that it <br />will no longer be possible to have one cell completely sealed off <br />acting as a further barrier for seepage into the area mined in the <br />latter stages of this operation.) <br />11. The dimensions of the spillway in the lateral berm were not provided <br /><ind are contingent on the response to Item 6. <br />12. "he response provided does not address the length of pond perimeter <br />which would be overtopped and does not provide any discussion as <br />requested on the potential for off-site damage during flood <br />conditions. As such, the response is inadequate. <br />16. l:tem 16 in the response states that mitigation to protect well owners <br />would include redrilling the well to a deeper aquifer. It would appear <br />drilling the well deeper in the same aquifer would not affect water <br />rights, but if a different aquifer was tapped this may require a change <br />in the well permit. Please clarify. <br />17. 1'ou propose to maintain a 200 foot set-back from the CCWCD wells until <br />}•ou have reached an agreement regarding their relocation. Given the <br />hydrology of the area and your proposed mining plan, will a 200 foot <br /><.•et-back insure that these wells will not be injured by your <br />operations? Indicate the locations of the CCWCD wells on a map, along <br />prith the proposed set-backs. <br />Where is the CCWCD ditch? If no agreement is reached, there must be a <br />200 foot set-back from this structure. Please show the ditch and <br />required set-backs on the map. (See also comment #3 above.) <br />18. Pursuant to your response to Item No. 18 in our adequacy letter dated <br />February 7, 1990, I discussed the matter of requesting the inclusion of <br />a 15% allowance for indirect costs with Steve Renner, Senior <br />Feclamation Specialist. He indicated that 15% is generally a <br />reasonable, if not somewhat conservative, estimate of these factors, <br />and that an appropriate allowance for indirect costs should be included <br />in all reclamation cost estimates. If you wish to pursue this matter <br />further, I suggest you contact Mr. Renner directly. <br />MJB/eke <br />cc: Ben Urbonas, UDFCD <br />Jim Hall, DWR <br />Bruce Humphries, MLRD <br />Steve Renner, MLRD <br />John T. Doerfer, MLRD <br />5073E <br />