Laserfiche WebLink
<br />An applicant must still provide the Division an adequate analysis of the hydrologic impacts to <br />surrounding propeny owners and well owners as part of DMG 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 [o supply an interim <br />reclamation plan. Such a plan will describe a reclamation plan for a site that does not include a <br />lined pit. Once SEO approval is obtained for the liner design and construction, [he <br />applicantloperator may submit a permit modification to the application in order to chance the <br />reclamation plan. Based on the degree of difference between the interim reclamation plan and <br />the reclamation plan for a lined pit, 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 installation of a slurry wall azound the pit azea prior to commencement <br />of mining. Design details and SEO approval letter are provided but no specifications or quality <br />control/quality assurance plan is included in the application. The applicant proposes [o bond for <br />the cost to install the slurry wall. Such a bond should serve as 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 squaze foot of slurry wall assuming a <br />wall depth of (Y) feet. <br />Lined reservoirs [hat employ slurry walls to prevent hydrologic communication with ground <br />water are a viable water storage alternative and are adequate to meet the developed water <br />resources post mining land use. However, leakage of ground water through or around the slurry <br />wall into the pit at a rate in excess of SEO requirements would constitute a failure to achieve the <br />designated post mining land use. If an operator were to mine out a pit within the perimeter of a <br />previously installed slurry wall, and it were subsequently determined that ground water was <br />leaking into the pit at a rate in excess of SEO requirements, the operator would be faced with [he <br />following three options: <br />• Improve the seal in the pit to meet the State Engineer's leakage criteria. <br />• Change [he post mining land use and provide water to augment for ground water leaking into <br />the pit that is lost to evaporation. <br />• Backfill the pit so that water is no longer exposed to the atmosphere. <br />In the event the Division were to assume responsibility for reclamation of the pit through bond <br />forfeiture, we may be confronted with the same situation and the same three aptions. Of these <br />options, water augmentation in the river basin and back filling of the pit with inert fill would be <br />the most costly. 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 through reinstallation or repair of the slurry wall. <br />