Laserfiche WebLink
Louis Head, New Elk Coal Company <br />Page 2 <br />December 9, 2014 <br />DRMS, Jul 22.2014: The Division is in agreement, in principle, with the plan to retain <br />ponds 4 and 8 as permanent impoundments, as described on proposed pages 2.05 -52 <br />and -53. <br />Please provide a letter from the landowner showing their support for the retention of <br />pond 4 as a permanent impoundment. (Since pond 8 is on land owned by New Elk Coal <br />Company, landowner approval is assumed.) <br />NECC /GEC. Sep 5.2014: GEC has requested that CPW and NECC each submit <br />letters for inclusion in the approved permit application requesting that pond 4 and <br />pond 8, respectively, remain upon final reclamation as permanent impoundments. <br />DRMS. December 9.2014: In a meeting on July 31, 2014, between Kent Gorham of <br />Gorham Energy Consultants, and Jim Stark and Leigh Simmons of the Division, an <br />agreement was reached that: i) letters from NECC for pond 8, and from CPW for pond <br />4 were needed; ii) TR68 could approve the ponds as permanent, and should include an <br />exhibit to enclose landowner letters; iii) pond reclamation tasks must be retained in the <br />RCE until a bond release application is made, at such time approval from DWR would <br />be required; (meeting notes were distributed by email on July 31, 2014). In fact the <br />third of these conclusions was wrong, as is the assertion made by GEC on Mar 21, <br />2014, that DWR approval is not required. <br />Rule 2.05.5(1)(b) requires that the permit includes a description of the plan for the <br />Postmining land use, and that the description "shall be accompanied by a copy of the <br />comments concerning the proposed use by the legal or equitable owner of record of <br />the surface of the proposed permit area and the State and local government agencies <br />which would have to initiate, implement, approve, or authorize the proposed use of <br />the land following reclamation." To comply with this rule, it is the standard practice of <br />the Division to solicit comments of the relevant agencies by notifying them at the time <br />of the completeness review. h1 this case an oversight meant that DWR were not <br />consulted when they should have been, back in October/November of 2013. <br />To correct the error, an email exchange with DWR was initiated on November 5, 2014, <br />summarizing the situation and asking for comments. The response of DWR was sent on <br />December 1, 2014, and recommends that TR68 is not approved until such time as <br />NECC /GEC has shown that any permanent ponds are accounted for in a permanent <br />plan for augmentation. (The complete email thread is appended to this letter) <br />Given the timescales likely to be involved in approving a new augmentation plan <br />with DWR, the Division requests that references in the text to retaining ponds 004 <br />and 008 as permanent impoundments should be removed to expedite the <br />approval of TR- 68. Once the augmentation plan is resolved with DWR a new TR <br />application should be submitted to change the reclamation plan and retain the <br />two ponds as permanent impoundments. <br />