Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Robert Hagen - 3 - November 15, 1990 <br />We have the following comments in regard to the OSM-AFO inspection report <br />dated October 17, 1990: <br />1. Permit revision #1 which reduced the size of the permit area to 155 acres <br />was approved i4arch 14, 1990. The 500 acres indicated on the inspection <br />cover page is incorrect. <br />2. On page 3 of 6, the report indicates that erosion loss rates and <br />contribution of suspended solids to streamflow outside the 81 acre <br />disturbed area and the permit area are within SCS soil loss tolerance <br />rates. No analysis was made on the annual generation of sediment loss to <br />compare with SCS soil loss tolerance rates. Rather, an analysis was made <br />of sediment loss from a 10-year, 24-hour event to show compliance with <br />Rule 3.03.1(3)(b). The analysis was based on a comparison of pre-mine <br />and post-mine topography, soil conditions and ground cover. <br />3. Based on comments in the report concerning sediment pond retention, it <br />appears that the OSi4 inspector may have been confused by discussion <br />concerning the sedimentation ponds which occurred during the Phase II <br />Bond Release inspection. Wyoming Fuels has discussed the demonstrations <br />required for permanent impoundment status with the Division and the <br />landowners over the past year. This issue was again discussed with the <br />representatives of the BLM and a private landowner during the bond <br />release inspection. However, Wyoming Fuels has not filed a revision <br />application for permanent impoundments at the site and accordingly, the <br />Division has retained bond for reclaiming the ponds. Thus the AFO's <br />conclusions on ponds as itemized in c, d, and a on pages 4 and 5 and the <br />discussion on page 6 is not relevant to the bond release. <br />We have some questions regarding AFO's interpretation of the bond release <br />process as it relates to ponds. Comments on page 6 suggest that the <br />acreage involved in Phase II Bond Release could include the pond's <br />acreage below its storage volume waterline if the ponds were permanent <br />structures. If the ponds are temporary, Mr. Byrne's comments suggest <br />that their acreage below the storage volume water line should be excluded <br />from the release. Is this interpretation of your position correct? <br />Taking this issue a step further, does the reclamation of ponds have its <br />own 10 year liability period? What is to prevent an operator from <br />reclaiming a temporary pond after making the required demonstrations and <br />then requesting Phase III Bond Release on the entire watershed? <br />4. On page 5 of the report, AFO acknowledges the soil stability <br />demonstrations, but states that "it is Dossible that, rather than the <br />present vegetation having been successful at controlling erosion, the <br />evidenced lack of significant erosion at present may be due to a <br />corresponding lack of rainfall," We would point out that the computer <br />modeling evaluation was based on projected sedimentation resulting from a <br />10-year, 24-hour storm event. While the occurrence of one or more <br />intense storm events would be of significance in evaluating soil <br />stability, the fact that annual precipitation has been below normal in <br />recent years is not particularly significant. On page 6 of the <br />inspection report, it is stated that "AFO's position is that the entire <br />1987 seeded area be held back from Phase II release until additional <br />