Laserfiche WebLink
for the operator to demonstrate conformance with applicable provisions of State law concerning <br />water rights, was the focus of your February 24, 2009 letter. <br />Based on further review of the approved Seneca II-W permit application and Attachment 20-2 <br />language proposed in TR-62, the Division has concluded that adequate commitments are in place <br />to ensure that water rights issues associated with permanent impoundments will be adequately <br />addressed prior to bond release. Complete information required for approval of sediment ponds <br />and stock ponds as permanent impoundments has not yet been provided; however commitments <br />to provide required documentation/demonstrations are included in the Attachment 20-2 text. In <br />addition, approved permit language in Permit Tab 13 narrative (page 5), commits to "submittal of <br />a complete technical revision demonstrating that each permanent impoundment meets the <br />requirements of Rule 4.05.9(13) for permanent impoundments ... prior to submittal of a bond <br />release request...". <br />In summary, Rule 4.05.9(13) specifically requires demonstration of compliance with applicable <br />State law governing water rights, and the operator has committed within the application to <br />provide required permanent impoundment demonstrations, including "documentation of State <br />Engineer approval and necessary water rights information for each pond ...prior to bond release <br />request". <br />Please let us know if you concur that the referenced commitments included in the approved <br />permit application package and the TR-62 Attachment 20-2 text are sufficient to address <br />the matter. The Division will not approve bond release for any proposed permanent <br />impoundment unless the documentation required by Rule 4.05.9(13) has been provided. <br />6d. In this item, the Division had requested documentation that permanent retention of a water well at <br />the Seneca II-W shop area had been approved as permanent by the Office of the State Engineer. <br />In response, the operator submitted information to support their contention that water rights for <br />the well did not preclude its retention for permanent agricultural maintenance use following <br />completion of mining related activity. <br />Please let us know if you concur with the operator that the well can be retained as a <br />permanent facility for the postmining land use, or whether additional requirements will <br />need to be met to comply with applicable provisions of State water rights law. <br />Thank you very much for your assistance in resolving these issues. Please feel free to contact me in <br />Grand Junction at (970) 242-5025 if you have any questions. Written correspondence should be directed <br />to me at the letterhe d Denver office address (for filing and distribution purposes). <br />Sincerely, A <br />Daniel T. Mathews <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Enclosures <br />C: DBMS Denver Office (with enclosures) <br />Michael P. Boulay, DRMS Grand Junction Office (with enclosures)