Laserfiche WebLink
YOAST MR -29 ADEQUACY REVIEW ROUND 2 <br />la. The Division requested that, for all proposed permanent structures, a description be <br />provided addressing how the feature would be compatible with the approved postmining <br />land use. Attachment 20 -1 was properly amended to address this request. Item <br />Resolved. <br />1b. The Division requested comments from I putt County regarding proposed permanent <br />features. SCC declined the request and provided their rationale. We concur that in this <br />instance, given the nature of the proposed changes and the fact that the PMLU is not <br />changed and county roads are not affected, Routt County comments are not required. <br />Item Resolved. <br />1 c. The Division requested that certain information and documentation from the Office of the <br />State Engineer S o provided with regard to permanent impoundments. Specific <br />S o documents provided in the response regarding Sediment Pond 010 and Stock Pond <br />ST -1, along with commitments to provide necessary documentation for remaining <br />proposed permanent impoundments, adequately respond to the Division's request. Item <br />Resolved. <br />2. The original February 12, 2008 submittal included a letter from the landowner <br />PSCXcel requesting that Sediment Pond 011 he retained as a permanent structure. <br />Pond 11 has not previously been proposed as a permanent structure, and no <br />demonstrations or commitments indicating an intent on the part of SCC to retain Pond <br />011 as permanent have been included in MR-29. <br />Does SC intend to comply with the landowner request to retain fond 011 as a <br />permanent impoundment? If so, please include appropriate documentation and or <br />commitments for in Iusion In Attachment 20-1 and Appendix 20 -1,2. If not, please <br />explain the reasons for declining to amend the reclamation plan in conformance <br />with the landowner request [pursuant to Rule 2.0 . l a I S <br />3. For Stock Ponds ST -1 and o 11 A that are proposed as permanent, the sample based water <br />quality analysis and comparison to applicable agricultural use standards has not been <br />provided. The Division as a natter of course requires such documentation prior to final <br />bond release, for demonstration of compliance with Rule 4.05.9(13)(a). Please provide <br />the sample based demonstrations, or revise the "Permanent fond Demonstration- <br />Water u lil" sections of Appendix 20 -1.2 to include appropriate comnuftments, <br />for the two proposed permanent stock ponds. <br />4. The new Permanent Pond Demonstration narrative submitted for Stock Pond 01 1A <br />mares reference to an "attached ... stability analysis" under the Ca-Dacity section, and to an <br />itattached...SEDCAD demonstration" under the Sl)illwqy Coacity section. The <br />referenced documentation was not attached or otherwise provided in the submittal. <br />Please provide the referenced documentation for inclusion in the application. If the <br />