Laserfiche WebLink
C- 1991 -078 TR -09 <br />Adequacy Review <br />13 August 2009 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />2. Pleaseprovide written comments from Montrose County reflecting their <br />knowledge of, and concurrence with, permanent retention of sedimentation Pond <br />B. <br />3. All impoundments that are intended to be retained as permanent postmining features <br />shall comply with applicable State Engineer rules and regulations. Under the State <br />Engineers rules, a permit is required (but water rights are not required) for Livestock <br />Water Tanks or Erosion Control Dams, either of which may be pertinent to Pond B. <br />State Engineer and DBMS approval shall be obtained before final bond release can <br />occur. The DBMS recommends that the operator contact the local Division of <br />Water Resources office in Montrose (Gunnison River basin, Water Division 4) to <br />obtain the proper approval for this structure in accordance with applicable State <br />Engineer requirements.) <br />During our completeness review of this application we provided notification of TR- <br />09 to the Division of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer on July 21, <br />2009. With this adequacy review, we are forwarding the comment letter we <br />received on 30 July 2009 from the Office of the State Engineer addressing the <br />question of water rights associated with retention of Pond B (letter attached). <br />4. Rule 3.03.1(3)(c) states, "Where a silt dam is to be retained as a permanent <br />impoundment as described in 4.05.6 and 4.05.9, more than sixty (60) percent of the <br />bond may be released only so long as provisions for sound future maintenance by <br />the permittee or the landowner have been made with the Division." <br />The operator will need to document that provisions for future maintenance of the <br />pond have been made and incorporate this into the permit document (This <br />requirement is especially pertinent in light of the failure of the Pond B <br />impounding structure that occurred in January 2005, resulting the issuance of a <br />Notice of [violation by the DRMS) <br />5. The water quality discussion provided for Pond B is brief and only generally <br />addresses the permanent impoundment requirements of Rule 4.05.9(13)(a). The <br />application does not adequately demonstrate that water quality in the pond and in the <br />discharge from the pond meets the provisions and criteria of 4.05.9 (13)(a). There <br />was no specific discussion of surface water quality provided in the revision <br />application. <br />Please provide a demonstration for Pond B that includes an evaluation of the <br />water quality in the pond, a comparison ofpond effluent to appropriate stream <br />segment standards, and a description of compliance and/or noncompliance with <br />CDPS effluent limits. <br />