Laserfiche WebLink
which this analysis is applicable is not stated, but if it <br /> is average or better, a challenger certainly could argue the <br /> worst case analysis is understated. Such a challenger might <br /> also be able to demonstrate water replacement will be <br /> required. <br /> The haul road system in this mine complex contributes <br /> approximately 3 ,416 tons of sediment per year to the <br /> adjoining creeks. Although this may compare favorably to <br /> the sediment yield from agricultural areas (presumably <br /> cultivated lands ) , such a comparison is irrelevant . Even <br /> though 30 C.F.R. § 817 . 153 (2 ) , § 817 . 163 (2 ) , and § 817 . 173 ( 2 ) <br /> which state "Sediment control shall comply with 30 C.F.R. <br /> 817 . 42 and 817. 45" have been suspended, the environmental <br /> impact alone of the sediment from the road system could be <br /> construed as evidence to challenge OSM's FONSI . We found no <br /> evidence that mitigation was even considered. Instead, the <br /> analysis concludes "the sediment yield from the roads is not <br /> excessive and should not significantly affect water quality" <br /> (p. 35 ) . <br /> In addition, the state found "The applicant supplied no <br /> evidence that the access road meets the requirements for <br /> road cuts and road embankments , " but concluded "If the roads <br /> are not in compliance, the resultant environmental damage <br /> which would occur to bring them into compliance would be <br /> detrimental . . . " (p.55 ) . In the apparent absence of any <br /> knowledge about whether the roads are in compliance or not, <br /> and if not in compliance what measures would be necessary to <br /> bring them into compliance, it would be difficult if not <br /> impossible to demonstrate in a challenge that the environ- <br /> mental damage involved in achieving compliance would be <br /> unacceptable. The documentation indicates there is insuffi- <br /> cient information in the application to evaluate compliance <br /> on this point , which a challenger could use as evidence the <br /> application is not complete and accurate. <br /> Finally, the bond required by Stipulation 7 must be made <br /> payable to the state of Colorado and the United States of <br /> America (not the Office of Surface Mining) . <br /> Glenn F. Tiedt <br /> For the Regional Solicitor <br /> Rocky Mountain Region <br /> 2 <br />