Laserfiche WebLink
agreement as written does allow SGC to benefit from water quality improvements resulting <br /> from projects conducted by others. <br /> A commentor asks why there is no proposed monitoring for the Eureka Tailings <br /> mitigation project. The WQCD determined that instream monitoring at the mouths of the <br /> major tributaries in the Upper Animas Basin was the most valuable source of information. <br /> Therefore, mitigation sites which drain directly into major tributaries will not be monitored <br /> in all cases, especially where the loading from the site is small relative to the loading <br /> normally carried by the receiving stream. Mitigation measures will be taken to prevent <br /> impacts during the construction phase of these mitigation projects to avoid impacts on aquatic <br /> life. These are specifically addressed in the permit for mitigation projects. <br /> Paragraph 13. A commentor questions SGC's discretion whether to do additional <br /> remediation projects that will have a positive impact on water quality if completion of the <br /> remediation projects on the "A" and "B" lists do not result in a Successful Permit <br /> Termination, and the use of the term "positive impact," when the commentor would like a <br /> requirement that the water quality improved from its current status. The parties agreed to <br /> change the first two sentences of paragraph 13 (page 21) to read as follows: <br /> In the event that the Permit Termination criteria of paragraph 14 below are not <br /> met following completion of all the mitigation projects on both the "A" and <br /> "B" Lists, within sixty days after the Division notifies SGC of such a <br /> determination, SGC will notify the Division whether or not it intends to <br /> propose additional remediation projects which are anticipated to have a positive <br /> impact on the water quality of the Animas River. If SGC determines that it <br /> will propose additional such projects, it will submit proposed Work Plans to <br /> the Division within sixty days of the notification or within a reasonable <br /> timeframe based on the accessibility of the site for planning and the complexity <br /> of the project. <br /> Under this paragraph, the WQCD has approval authority of proposed Work Plans. It <br /> should also be noted that if the projects do not result in maintenance of water quality (i.e., a <br /> Successful Permit Termination Assessment), SGC will not be released from its obligations <br /> under its CDPS permits. <br /> Paragraph 14. A commentor questions that a Permit Termination Assessment can <br /> take place five years after the Mine tunnels are sealed. The commentor offers neither an <br /> alternative nor basis for the belief that this timeframe is inadequate. The CD is a negotiated <br /> settlement within the WQCD's administrative discretion. Although different timeframes <br /> could be argued, a timeframe had to be set. Those sorts of arguments could prevent <br /> mitigation activities such as those envisioned in this CD from ever occurring. - <br /> A commentor states that the ability of SGC to transfer the permit unnecessarily <br /> waives SGC's obligations. The commentor misunderstands the CD and the law. Under the <br /> 3 <br />