REV09300

• Permit No: C1981019
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/2/1990
• From: OSM
• To: DNR
• Type & Sequence: PR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

,,
Revier of Colorado's Infaraal Snbaittal
Dated Septeaber 7, 1988 as amended
;: • Septe~ner 21, 1988 Uldauaiatrative Record Fos.
CC•-389 and CO-398; SPAT Fo. CO-008)
D. USE OF ExPLOSIVES
D-1 Rules 4.08.1(3) and 6.01.3(3),(6); 30 CFR 816.61(c)/817.61(c)
Colorado submitted formal revisions to Rule 4.08.1(3) is CO-384.
See the OS!!RE issue letter dated February 7, 1989 for disposition
of Item D-1.
In the informal submittal, Colorado proposed no further revisions
at Rule 4.08.1(3) but did submit rationale for its proposed
revision in CD-384. OS1iRE has accepted Colorado's rationale and
now is not requiring a cross reference to Rule 6.01.3(3),(6) at
Rule 4.08.1(3).
H. Eb~SS SPOIL
H-b Rule 4.09.2(3); 30 CFR 816.72/817.72 (Valley Fill)
Colorado submitted several formal revisions to Rule 4.D9.2 is
CC-384. See the OSMRE issue letter dated February 7, 1989 for
disposition of Colorado's response to Items E-A, E-D, and
P-12A(Part A).
Colorado, in this informal submittal, has proposed to add language
at Rule 4.09.2 that will make the variance for general fill
requirements at Rule 4.09.1(3) also applicable to the specific
valley fill regulations found at Rule 4.09.2. Colorado indicated
is the Statement of Basis and Purpose section of this informal
amenament that the variance of Rule 4.09.1(3) already applies to
valley fills, and the proposed language at Rule 4.09.2 is simply to
clarify this. There are certain inherent problems not only in
Colorado's amendment proposal but in approval of a general variance
from fill requirements as found at Rnle 4.09.1(3). The history of
this State variance follows.
In defense of its proposed "alternative specification" du_ing its
program approval process, Colorado argued that a unique canoe of
eaviroamental conditions exists in Colorado that var.-anted
alternative design criteria and cited examples of compaction
problems associated with large amounts of snowfall in the higher
elevations and compaction problems associated with low moisture
content of soils in the semiarid reoions of the State. The
Secretary of the Interior agreed that specific alternative design
criteria may be warranted but that Colorado had not proposed nay
specific criteria. The Secretary believed that it was important
for Colorado to specify such criteria in its rules so that a
1