REV95211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r c~~us ~ Yampa Valley III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Cyprus Yampa Valley Coal Corporation 29587 Routt County Road #27 Oak Creek, Colorado 80467 303-879-3800 April 9, 1993 Kent Gorham Reclamation Specialist Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: Permit Revision No.3 Permit Number C-81-071 Dear Mr. Gorham: RECEIVED APR 141993 Diva+on ci m+re+a+s a tieuloyy In response to your call of April 9, 1993 Colorado Yampa Coal Company (CYCC) provides the following as specific reasons why the company disagrees with the Division's denial of the above referenced permit revision. It is still requested at that this matter be heard at the May, 1993 Board meeting. The first criterion the Division based its decision on is the definition of "Land Use". By application of this definition to CYCC's proposal the Division determined that rangeland is better defined by the proposed land management practices. CYCC believes the proposed land management practices fir the definition of "Pastureland" and not "Rangeland". I believe the confusion arises over the fact that CYCC may not have to utilized cultural inputs such as seeding and fertilization during the ten year bond liability period due to the superior condition of the reclaimed lands. At such time as these inputs, as determined by the ongoing vegetation monitoring during the bond release period, they appropriate cultural input will be utilized to maintain pastureland production. It appears CYCC is being penalized for the excellent reclamation work completed at the mine, and due to this a problem arises of fitting the reclaimed mine site into the correct land use definition. In reference to the second criterion, the Division based its decision on the ability of the Division of Wildlife to approve land use planning elements of a reclamation plan. It is CYCC's opinion that the state and federal wildlife agencies are to be consulted if there is a proven adverse impact to wildlife and a mitigation has to be developed, and not on determining land use within the permit boundary. These agencies have the ability to review and comment and provide advice to the Division on the adequacy of the mitigation plan to prevent adverse impacts. At this time CYCC has not been provided with the data the agencies utilized to show an adverse impact will result from the proposed change in land use. CYCC is requesting that the data used by the agencies be supplied to the company so that a reasonable attempt can be made at