REV96608

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/8/1996
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Type & Sequence: MT3
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

7
documentation of sufficient quantity ofnon-toxic, non-combustible material will need
to be provided prior to any disposal of refuse in the new disposal area. In order for
the Division to approve a cover depth of less than 4 feet, a. demonstration that
revegetation success is achievable with a lesser depth, based on the chemical and
physical characteristics of the waste material and cover material would be required.
The applicant previously expressed an interest in testing various cover depths on the
No. 9 Portal refuse area, to demonstrate that a reduced cover depth would be
sufficient on the new refuse area. The potential applicability of the study would
appear to be complicated by the fact that the No. 9 Portal refuse area is to be
reclaimed to annual wheat cropland, while the new refuse area is to be reclaimed to
rangeland/wildlife habitat. In addition, slope gradients and aspects presented by the
No. 9 Portal reclamation topography are not representative of those presented by the
new disposal area.
The application should be amended to address the issues raised by Stipulation No.
3.
17. Various sections of the findings document and the permit application make a
distinction between areas disturbed before and after May 3, 1978; and indicate that
a less stringent, "cover only" standard applies to lands disturbed before that date,
while reference area cover and production standazds, as well as species diversity and
woody plant density standards would apply to rangeland azer~s disturbed after that
date. The "cover only" standard would appazently be applied to dryland wheat and
irrigated hayland areas disturbed prior to May 3, 1978, as well.
This approach does not appear to be supported by the applicable regulations. Had
certain areas within the permit area been reclaimed prior to ]vlay 3, 1978, when the
initial federal rules became effective, they would be subject to the less stringent
requirements in effect at the time of reclamation. However, lands which were
disturbed prior to that date, but continued to be used by the operation, aze subject
to current revegetation requirements.
Colorado Rule 4.15.10(1) addresses revegetation success criteria for "previously
mined areas that were not reclaimed to the requirements of these Rules..:' For such
lands, cover is the sole revegetation standard, and, "...shalll not be less than the
ground cover e~dsting before redisturbance.. " The term "previously mined areas..:'
is not defined in the Colorado Rules. However the term is defined at 30 CFR 70].5
of the federal rules, as "land affected by surface coal mining operations prior to
August 3, 1977, that has not been reclaimed to the standards of 30 CFR chapter VII."
30 CFR 817.116(b)(5), the federal counterpart to 4.15.10(1), states "for areas
previously disturbed by mining that were not reclaimed to tl.~e requirements of this
subchapter and that are remined or otherwise redisturbed by surface coal mining
operations, as a minimum, [he vegetative ground cover shall be not less than the