Laserfiche WebLink
May 27, 2008 <br />RECoVED <br />Mr. James R. Stark <br />Environmental Protection Specialist i i'f 8 208 <br />Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources mining and Sa etY n <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Technical Revision No. 72 Preliminary Technical Adequacy Response, Reclamation Plan and <br />Phase III Bond Release Criteria Update, Colowyo Coal Mine, Permit No. C-81-019. <br />Dear Mr. Stark, <br />Colowyo would like to thank the Division for the comments on the TR-72 submittal that is largely responsive to <br />Stipulation #8 for PR-02. In effect, the final outcome of this process will be a large step forward in reclamation <br />planning and bond release evaluation for the Colowyo mine, both present and future operations. Furthermore, <br />Colowyo, as the landowner will receive significant benefit given the post-mining land uses and the eventual <br />value of the reclaimed land for livestock ranching and wildlife hunting opportunities. In fact, the improvement <br />in this land value is one of the larger driving forces behind the "targeted land use" concept for reclamation <br />planning. <br />For the most part, Colowyo has readily adopted the suggestions proffered by the State. In a few other <br />circumstances we have offered a response that addresses the issue, but perhaps in a way not considered by the <br />State; or we have offered explanations that provide additional justification or rationale for the proposed action. <br />In a few circumstances, especially where the State requests an "enforceable commitment" level of planning, <br />Colowyo is reticent to reply as requested given that this circumstance is reflective of many previous difficulties <br />where regulations or specificity in the permit have restricted innovation and opportunity. It is Colowyo's <br />position that the State should have full authority to dictate the "do not's" of the process, but not effectively <br />restrict the "how to's" unless there is a commensurate release of liability for failure. In effect, too much <br />specificity and detail in the planning process has been found to be either impossible (given the certain dynamic <br />realities of mining), impractical, or would lead to gridlock and unavoidable delays that effectively prevent <br />action where variances are necessary or opportunities are presented. The "bottom line" is whether Colowyo can <br />meet final success criteria, and not whether planning is orchestrated to be "enforceable" on a micro- <br />management level. Colowyo welcomes guidance, suggestions, and expertise that improves probabilities for <br />meeting success criteria, improves the final value of the land in accordance with Colowyo's targeted land uses <br />(livestock grazingland and sagebrush steppe wildlife habitat), and does not restrict opportunity for reasonable <br />innovation. To the contrary, suggestions that are replays of old failures, or that do not have a reasonable <br />probability for success, or that do not focus on the final desired land use are met with skepticism. <br />With that said, the following responses are submitted and Colowyo believes that the program has been <br />substantially strengthened as a result. Your original comment language has been included for ease of review.