My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-28_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2008-05-28_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:32:07 PM
Creation date
5/28/2008 1:30:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
5/28/2008
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
Colowyo Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR72
Email Name
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
such optional treatments within various parcels should be described. The need for a reasonable <br />degree of flexibility to allow for "field fitting" is acknowledged, but an enforceable plan must be <br />provided. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />Unless the Division is willing to grant full relief from liability, Colowyo is very skeptical about <br />the rationale used to justify the need for the level of detail implied to be necessary to meet the current <br />State and new Federal language pertaining to variable topsoil replacement. Colowyo has added <br />language within Section 2.05 to offer a list of practices that Colowyo will not engage in to address the <br />major concerns identified by the Division. <br />Colowyo takes issue with any implication that the establishment of aspen woodland and <br />associated tall shrubs including the mountain shrub community were agreed to in principle or practice <br />at any time during this process. Colowyo has in fact repeatedly stated that the CDOW and CDRMS <br />should not expect to see the regeneration of these plant communities on areas reclaimed at Colowyo in <br />the future. This issue was discussed specifically with John Wagnild at the Colowyo planning meeting <br />held in January, 2008 when Mr. Wagnild was told that "he should not expect Colowyo to be able to re- <br />establish these plant communities ". <br />a) Colowyo has added specific descriptive language to Section 2.05 that more specifically <br />defines the focus of topsoil placement activities and what actions are not considered proper <br />use of the topsoil resource. <br />b) Reference deleted as requested. <br />c) Colowyo sees no requirement for incremental topsoil placement depth mapping within <br />the following State or Federal language which are presented in that order: <br />1) State: "achieves an approximate uniform, stable thickness consistent with <br />approved postmining land uses, contours, surface water drainage systems and <br />requirements of the vegetation proposed to be established. " <br />2) Federal: "achieves an approximate uniform, stable thickness consistent with <br />approved postmining land uses, contours and surface water drainage systems. <br />Soil thickness may also be varied to the extent such variations help meet the <br />specific revegetation goals identified in the permit" <br />As stated previously, Colowyo believes a system is in place to track actual current topsoil balance, <br />distribution and stockpile volumes. It is impractical to create a rigid plan that will require <br />constant modification in order to recta planned volume versus actual volumes removed from <br />potential future topsoil stripping areas that may or may not be affected by mining. <br />The Division has complete authority in determining whether or not Colowyo is properly handling, <br />storing and replacing topsoil. Monthly inspections by the Division during the months of topsoil <br />handling activity should provide assurance that Colowyo is acting prudently and properly in the <br />future.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.