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
The true enforcement power that lies with the Division is the granting or denial of Phase III bond <br />release. It is in Colowyo's interest to do everything in our power to ensure the timely achievement <br />of the criteria set forth within this submittal to achieve Phase III bond release in a timely manner. <br />Within reason is it not in Colowyo's interest to limit the reasonable, practical application of all the <br />operational tools at our disposal to commit to a plan that essentially would erase the potential <br />12.5 foot (one-half contour interval) flexibility currently in place for backfilling and grading <br />activities. <br />Section 2.05 has been amended to better describe Colowyo's plan for achieving dramatic <br />variations in topsoil depths regarding both the original permit and the South Taylor expansion <br />areas. <br />Again, Colowyo believes it is impractical to put forth plans destined to be a constant source of <br />modification with respect to the mapped potential locations of soil fences, contour ditches and the <br />like. Section 2.05 has been amended to better describe the criteria when and where these <br />practices will be implemented. New permit map 44 identifies the areas within the original permit <br />and South Taylor Expansion area that will be specifically evaluated for the establishment of <br />sagebrush steppe habitat areas. Section 2.05 has also been amended to clarify Colowyo 's intent to <br />primarily gradually increase topsoil thickness from the ridge tops to the valley bottoms across the <br />post 2008 reclamation areas. <br />4. A reclamation strategy that was discussed with the operator but which was not included in the TR-72 <br />submittal would involve special handling of select overburden material such as scoria rock or <br />overburden zones dominated by sandstone, for replacement as surface or near surface growth medium in <br />certain locations. The rationale would be to provide conditions favorable for the growth of shrub <br />species such as mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, serviceberry, and other species that are adapted to <br />extremely rocky soils or thin soils over fractured sandstone. <br />Please include this strategy in the reclamation plan, as an additional shrub/diversity enhancement <br />measure to be employed in select locations. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />At present, Colowyo politely declines to add a procedure to the reclamation plan that <br />specifically calls for expensive special handling of select overburden materials for an unproven <br />technique, especially given that the liability for failure would still reside with Colowyo. Furthermore, <br />this procedure still emphasizes a "restoration" element to reclamation as opposed to a "targeted land <br />use" direction that the landowner (Colowyo) would prefer for post-mining land management. <br />Grazingland and sagebrush steppe offer very important components to the post-mining land use. <br />Trading a few acres of mountain shrub (much of which had to be chained or bulldozed to improve <br />forage quality) for acres of grassland (that is heavily used by foraging big game) and sagebrush steppe <br />seems logical. Finally, Colowyo has extensive experience (approximately $1.5M in expenditures) with <br />the failure of mountain shrub species restoration and is reticent to commit additional resources without <br />significant validation or promise of success. (See also responses to Comments 45 and 413.)
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.