2010-05-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008

Home Browse Search

i WFC May 18, 2010 Page 2 of 4 soil salvage practices were changed and substantially weakened with Minor Revision Numbers 51 and 57 (MR51 and MR57, respectively). A review of the file for MR 51 indicates that the application form and the cover letter submitted by WFC contained misleading information regarding the actual content of revised pages and/or maps also submitted. The application materials state that the MR 51 addressed the modification of maps to include acreage added to the permit. It is presumed that the acreage addressed was previously approved by a more significant revision. However, there is no mention in the form or cover letter for MR 51 of any change to the topsoil salvage practices for the mine. Likewise, the application form and cover letter for MR 57 indicate a change in the type of equipment to be used for topsoil salvage, and there is no mention of the change in topsoil salvage provisions regarding depth and amount to be salvaged. In hindsight, more detailed review of the accompanying pages should have revealed these discrepancies; however, it appears that DRMS incorrectly assumed that the submitted materials fully disclosed the contents of the revised pages. It also appears that DRMS incorrectly assumed that WFC was coordinating with the landowner as these revisions were developed and submitted. The WFC permit contains numerous discrepancies including inconsistent sections, and fragmented structure. The permitting history indicates that WFC submittals often contained errors that confounded the problem. Technical Revision Number 49 addressed one such significant error. The inappropriate and now withdrawn Technical Revision Number 55 was another example of a faulty submittal from WFC. In addition, issues identified in 2005 remain unresolved, and are the subject of the current PR06. The ongoing landowner complaints are of merit and must be resolved. These complaints are from Ms. JoEllen Turner, the landowner representative for the Morgan Property. Ms. Turner is documenting serious concerns regarding both past and current permitting and field-related issues. Based upon records available to DRMS, Ms. Turner has standing to address these concerns based upon a Power of Attorney dated August 9, 2009 (signed by the landowners Frank and Mary Morgan). Ms. Turner has also appealed the initial OSM finding that DRMS provided an appropriate response to the TDN, and the OSM is still investigating the possibility that additional or different action be required. The pending issues must be addressed expeditiously and completely to ensure full compliance with the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (Act) and the associated regulations. DRMS cannot allow any further delays in addressing PR06. Nor can DRMS allow any permitting actions or field operations that will not comply with requirements of the Act and the regulations. Such compliance includes coordination with the landowner (C.R.S. 34-33-102, 111(1) (h) and Rule 2.05.5(1) (b)). Such coordination is both a legal and practical requirement. The pending Permit Revision Number 06 must be resolved as follows: 1. In accordance with the information now available to WFC and DRMS, the permit must acknowledge that all lands on the Morgan Property are Prime Farmlands, and full compliance with all Prime Farmland requirements in Rules 2.06.6 and 4.25 must be demonstrated. 2. In accordance with the information now available to WFC and DRMS, the permit must acknowledge the post mining land use of irrigated cropland for all acres on Morgan Property. This