Laserfiche WebLink
permit to incorporate the soil management provisions required during the February 15, 2008 <br />meeting between the DRMS, WFC, and the NRCS. TR-57 was approved on March 4, 2009. <br />11. Notice of the DRMS's proposed decision for TR-57 was published on March 12, 2009. <br />Objection letters were received by the DRMS from the Morgan's and Ms. Turner on March <br />18 and 29, 2009. Following a meeting between the Morgan's, WFC, and the DRMS on <br />April 14, 2009, the objections were subsequently withdrawn on April 22, 2009. <br />12. As a result of the TR-57 the requirements for the prime farmland on the Morgan property are <br />as follows: For the 56.1 acres that had been stripped as of February 2008 the replacement, as <br />discussed with the NRCS, is a combined topsoil and subsoil minimum thickness of 48 <br />inches, with approximately 22 inches of mixed Lift A and B material over a minimum of 26 <br />inches of suitable subsoil (Bench 1 material) (permit section 2.05.4(2) (d)-34). <br />13. For all disturbances after February 2008, the DRMS directed WFC to begin salvaging and <br />replacing an average of 16 inches of Lift A, 36 inches of Lift B and returning a minimum of <br />3 feet of Bench 1 Material to the Morgan property. <br />14. A total of 107.96 disturbed acres (all Morgan property in the permit area) is currently treated <br />as prime farmland and will be considered as such for reclamation. Although WFC has <br />mined a portion of these areas prior to the prime farmland designation, all prime fannlands <br />on the Morgan property will be restored to prime farmland standards (permit section 2.04.9- <br />15 and 16). <br />15. PR-6 was submitted on November 12, 2009 proposing clarifications associated with post <br />mining land uses, sediment control issues, final post mining contours, and prime farmland <br />vegetation standards. PR-6 was deemed complete on November 23, 2009 and is currently <br />under review by the DRMS. DRMS issued an adequacy letter on January 22, 2010 and a <br />follow-up adequacy letter was sent on April 6, 2010. WFC subsequently requested and <br />DRMS granted an extension of the decision deadline from April 19, 2010 to June 18, 2010. <br />16. The complaint alleged problems with DRMS' prime farmland determination, on-the-ground <br />concerns regarding soil salvage and redistribution, and that procedural regulations for permit <br />revisions and the permitting process were not followed for the Morgan property. <br />17. On May 18, 2010, DRMS sent letters to WFC, Ms. Turner, and the Morgan's acknowledging <br />serious permitting defects with the New Horizon Mine, and directing WFC to work with the <br />Morgan property landowners to address unresolved issues that involve both regulatory <br />compliance and landowner coordination. DRMS also advised that it may be required to <br />pursue enforcement procedures if the permitting defects have resulted in performance <br />standard-related noncompliance and/or if the pending permit matters are not resolved by the <br />June 17, 2010 decision deadline for PR-6. <br />Did Colorado show good cause for not taking action? The Federal regulation at 30 CFR <br />§842.11(b) (2) indicates that a State's action or response that is not arbitrary, capricious, or an <br />abuse of discretion shall be considered "appropriate action" to cause the violation to be corrected, <br />or "good cause" for failure to do so. The DRMS claimed good cause on the basis that no violation <br />4