2011-04-08_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

assumption that the DRMS would share those findings with Western Fuels. The NRCS was responding to a request as best as we could under the circumstances. Furthermore, the MRCS was not aware of any "deadlines" related to the Board hearing since we were not an active participant in the pre-hearing process. As a public service, the NRCS has provided review and recommendations concerning certain technical (not procedural), aspects of Permit Revision (PR) - 06, the subject of the Board hearing, but as with the pre-hearing process we were not participants in the Board hearing on November 17. Furthermore, the NRCS is not obligated or required to participate in any aspect of the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation permitting process, except to make prime farmland determinations on agricultural lands when asked.. The request made by Mike Morgan and Ms Turner for an NRCS assessment centered on the comparative quality of "Bench 1. Substitute Subsoil" being used to reclaim the eastern 20 acres of their property, located due west of 2700 Rd and South of BB Rd., the area referenced. on the map provided by Western Fuels (Exhibit C) as Zone I and Zone 2. Joellen Turner's specific question was: "Is the substitute soil that is being presented as a suitable subsoil equal to or better than what we had in our natural existence, prime Banc soils?" Mr. Dearstyne and I tried to answer this question to the best of our ability given very short notice. Our assessment and recommendation did take into account the greater context of the mining and reclamation processes occurring on the entire Morgan Property. But we did focus specifically on eastern half of the Morgan Property, approximately 51 acres, referred to as Zonel, Zone 2, and Zone 3, since the soil handling practices have been conducted in a different manner on this land than they have the on the western half of the Morgan property. As many know who have been involved in the mine land reclamation process on the Morgan property, the question of the use of Bench I "Substitute" Subsoil arises from the fact that a significant amount (approximately 200,000 cubic yards by my estimate), of the original soil that existed on the eastern 51 acres of the Morgan property (Zones 1, 2, & 3) was transported off-site and used to reclaim other lands mined by Western Fuels. According to soil sampling conducted in 1996 and 1998 by Intermountain Resource Inventories, Inc. the average pre-mining soil depth (topsoil and subsoil) on the 51 acres in question was about 50 inches. Approximately 70 percent of this area., or 36 acres, was mapped as Darvey-Bari complex, 0-3 percent slopes, identified by NRCS as a prime farmland soil, with a Land Capability Class Ile rating. If the original topsoil and subsoil would have been stockpiled and reserved for return to the Morgan property after mining, the entire 51 acres could be reclaimed to a Land Capability Class Ile rating, as defined by Mr. Dearstyne in his letter dated November 16, 2010. The use of Bench 1 Substitute Subsoil, and its quality, would not even be an issue. The other concern of the Morgan's is the use of original subsoil from western half of their property, Zone 4, for reclamation of the eastern half, Zones 1,2, &3; in essence, "taking from the front yard to reclaim the backyard." This was factored into my decision to focus on the eastern 51 acres in isolation when making a soil reclamation recommendation that addresses Ms. Turner's specific question. If the requirement is to restore the eastern 51 acres to its "original condition" prior to mining (to be determined by DRMS not NRCS), then the existing soil reclamation plan for Zones 1, 2, & 3, as proposed in PR-06, falls short of this goal by about 4.5 acres, according to my calculations. Within this context, at a minimum approximately 36 acres should be restored to Land Capability Class Ile soil criteria.