Laserfiche WebLink
Field Office Determination: By letter dated May 5, 2010; DFD informed DRMS that it had <br />shown good cause for not taking action to cause the possible violation to be corrected because, <br />under 30 CFR § 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(4)(i), the possible violation does not exist. Specifically, DFD <br />found that the terms of WFC's permit for the New Horizon Mine properly implement the <br />requirements of Colorado's regulatory program and that mining and reclamation of the Morgan <br />property located within the permit boundary has been conducted in accordance with the approved <br />permit. <br />Request for Informal Review: Following receipt of the DFD decision letter, you requested <br />informal review of DFD's decision on May 6, 2010, under 30 CFR § 842.15. Specifically, you <br />disagree with DFD's May 5, 2010, decision; reiterate your concerns regarding the prime farmland <br />determination, soil salvage and redistribution, and permit revision procedures, including pre- and <br />post - mining land use; and state objections to Permit Revision No. 5 (PR -5), Permit Renewal No. <br />(RN -5), Technical Revision No. 57 (TR -57), and Permit Revision No. 6 (PR -6). <br />Informal Review -- Facts: Based on the information available to me, the facts of the situation <br />appear as follows: <br />On September 14, 1999, WFC submitted its application for revision of its permit to mine <br />coal at the New Horizon Mine, PR -5, to DRMS. The Morgan property was included in the <br />permit boundaries for the Mine under PR -5. After receiving the application, DRMS issued a <br />proposed decision on the application, provided appropriate public notice, responded to <br />public comments, and identified several adequacy issues during its review. No objections <br />were received, and DRMS deemed the proposed decision final on June 1, 2000. <br />2. WFC's application for PR -5 was based in part on an Order 1 Soil Survey conducted in 1998 <br />by WFC's consultant, Intermountain Resource Inventories, Inc. On the Morgan property, <br />84.92 out of the total 107.96 acres were mapped as Soil Map Unit 98E, which is the Darvey- <br />Barx complex, and soil depths ranged from 39 to 69 inches. <br />3. During the pre-mine. 1998 baseline soils survey, an investigation of prime farmlands was <br />conducted on Map Unit 98E. The investigation report found that Barx irrigated is a prime <br />farmland soil in Colorado according to the Colorado Important Farmland Inventory, Natural <br />Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Colorado, and falls within the prime farmland <br />criteria listed in the 1996 edition of the National Soil Survey Handbook. However, the <br />report also found that the Colorado Important Farmland Inventory states on page 3, <br />"irrigated soils that have a pH higher than 7.4 are considered as having high conductivity and <br />therefore are not considered prime." The report concluded that the Barx soil used in the <br />survey was not considered prime farmland because the pH was higher than 7.4 in all <br />horizons. <br />4. Based on the soils survey and the reference to the NRCS publication, Colorado Important <br />Farmland Inventory, DRMS made a negative prime farmlands determination. This finding <br />was consistent with previous negative findings for the Barx soil map unit at the New <br />Horizon Mine as documented in 1992 and 1996 NRCS letters. As explained below, DRMS <br />subsequently acknowledged that its negative prime farmlands determination was in error due <br />to an error in the Colorado Important Farmland Inventory. <br />2 <br />