Laserfiche WebLink
hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) was held on November 17, <br />2010. The Board subsequently ruled to uphold PR -6, and the final order was issued on <br />December 8, 2010. <br />24. On December 9, 2010, you sent OSM a handwritten telefax stating that you have retained an <br />attorney and are appealing the MLRB's decision to uphold PR -6 to Colorado District Court. <br />25.. On January 6 and 11, 2011, you filed citizen's complaints alleging that prime farmland soils <br />are not being salvaged and handled in accordance with the Colorado Rules. Both complaints <br />resulted in a TDN that was issued to DRMS on January 12, 2011. You have filed additional <br />citizen's complaints, including several allegations of violations and deficiencies regarding <br />the soil handling plans included and approved in PR -6, which have resulted in TDNs being <br />issued to DRMS. <br />Informal Review -- Discussion: In response to DFD's April 1, 2010, TDN, DRMS claimed that <br />it had taken appropriate action to ensure that WFC is operating in compliance with its approved <br />permit, and claimed "good cause" for its initial negative prime farmland determination. The <br />Federal regulation at 30 CFR § 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(4) defines "good cause" to include "(i) Under <br />the State program, the possible violation does not exist." DFD's May 5, 2010, decision found that <br />the terms of WFC's permit for the New Horizon Mine properly implemented the requirements of <br />the Colorado regulatory program, and that mining and reclamation on the Morgan property located <br />within the permit boundary, had been conducted in accordance with the approved permit. On this <br />basis, DFD found that DRMS had shown "good cause" for not taking action.to cause the possible <br />violation to be corrected. <br />DFD reviewed WFC's approved permit reclamation plans, as revised by TR -57, to determine <br />whether the permit, as revised, contained the required prime farmland soil salvage, stockpiling, <br />and redistribution plan, whether such plans were being fully implemented, and whether or not on- <br />the- ground violations existed. The DFD decision determined that TR -57 had revised the permit to <br />include prime farmland soil handling performance standards and that WFC was complying with <br />those standards. Within this context, DFD did not identify the existence of an on- the - ground <br />violation, and subsequently determined that DRMS showed "good cause" for taking no action. <br />Your complaint and request for informal review state concerns with DRMS's permit revision <br />procedures, as well as the approved soil salvaging and redistribution practices related to prime <br />farmland pre - and post - mining land use. You are particularly concerned with the approval of the <br />prime farmland soil reconstruction plans that included a decision to use the Bench 1 overburden as <br />a substitute subsoil below the mixed A and B horizon topsoil that is to be redistributed on the <br />prime farmlands disturbed before 2008. You also allege that because prime farmland soil <br />reconstruction is improper, the reclaimed prime farmland post - mining land use will be less <br />productive in agricultural yield than what existed prior to mining disturbance. <br />Notwithstanding DFD's conclusion that DRMS showed "good cause" for taking no action, my <br />review of the DFD case records regarding that decision found that DFD recognized the permit, as <br />revised by TR -57, was deficient in two important ways. First, there was no finding by DRMS that <br />WFC can restore the land to 100 percent productivity and that the target productivity standards <br />had not been set (these targets should have also considered the use of irrigation) in accordance <br />7 <br />