2013-01-25_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

9•d assumption that the DBMS would share those findings with Western Pmts. The nlit.CS was responding to a request as best as we could under the dravnstances Furthermore, theNRCS Was not aware of any "deadlines" related to the Board hearing since we were not an active participant in the pre process. As a public service, the MRCS has provided review and recommendations concerning certain technical (not procedural), aspects of Permit Revision (PR) - 06, she 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 I 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 retareneed on the snap provided by Western Fuels (Exhibit C) as Zone 1 and Zone 2. Iocllen Turner's specific question was: "Is the substitute soil that is being presented as a suitable sabsoi] equal to or better than whet we had in ow natural existence, prime Beau soils?" • Mr. llearstync 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. $nt we did focus specifically On eastern half of the Morgan Property, approximately 51 acres, referred to as Zane!, 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 Morganproperty. As many know who have been involved is the mine land reolematlon process on the Morgan property, the question of the use of Bench 1 "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 42, & 3) was transported off-site and used to reclaim other lands mined by Western' l:ucls. According to soil sampling conducted in 1996- and 1998 by intermountain Resource 'inventories, lac. the average pre - mining soil depth (topsoil and subsoil) on the Si acres in question was about 50 inches. Approximately percent of this area, or 36 acres, was mapped as Darvey.Barx complex, 0 -3 percent slopes, identified by NRCS as a prime farmland soil, with a Land Capability Class ire rating- If the original topsoil and subsoil would have been stockpiled and reserved for return to the Morgan property aRer alining, the entire 51 acres could be reclaimed to a Land Capability Class TIa 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 Westeut 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 may decision to focus on the eastern S 1 acres in isolation when making a soil reclamation recommendation that addresses Ms. Miner's specific question. If the requirement is to restore the eastern 51 acres to its "original condition" prior to mining (to be determined by DBMS not NRCS), then the existing soil reclamation plan for Zones 1., 2, & 3, as proposed In Pk fails short of this goal by about 45 acres, according to my calculations. Within this context, at a minimum approximately 36 acres should be restored to rand Capability Class Ile soil criteria. Z89L-P98-0L6 Jeuanl ueoof PLTF 001046