My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-01-29_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2013-01-29_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:12:31 PM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:55:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/29/2013
Doc Name
Paintiffs Opening Brief 2010 CV 548
From
Christopher G. McAnany Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP
To
District Court, Montrose County Colorado
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
DAB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
materials with undesirable material." Rule 4.25(2). Related rules require that <br />stockpiled soils shall be placed where: <br />"they will not be disturbed by mining operations and will be protected from <br />wind and water erosion, unnecessary compaction, and contamination which <br />would lessen the capability of the material to support vegetation when <br />redistributed in accordance with the 4.06.4." Rule 4.06.3(2). <br />In addition, stockpiled topsoil and other materials "shall not be moved until <br />required for redistribution on a regraded area unless approved by the Division." <br />Rule 4.06.3(2)(b). <br />Prior to February, 2008 WFC was stripping topsoil from the Morgan <br />Property in a single lift, rather than segregating and preserving the A and B <br />horizons separately. During this same time period WFC failed to salvage the <br />Morgan topsoil for reclamation, and it actually removed the topsoil from the <br />Morgan Property for use on other parcels. These actions diminished the total <br />depths of prime topsoil available for reclamation, as compared to pre- mining <br />conditions. <br />d. The Board Could Not Legally Approve PR6 Because WFC Was <br />Mining in Violation of SCMRA. <br />The permitting file in PR6 essentially glosses over the fact that WFC was <br />operating in violation of SCMRA until the complaints by the Morgans prompted <br />an investigation. SCMRA provides that in the case of a permit application, <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.