My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-04-17_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2015-04-17_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:59:24 PM
Creation date
4/21/2015 11:04:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/17/2015
Doc Name
Landowner Comment Letter Regarding topsoil
From
Mel Staats
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
BFB
DIH
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.
/
3
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
Brock Boyles <br />Environmental Proction Specialist <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and safety <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO .80203 <br />Brock, <br />pril 15, 2013 <br />RECEIVED <br />APR 17 2015 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining & Safety <br />Since our meeting in -late March, I have been in contact with <br />our attorney and he has advised us to draft this letter to you <br />concerning potential problems we may have with 1yFC and the re= <br />clamation of our property. <br />WFC has always maintained that they are oing all reclamation <br />on our property as per the mine permit. <br />Pages 205.4(2)(d) -7 thru 205.4(2)(d) -11 <br />- Topsoil Redistribution - <br />During our meeting, we talked about placement of the .8 ft. of <br />topsoil onthe acreage that didn't receive it either initially or <br />when ordered by the state. Since they maintain that soil replacement <br />must be done as the permit allows, our attorney has advised us that <br />we, and the state, open a number of test sites (holes) on the <br />property to confirm that the .8 ft. of'topsoil and that the 2nd <br />lift.of 3.5 ft. of Barx Sandy Loam Buried Complex was replaced <br />according to the permit. <br />I believe that the 3.5 ft.. of Barx Sandy Loam, for the 2nd lift, <br />was never replaced as it should have been a d that the material that <br />was placed on our property was the spoils f�om the adjacent pit and <br />that this material did not comply with what the permit called for. <br />The spoils /material was never replaced as think a lift should have <br />been, but dumped in by the haul trucks as lit came from the pit, <br />rocks and all. <br />If the material does not meet the requirements of the permit for <br />the reclamation of this property, then I a' respectfully requesting <br />that the field be redone by WFC as per the ipermit requirements. <br />As,I stated at our meeting, my family will be farming this land <br />and earning a living for years to come, long after the mine is gone. <br />We should not have to pick rock and debris from our land each and <br />every time that it.is plowed or worked. This particular area was <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.