2016-04-17_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Apr 1716 12:00p p.4 becomes very important. But as the next sentence also says" Those areas are classifed as disturbed until reclamation is completed and the performance bond "OR" assurance of performance required by rule 3 released. "OR", so all the haul roads have been reclaimed and it does not say it has to follow rule 3, it says "OR." The first "OR" becomes the NUMBER ONE FACTOR in the bond period so the SECOND "OR" used also is just as important. One "OR" is not more imortant than another "OR" when you are referring to these rules and regulations. And the haul road has been completely satisfied and satisfies the rules with the SECOND "OR". The haul roads have been completely reclaimed to pre -mine status and a performance bond WAS made thererfore it has done every requirement that the rules and regulations require. In all leases and in the approval of all permits, there was never mentioned, not one time, that after phase three bond release was given for all these properties mined that the landowners had to wait an addtional ten years plus for the haul roads to be returned back to their farm. In all the bond performance applications and reclamation plans, there is not one thing inclusive that the landowners have another ten years after phase three bond release to get their properties back. An implied assumption that the meaning applies to haul roads in a farming situation or because haul roads have always historically been ten years does not apply to a farm where other factors such as meeting production and keeping a farmers farm from being contiguous, and most of all a farmers decision and wishes violated. In all bond performance applications, permit applications, reclamation plan appplications, revision applications, and minor revisions, there is no mention that after phase three bond release on a farmers property that he will have to wait an addtional ten years plus to get his property back, When the law requires and allows public participation and puts a public notice in the paper or has a meeting, which only ONE time was held here in Nucla Colorado, there is NEVER any mention of this. It is not up to the farmer to read, study, and know and understand these rules and regulations and is definitely not up to the farmer to understand"implied" or "historical" actions. As mentioned before, this is the FIRST time for this type of mine for doing FARM lands so there was NO historical actions or the reclamation of Historical farms prior to this and NO bond release has ever been given, so as to implied or historically the way it always has been done DOES NOT apply to a farming community for the livelihood of this area is Farming, ranching, and/ or Mining and has been since the day Nucla was created. The definition of Agricultural use is 1.04 (9) " means the use of any tract of land for the production of animal or vegetable life." This is a farmers environment and by limiting his wishes to have his environment back and completely whole is a significant impact and adversely affects the farmer. Also, rule 1.04 34-33-120(2)(b) Restore land affected to a condition capable of supporting the uses which it was capable of supporting prior to any mining. or higher or better uses ." If the farmer wanted to go and plow up his field and plant it all in corn or a new alfalfa field, or hemp or anything, he could not do so because he has a haul road through the property that forbids him to do anything for another ten years, again a violation of the "INTENT' of what the rules and regulations were made to do. Landowners, operstors, and the State are suppose to work hand in hand to assure that all the wishes of the landowners are fulfilled as per rules and regulations and the the property is restored and returned in a timely manner, as contemperously as possible. 34 years exceeds those limitations and wishes. 3