My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL48558
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL48558
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:25:08 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 4:23:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
6/27/2000
Doc Name
CITIZEN COMPLAINT CC00-140-001 GEC MINE
From
OSM
To
DNR
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
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.
/
9
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
Your Com~aints <br />I have condensed [he complaints from your letters into related areas and understand them to be: <br />Bond forfeiture administration. Interest generated by the bond forfeiture monies collected <br />by DMG was put into the general fund of the State of Colorado rather than be used for <br />reclamation on the GEC Mine. Whereas reclamation of the site was not substantially <br />completed until seven years after bond forfeiture, the amount of reclamation possible was <br />reduced by inflation. A $300,000 judgement awarded to GEC was never attached by <br />DMG for reclamation purposes. <br />2. Personnel. Mr. John Nelson, DMG, was the supervisor of [he 1994 bond forfeiture <br />reclamation project and was proposed to be the supervisor of the 2000 Eas[ Pit road <br />reconstruction project against your wishes. <br />3. Landowner input. DMG did not consider your requests to change the reclamation <br />practices in 1994. DMG did not accept the recommendations you made relative to the <br />East Pit road designs in the interests of reducing the cost of the project. You have stated <br />that DMG over-designed the road reconstruction project resulting in approximately <br />$ (5,000 of the $40,000 project cost that could have been used for reclamation elsewhere <br />on the GEC Mine. <br />4. Off-site sedimentation. You have located and photographed the areas of off-site sediment <br />deposition resultant from severe gully erosion that has formed in the reclaimed channel. <br />5. Burning gob. DMG approved transportation of burning gob from the Newlin Creek Mine <br />to the GEC Mine and this has resulted in tremendous off-site impacts. You do not define <br />the off-site impacts in your letters, but I understood from our conversation that a fire was <br />started in a recoverable coal seam resulting in loss of the resource. <br />Your May 24 letter specifically asks OSM to comment on DMG's use of the bond money and the <br />length of time from bond forfeiture to reclamation. You also asked for suggestions for future <br />work on the site. Your May 30 letter specifically asks if it was correct for DMG to allow the <br />transportation of burning gob from the Newlin Creek property to the GEC Mine. <br />OSM's Findings Regarding Your Complaints <br />Bond forfeiture administration. SMCRA requires a coal mine operator to post a <br />reclamation bond in an amount sufficient to assure completion of the reclamation plan <br />contained in the approved permit. In our discussion, you outlined the history of this <br />company and permit area very well. The bond was forfeited and the company, surety, and <br />individuals went through bankruptcy. The result was that DMG received reclamation <br />funds equivalent to, as you termed it, cents on the dollar. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.