Laserfiche WebLink
New Horizon Mine C-1981-008 <br />March 26, 2008 Meeting w/ ]Landowners <br />Ross Gubka's written summary of the DRMS/NRCS/WFC meeting of 2/15/08, and his <br />subsequent meeting vrith the Morgans, was the subject of some discussion. The general tone <br />and certain statement: Ross had made, indicating that various decisions had been made at the <br />2/15/08 meeting and ~~vere "set in stone" had alarmed the Morgans. The irrigation share per <br />irrigated acre factor i~; a huge issue for the Morgans. We assured them that the 1: I ratio was <br />not set in stone, nor v+as anything else discussed at the 2/15/08 meeting set in stone, and that <br />they and the other landowners still would have extensive opportunity for input on the <br />revisions when submitted to the Division, as well as the opportunity to object and request a <br />hearing when propose;d decisions are issued. <br />Patty expressed concern that standards and reclamation plans originally approved in a permit <br />application shouldn't be allowed to be changed during the course of a mining operation <br />without'the landowner's consent. I said that our regulations allowed for standards and plans <br />to be changed during the course of an operation, and such changes were commonly made. I <br />explained the regulatory processes which allowed for substantive changes to be made, but <br />with the requirement :For public notification and opportunity for public comment and <br />landowner input. <br />Patty asked what gooci it was for a landowner to have language put into a lease agreement to <br />the effect that reclam~~tion would be conducted in accordance with DRMS regulations and <br />permit requirements i F our regulations were so subject to interpretation and permit <br />requirements were subject to change. She and the other Morgans said they had been assured <br />by WFC that their land would be returned to farmland as good or better than it had been prior <br />to mining, but now it is looking like those promises were empty. 1 said that our Division had <br />no authority with respect to lease language or disputes; that was solely between the parties. <br />Patty said she had learned a lesson and she would make certain that requirements and <br />standards were explicitly spelled out in the language of any future lease agreements. Frank <br />Morgan~expressed regret that they had not gotten involved sooner with these issues, nor paid <br />more attention to the public notices as they appeared. <br />The Morgans were concerned because Ross had stated that 1998 (the baseline data collection <br />year) was the only ye~ir that could be taken into consideration with respect to pre-mine land <br />use designations. They say that in 1998, a considerable acreage of their prime farmland soil <br />(approximately the western half of Frank's land that is in the permit area) was alfalfa cropland <br />that was over 7 years ~~ld and was thus less productive than newer stands to the east, and had a <br />considerable grass cornponent. They say it was improperly designated irrigated pasture, but <br />was in fact irrigated alfalfa cropland, just in latter stages of the rotation. Dan said that we <br />could consider more information than just the one year snapshot, and would give <br />consideration to information and documentation they could provide in that regard (or <br />something to that effect). <br />There was concern with a statement that Ross had included in his summary of our 2/15/08 <br />meeting, which indicated it had been agreed that upper lift topsoil would be salvaged to a <br />maximum depth of 24 inches. Dan had no recollection of any such agreement, and told the <br />Morgans that his recollection of our discussion was that all upper lift soil was to be salvaged <br />-2- <br />