My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-07-02_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-07-02_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:14:41 PM
Creation date
7/2/2010 1:57:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/2/2010
Doc Name
Letter Requesting Withdrawal of PR6 by Ms Turner
From
JoEllen Turner
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
MLT
SB1
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.
/
10
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
b6 <br />AND PUT ON BUD BENSONS PLACE. They are indicating that the 21 inches is all that we <br />had and all that they salvaged. This is all a falsehood. They salvaged it and I called Dan <br />Mathews and asked them to quit removing our prime soils and after 3 days and 3 nights, it ceased <br />but then the state did not come up here and make them put it back. But, the amount removed <br />from this place and salvaged from this place should and is documented somewhere and they are <br />not going to make it look like that's all we had. All of our topsoil maps show the depth of our <br />soils up to 72 inches or better and shows they removed it from our place. They are not going to <br />keep saying that is all we had. <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-26 Prior to February 2008 they went to a ONE lift operation without permission <br />from us and we had no knowledge of this going to happen. HOW WAS THIS APPROVED? <br />They enter prime farmland. They were doing a two lift operation and then changed to a one lift <br />operation, how can the State ever allow anything like this? Some one needs to pay for the loss <br />of our topsoil. This was intentional. <br />2.05.4(2) (d)-27 The prime farmland soils were identified in 2008 LIES LIES LIES. In 1992, <br />1988, 1996, 1999, Barx soils are prime soils in the State of Colorado. <br />2.05.4(2)(d) Do not allow them to keep putting our soils in inches. A minimum of 48 inches or <br />to its natural depth. If it is there, put it back. <br />-28 Prime Farmland criteria is a MINIMUM of 48 inches or to its natural depth. <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-44 Replacement is not up to NRCS or to WFC. NRCS can give their opinion. We <br />were not allowed at that meeting and the law states a MINIMUM of 48 inches or TO IT's <br />NATURAL DEPTH. It was agreed if they remove it, they put it back. <br />2.05.4(2)(e)-1 Prime farmald soil was by NRCS in 2008. Lies Lies Lies 1988, 1992, 1996. <br />1999 1998 all classifed PRIME SOILS and stated that BARX is a prime soil in the State of <br />Colorado. <br />All lands should be put back as good as or better than they were. Protect the landowners rights as <br />the laws require. <br />Cropland, pastureland, rangeland. Those are the choice. Use the correct terminology and put it <br />back like it was. All of these places being mined would be classified simply as cropland and ours <br />would be classified as prime farmland. Prime farmland MUST be cropland but cropland does <br />not have to be prime. <br />2.05.4(2)(e)-2 All lands on the morgan property have been converted to irrigated cropland. The <br />lands on the Morgan property have not been converted to anything. The lands on the Morgan <br />property have been and still are CROPLAND. <br />"Irrigated hay pasture land irrigated grass" Who comes up with this stuff .9 It is simply cropland. <br />It was harvested for production and is still being harvested for production, it is cropland. And by
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.