My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-12-09_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-12-09_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:27:47 PM
Creation date
12/10/2010 8:19:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/9/2010
Doc Name
MLRB Signed Board Order
From
DRMS
To
Carver Schwartz McNab & Bailey, LLC
Type & Sequence
PR6
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.
/
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
5. Generally, the mine is progressing across the Morgan property from the east to <br />west. <br />6. On October 1, 2010 after a lengthy review and public comment process, the <br />Division proposed approving PR-6. The public comment process, informal conference held <br />in Nucla, and the review process are thoroughly described in the Proposed Decision, pp. 6-9. <br />7. JoEllen Turner and Michael Morgan jointly submitted two objection letters in <br />October 2010 and requested a Board hearing on the matter. The second objection letter <br />(received on October 21, 2010) stated with reasonable specificity the reasons for the hearing <br />request and the objections concerning the permit revision. <br />8. The Division received public comment letters throughout the public comment <br />period that ended on November 15, 2010. <br />9. The parties participated in a prehearing conference that defined the issues for the <br />November 17, 2010 hearing. <br />10. The November 17, 2010 hearing was limited to four issues raised by Ms. Turner <br />and Mr. Morgan: the post mining land uses, topsoil resource management, prime farmlands <br />reclamation, and public participation. <br />Post Mining Land Uses <br />11. The Objectors disagree with Western Fuels regarding the determination of post- <br />mining land uses. The Objectors argue that certain properties should be returned to <br />agricultural uses, as opposed to dryland pasture. All of the Morgan property will be returned <br />to irrigated cropland. Portions of three neighboring properties will be reclaimed as dryland <br />pasture. <br />12. At the New Horizon Mine, the post-mining land use is evaluated by available <br />water. Western Fuels used a methodology developed by the Natural Resource Conservation <br />Service ("MRCS") to calculate what acreage could be successfully irrigated using the <br />available water to irrigate the land. The land uses described in PR-6 are consistent with the <br />available water and were developed in consultation with the property owners. <br />13. The Objectors do not agree with the post-mining irrigation system design for the <br />Morgan property. The property will be irrigated using a combination of sideroll sprinklers <br />and flood irrigation (gated pipe and furrows). The Morgan property post-mining irrigation <br />system was designed using NRCS approved Colorado Irrigation Design and National <br />Engineering Handbook irrigation design guides. The Objectors are concerned with what will <br />happen to the irrigation equipment after the ten-year reclamation bond release period ends. <br />14. Overall, the post mining land uses described in PR-6 are based on each property's <br />available water for irrigation, using a methodology provided by the NRCS. The post mining <br />land uses are established in consultation with each property owner. <br />Western Fuels <br />Order 2 <br />C-1981-008
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.