Laserfiche WebLink
This is a record of administrative action. No field visit was conducted in conjunction with this report. We <br />have received a citizen complaint alleging violations and deficiencies regarding Permit Revision 6 (PR -6) <br />for the New Horizon mine. The complainant alleges that the approved topsoil replacement depth is <br />inadequate, suitable subsoil material does not meet the criteria of 4.25, the revision allows for salt <br />content, rock fragments and much worse soil to be used as a soil substitute, A, B, and C lift must be <br />segregated if they intend to use any of the C lift as suitable subsoil, the planting plan does not allow for <br />growing corn and must be crops commonly grown, the irrigation plan requires the landowner to flood <br />irrigate, the post- mining topography would not allow for furrow irrigation, PR -6 was based on false <br />information, the native soil depth characterization was inaccurate, the site description and land use info <br />was inaccurate, PR -6 does not protect the landowner or his property, PR -6 does not put the land back as <br />good or better than it was, a prime farmland investigation was never conducted, the Division used the <br />Colorado Prime Farmland Inventory rather than the National Soil Survey Handbook, and the fertilization <br />plan is inadequate. A <br />The following narrative comments describe Ms. Turner's objections that allege potential viola%ns�6 �� <br />Colorado's coal regulatory program under SMCRA. ��N ��� <br />State Law / Regulation Potentially Violated: 4.25.4(5) ' <br />Description: Topsoil replacement depth is alleged to be inadequate. The A horizon must equal or exceed <br />the thickness of the original soil. <br />2.. <br />State Law / Regulation Potentially Violated: 4.25.3(2) <br />Description: Complainant alleges that PR -06 allows for higher salt content, rock fragments & much <br />worse soil to be used as a soil substitute. Material approved as suitable subsoil is alleged to not meet <br />the criteria of 4.25. We interpret this to allege the substitute material is not texturally and chemically <br />equal to or more favorable than the B horizon for plant growth. <br />3. <br />State Law / Regulation Potentially Violated: 4.25.2(2) <br />Description: A, B, and C lift must be segregated if they intend to use any of the C lift which is the so- <br />called suitable subsoil. We interpret this complaint to allege soil horizons are not being segregated so as <br />to prevent contamination. <br />4. <br />State Law / Regulation Potentially Violated: 4.25.5(2) <br />Description: The complainant alleges that the planting plan does not allow for growing corn, which has <br />historically been grown on the property. The complainant is referring to the requirement at 4.25.5(2) <br />which states: "...prime farmland must be used for crops commonly grown, such as corn, soybeans, <br />cotton, grain, hay, sorghum, wheat, oats, barley, or other crops on surrounding prime farmland." <br />5. <br />State Law / Regulation Potentially Violated: 4.25.5(2) <br />