2011-01-24_ENFORCEMENT - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

f wrong. The Board does not have a clue what they approved. 1 am sending a copy of this to everyone I can whu uiigit be able to holp. OsM has tho right to intervene if these violations and the permitting have not been done properly and if you have read any of the past permits or the information that I have submitted, you will see that I do have my, . facts correct and out of just pure negligence and the State not doing their jobs and the Operator deliberately submitting false information we have suffered terribly bad. The reason I state deliberate is because 1-was emnloyed by them and if you will loop at the applications and the permits yourself you will see that they sate they had extensive discussions with USDA and MRCS and neither one had ever been contacted since 1996. You can also see for yourself that every application by Ross Gubka states Not applicable for prime farmland investigatioza'and with 87 acres of our property as well as other. containing Barx soils, that alone required a prime farmland investigation according to the rules and regulations and the ACT. There were NO Exceptions to those rules and them already being sued by Mel Staat in 1996 and them already knowing how valuable topsoil was and being told by Tony Waldron and by Harry Ranney to address all area containing Barx Soils and to be site specific on ALL expansion and to include prime farmland in all of their permitting, there were no excuses. We want our soils back. We do not warm any more soil stolen from us as PR -06 gives the mine the permission to do so. This is in violation, of 425. In Pr -06 in the findings document, $.06 is used for the criteria for the replacing of our prime soils, this is also a violation and we will not except less that what the rules and regulations state and we shouldn't have to. Ism the original permitting of our place, they classified things all wrong to the state. They got written documentation from Mr. Morgan telling them that we do 2 ton to the acre of Alfalfa and firstcutting and that grass or grass alfalfa was not applicable. In Pr -06, this documentation is still included and their they give a land use desez�tion to the state that it is pasturelands. They know for fact that we do not have any livestock and that we grow straight alfalfa_as also documented in the lease that is included in PR -06. They have done this for many properties. The land use description must conform to the rules of 1.04. The specifically refer to the 1.04 rules and then give different and confusing descriptions that should not be permitted and are not a part of the Colorado Regulatory Programs rules and regulations and not a part of the Act. This is done throughout all of their permitting and the State helps them do it. Pastureland is mostly for grazing and occassionally hayed. Cropland is anything that is harvested. This means grass, oats; alfalfa, anything. All of these properties here raise two and three and four cuttings of cropland whether it be grass or grass /alfalfa, alfalfa, corn, wheats, etc. and should have been classified as cropland and MRCS told them this. Instead, Marcia and Ross document things that don't even exist. Then, they refer to 1.04. This is a violation of the rules and regulations and are throughout Pr -06. Marcia and Ross tried for a year and. a half to document our place as potential cropland. They knew�the rules stated that all prime farmland had to returned to cropland. To deceive people in to thinking that they were returning it to cropland, they used and documented Potential cropland again a violation of rules and regulations_ Potential cropland was, in fact, DRYLAND.. But, they figured no one would even, notice and tried to get it approved over and over. If anyone had read PR -06, they would have seers that potential cropland was nothing but dryland, no irrigating, no fertilizing, dryland seed mix, just dryland. The State helped WFC do this. In fact;