2013-03-12_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 March 9, 2013 Z99L 98 RECEIVED MAR 12 ?'r DIVISION OF RECLAMATION MINING AND SAFETY Dear Mr. Berry: This is being written in concerns for the revegetation review that was posted on the internet today, In November of 2010. Marcia Talvitie and Sand Drown stood up under oath at the formal hear and told Ira Paulin and the Board that Bond release for these areas were going to be given in March of 2011. That never happened. Bond release has not been granted for any property owner that has been mined by WFC in 20 years. They have never 1-Jr. g ives„ r.r..,d rv111009# Mr. Ebert, let me give you some facts here. These ra CROPLAND from day one and now that they were th lando a re ha classified o with the ownership of their properties because of mistakes that were made from the beginning b out WFC. They classified these croplands as pasturelands even though they ll irrigated and cropped their entire lives and now they are having t o pay a pal been hi This wa storically approved by the State and these areas should have been looked at and reviewed, s all been cropland. The landowners are not responsible for knowing `ud should li r are they told them when they lease rope g the rules and regulations, nor things were not being done right from the property. is all the States jol�and having that job, if years later when everyone is waiting to get bond release a should g o on wit been corrected, not 20 with their lives. The reference area was an after thought and the landowners were State that this was the way to go to achieve bond release since guaranteed s WFC and by the pr by the mechanical means that a reference duction rates were set so high that within 3 years. The reference area that was chosen d was of a very release than th h achieved reclaimed areas and the STATE knew this and approved it. The areas had to quality e GE TTER than the reference area which BETTER o or better than reference reclaimed areas, they just are by o it t far. You are tryt EQUAL n or ce area opposite of what it should a the reference be. The things that you are objecting to in your review are ALL State in the permitting. For instance, cgs that were approved by the were figures the figure that is used for the soils w glues that was given to WFC and to the State is listed in ere in a e came directly from MRCS who has the a m the Permits and th permits and be denied because you don't � give those figures. release e figures Permit, you would have seen know from NRCS des came from' If you would have readahe t done. stating what figure had to be used and this was The vegetation studies were also all done with the consultation ' with the State and were done for JeuJnl uell3o