Laserfiche WebLink
Di4i3ional Correspondence Only <br />. ~ .' <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF WILDLIFE <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />DATE <br />T0: Pete Barrows <br />FROM: Clait Braun <br />iiiiiiiiiiiiimiii <br />_ sss <br />8-14-79 <br />SUBJECT: Hearing on Proposed Coal Mine by Flatiron Paving Co. on the Bourg Coal <br />Property, Jackson County <br />On 13 August I attended a public hearing concerning Flatiron Paving Co, of <br />Boulder application for a permit to mine coal (open pit) on the Bourg Coal Property <br />S~, SEti, S7; N~, NEB, 518; T9N, R78W, Jackson County, Colorado. The 160 acre <br />tract is privately owned with the mineral rights being controlled by 23 <br />different individuals. Flatiron Paving has acquired the mineral rights and <br />use of the surface from the present owners. <br />Present at the meeting were: <br />Jackson County Commissioners - T. Meyering, H. Hampton, D. Burt <br />Jackson County Administrator-Planner - Kent Crowder <br />Jackson County Attorney - Dan Kaup <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife - Clait Braun, John Wagner <br />Kerr Coal Company - George Patterson <br />Flatiron Paving Co.-Consultant - C. Carew McFall <br />Engineer's Local (Union?) - Jeff Cringan <br />The applicant, represented by C. C. McFall, presented in detail its plan for <br />mining and reclaiming the site. It is expected that 150,000 tons of coal will <br />be extracted per year for 8'z years with an additional 1~ years or more being <br />used for reclamation. Mining will be dependent upon finding a market. The <br />applicant has applied for a permit from the Bureau of Land Management to <br />contract a haul road of about 1.4 miles to connect with existing Jackson <br />County roads 19 (unpaved) and 10 (paved). Hauling would be to the north to <br />either a rail siding or to market. Thus far, the BLM has denied the permit <br />for the haul road. <br />The applicant's plan for reclamation and possible mitigation of adverse <br />impacts superficially appears to have merit. Reclamation would be to a lower <br />contour than before mining with top soil stockpiled during mining. Revege- <br />tation would be with sagebrush clumps, grasses and fortis. Attempts would be <br />made to develop a wet Meadow and to "improve" the area for grazing animals. <br />A letter from the BLM was entered into the record as exhibit C and was read <br />to those present. The BLM had 11 points which they felt had not been adequately <br />discussed in the applicants mining plan. These were: continuous or discon- <br />tinuous mining, re-routing of present utlities, location of haul road, <br />disposal of waste, use of area not mined (40 acres), mining hazards to adjacent <br />BLM lands, fencing for safety, impacts to sage grouse, fertilization of <br />surrounding lands, development of a graduate study plan, and impact of waste <br />water. C. McFall responded to some of the questions about defects in the plan. <br />He suggested that changes would be made as necessary. <br />DOW-A-F-B <br />