Laserfiche WebLink
d. "Based upon the foregoing, I am both reversing and withdrawing DFD's May 5, 2010 <br />determination that found the terms of WFC's permit for the New Horizon Mine properly <br />implement the requirement of the Colorado regulatory program..." <br />The May 18, 2010 letter from DRMS referenced in the quotes above is significant, and is <br />attached as Exhibit A. Among other things, in the letter DRMS notes that "inaccurate and <br />outdated soils information" was submitted with a permit revision, and that this information <br />resulted in a negative determination by the agency on the subject of prime farmlands. Id, p. 1. <br />DRMS noted further that "ongoing landowner complaints are of merit and must be resolved." <br />DRMS threatened enforcement action against WFC and demanded specific corrective measures <br />to be undertaken by WFC in its permit revision process. Id. at p. 2 -3. Even if the April 23, 2010 <br />correspondence from DRMS was a final decision, which Plaintiffs do not concede, the May 18, <br />2010 letter from DRMS amounts to a reversal of that decision. <br />In summary, both DRMS and OSM found that the permitting actions undertaken by <br />DRMS prior to the PR -06 proceeding were defective as they pertained to the prime farmland <br />soils regulations applicable to the Plaintiffs' property. DRMS essentially admits in Exhibit A <br />that it was duped by inaccurate information supplied by WFC. But, because DRMS had come to <br />the realization that further permit revision was necessary, OSM concluded that it would await the <br />conclusion of that process and conduct a technical review of same. Thus, the April 23, 2010 <br />letter upon which WFC premises its exhaustion of remedies argument was superseded by <br />subsequent events which for all practical purposes rendered its position in the letter moot. The <br />May 18, 2010 letter from DRMS confirms this as fact. <br />Moreover, WFC neglects to mention in its motion that on August 1, 2011 OSM informed <br />DRMS that its technical oversight found several areas where the approved permit, PR06, was <br />deficient. A copy of that letter and accompanying report is attached as Exhibit B. Although <br />discussion of technical details of that letter is beyond the scope of discussion here, OSM did <br />WC <br />