My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-11-12_REVISION - C1981035 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
2015-11-12_REVISION - C1981035 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:12:30 PM
Creation date
11/13/2015 2:26:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/12/2015
Doc Name
Correspondence - Referring to Public Process (Emailed)
From
DRMS
To
Tom Bird
Type & Sequence
TR26
Email Name
RAR
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2. There has been no further federal review. <br />The 2001 Environmental Assessment is a sketchy basis for approval of a project this size <br />with this scale of impacts, It was, frankly, a very .Weak effort. <br />But the deficiencies of this analysis are magnified by the fact that there has been no <br />subsequent federal permitting or analysis in the last fourteen years, while the mine <br />production level has increased over 400%.Z <br />The Division Has Been Headed down the Wrong Fath <br />ARMS has been facilitating this expansion and helping to keep it "under the radar" of <br />public scrutiny by two incorrect approaches that really need to be reversed <br />immediately. <br />• The changes in the permit have been divided up piecemeal and considered <br />separately; and <br />• They have been improperly treated as Technical Revisions rather than Permit <br />Amendments, thus allowing them to proceed without the public being aware, <br />and without adequate public participation. <br />TR 23, TR 24, TR 25 and TR 25 are all part of the same process of expansion; there is no <br />justification for treating them separately. <br />There is also no justification for treating these matters as Technical Revisions, whether <br />considered separately or together. The only reason for doing that is to truncate and <br />avoid public awareness and public participation; the company knows the depth of public <br />feeling and wants to "fly under the radar." This is not an approach that the Division <br />should facilitate. <br />TR 23 allows an expansion in the production level from 800,000 tons per year to <br />1,300,000, when the 800,000 ton level was already causing unacceptable impacts that <br />were being regulated at no level of government, and the only analysis of impacts was <br />based upon a 300,000 ton production. Yet somehow TR 23 was supposed to be a <br />"technical revision." <br />TR 24 would add something like 87.3 acres to the permit area. Somehow the Division <br />made a determination under C.R.S. § 2.08.4{2J{b} and tcj that adding 87.3 acres to the <br />existing permit area was an "incidental boundary revision." <br />2 There is another EA in the works, but no date or deadline for that process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.