My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1985112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M1985112
>
2020-07-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1985112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 10:27:56 PM
Creation date
7/15/2020 11:13:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1985112
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
7/9/2020
Doc Name
"Protection of the Public' "Whistleblowers"
From
Bickling
To
DRMS
Email Name
PSH
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.
/
15
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
Attached are the copies of the 6 month dewatering results from the Koehler wells and the <br /> Francis Wells. The copies are the best that I have to date. I can try to find better copies. the <br /> Koehler Irrigation well went down another 1.19 feet and the Francis wells went down another <br /> 2.91, 3.19 and 3.65. The well monitoring was completed by AgPro. Has the DRMS been <br /> contacted by the Operator since the trigger water levels have been reached? <br /> Conclusion <br /> Copies of the quoted data can be sent to the DRMS file. Most if not all of the data is in the <br /> DRMS File. Please advise or at least tell me what form you would like me to use so the Data is <br /> added to the correct file. <br /> 1. The Operator did not Monitor the SPOs wells from 2013 thru 2019 as per the TR agreement. <br /> This agreement was to "Protect the Public" and SPOs from the adverse effects of the mining <br /> operation. <br /> 2. The Operator did not Monitor the 14 wells of the SPOs that were described in the McGrane <br /> report of 2015. This was required to Protect the SPOs during the slurry wall installation. <br /> 3.The DRMS did not monitor#1 and #2 as listed above. The DRMS did not monitor the annual <br /> reports for the required data.The data was to be used to "Protect the Public". This is a part of <br /> the "Protection of the Pubic" as listed in the Mission statement as listed below. <br /> The Division is Committed to balance the need for mineral resources production with <br /> protection of the public, environment and Colorado's natural resources <br /> 4. There is little to no communication with the public and SPOs when a complaint is filed. <br /> Again, this is a "Shot in the dark" for the complaintant, examples listed above. <br /> 5. There is little to no response to emails sent to the DRMS by the general public and the SPOs, <br /> examples listed above. re: Peter Hayes, Eric Scott and Director Means. <br /> 6. Peter Hayes denied public access to him with my complaint! How is that" Protection of the <br /> Public"? <br /> 7. In the future the Directors, Managers and EPS need to change their procedures and <br /> attitude as far as the "Protection of the Public". So very fast to deny a complaint and little to no <br /> communication with the complaintant. Is waiting 7 months for a response on the Amendment <br /> water levels is this standard procedure? Is waiting 70 days for a response from a Director <br /> Standard Procedure? <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.