My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-01-16_REVISION - M1976007UG (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1976007
>
2022-01-16_REVISION - M1976007UG (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2024 6:32:30 AM
Creation date
1/16/2022 1:40:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1976007UG
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/16/2022
Doc Name
Comment/Objection
From
Beth Dwyer
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
CN1
Email Name
ECS
MAC
Media Type
D
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
Your Phone Number* <br /> Used only to follow up. <br /> 3039901718 <br /> Extension <br /> Alternate Phone Number <br /> Used only to follow up. <br /> Alternate Phone Extension <br /> Connection to Operation <br /> Select all that apply <br /> Land Owner of affected land Structure Owner within 200' of affected land <br /> Mineral Owner Nearby Resident <br /> ✓ Adjacent Land Owner Concerned Citizen <br /> Government Agency Other <br /> DESCRIPTION OF COMMENT OR OBJECTION <br /> as specific as possioi(, <br /> Comment/Objection Narrative <br /> Having read the Protect The Hogback objection to the mine application,and agreeing with all the points made <br /> in that letter of 10/27/2021, 1 will not repeat them. I incorporate them in this individual objection. <br /> As to the reclamation plan and its deficiencies mentioned in the letter, I would only like to add the following... <br /> The State Land Board seems interested in the expansion of the mine primarily,if not only,for the purported <br /> required reclamation the operator will do before the mine is vacated, in up to 20 years. (And even that is <br /> unclear). I add"not only"as the math for estimated monetary return to the SLB and its beneficiary schools <br /> indicates any expected return cannot in itself justify approval of the application/continued and increased mining <br /> activity.The State therefore just wants someone else to foot the bill for any known and unknown reclamation of <br /> the property. But who knows if that will ever happen, based on the company's poor record of reclamation and <br /> the quality of its plan.The State should take responsibility to investigate the company's record on this and <br /> ensure that the reclamation piece is not just kicked down the road.The other issue mentions NOWHERE is <br /> Safety.A child fell into a mine on this property in the not too distant past. Safety relative to traffic in the area <br /> with trucks accessing both 93 and W.56th should also be addressed. <br /> Permit Number* <br /> Enter valid letter and then numbers,for example M1977999, M1999777UG or C1981201. <br /> M1976007 <br /> Permitting Action Type <br /> Amendment <br /> Select revision type or leave blank if comment pertains to a new permit application or NOI <br /> Permitting Action Sequence <br /> 0 <br /> Permit Type <br /> County* <br /> Jefferson County Colorado <br /> Enter one county only <br /> Site Name <br /> Golden Mine <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.