Laserfiche WebLink
JAN-I2-95 THU 19:02 <br />November 8, 1994 <br />Page 7 <br />i"~ <br />P, 04 <br />mine has submittefl altered maps to the Division at different <br />times. The mine continues to deny any responsibility for <br />the subsidence we are seeing in oqr home, WE W KNOW that <br />these cracks were NOT PRESENT before mining took place under <br />our property. WE DO KNOW that the only possible reason for <br />this to be happening is subsidence, yet the responsible <br />party continues to ignore the 'law and their responsibilities <br />to the land owners and residents of the valley. The law <br />requiring bonds before mining was ignored. <br />'L[le n1u YcLw ret'Yltc ttav ,.trr l,a cNdicu uy Joearll iuci~lacn uI~ <br />December, 1992, is enclosed for your reference. Please <br />explain why Stipulation 28 which remains in effect (enclosed <br />is.a copy.of the January 21, 1994 finding) is not enforced? <br />Does.Stipulatfon 28 only come into effect after the removal <br />of a certain amount of coal, and if.so how much coal must <br />the mine report removing before they .must implement a <br />monitoring report? It is to be noted that the mine assured <br />us. in writing .. (a copy of the. letter is enclosed) that this <br />would be carefully monitored. This was not done, <br />Enclosed is 'a .copy. of the. November 19, 199.0, letter <br />from `Wyoming. Fuel to Serhan Reffelew. Explain why this <br />letter and map make no mention of, our water well? I have <br />been advised that the water well does appear, but it doesn~t <br />.appear to:be within our property. boundary. If that is the <br />excuse,. then how .reliable are any maps that the mine submits <br />for .permits? Please advise which .symbol designates a water <br />well. and-bov my property boundaries are designated. <br /> <br />~, Make note that we' did not sign ANY AGREEMENT with the <br />mine or San Isabel to trespass on our property_to install <br />this exhaust fan and that this fan vas installed to assist <br />the mining on the North side of Highway 12. This shaft is <br />not used under our property but for the. adjacent property. <br />". I was so concerned about the prospective. noise to be <br />emitted from this shaft; representatives from the mine took <br />me and my husband. to another shaft so I could hear how a <br />sound suppression device worked. I received the' assurance <br />that a sound .suppression system would be placed on the <br />exhaust shaft on my property: This is a fact that the <br />mine now denies and no such device has been installed. <br />All of these issues are addressed in our original <br />complaint. <br />We have in our file a letter from Robert Hagen, <br />Director of the Albuquerque Field Office, dated February 4, <br />1994, and enclosures, stating that the mine was not cited <br /> <br />