Laserfiche WebLink
JAN-12-95 THU 19:03 <br />November 8, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />P. 05 <br />for failure tp conduct a subsidence monitoring and <br />subsidence control plan or failure to provide a detailed <br />plan of the proposed or actual underground working of the <br />mine. These findings are totally inappropriate and not <br />based on fact. With regard to the above: <br />a. Please furnish ma with the maps referred to in the <br />January 19, 1994, letter from Daniel Hernandez to <br />Mitchell Rollings; <br /> <br />L). i(Jll 111VLlFlyVll VL yu~lll blab 61L 1.:4 LL1U.CL Vu wl G~ Y <br />.deposition on December 10,1993, that the First Mine <br />was closed and could not be viewed for confirmation of <br />the condition of the mine,. etc. How do we confirm any. <br />information provided to us with reference to the actual <br />mining that took place at the First Mine when we know <br />that'the mine does not wmply with the rules, <br />d'misrepresents the facts as it suits them? <br />. ~ 2....Damage to Structure setter dated July 7, 1993, <br />from-Daniel Hernandez to Jim Tatum contains many <br />statements or opinion5.:of Mr.,.$ernandez that can't <br />stand the licjlit of day:. The discharge drain from the <br />gravity discharge drain is clearly visible.; <br />the steam heater in the home emits steam for heat <br />obviously, steam comes :from water .so .we add .water <br />as needed; the mine is not, and Z repeat is not; 750 _ <br />feet from my home. The distance from my home to the <br />mine is from 200 -340:feet,.'a fact which.the..sin~*.as <br />now admitted; according to Mr. Hernandez.'.s own <br />calculations, paragraph 1, 2; and .3, page 3, using the <br />correct Bistanee of .200 - 300 plus feet from the <br />mine to my. home we are clearly in the subsidence area. <br />The fii:ne clearly flifl not notify youi Department that <br />our home was within the. subsidence area .and NOT 750 <br />feet from the mine. .An oversicjht on their part? More <br />like a total misrepresentation of. the facts. <br />d. Our December 1, 1991, letter to Hernande2 Could not <br />have 'been taken into consideration in light of the <br />Department's findings. <br /> <br />e. Steve Renner's letter of January 19, 1993, states <br />that "an inspection conducted on ianuary 13, 1993, <br />revealed that two trees directly in front of the <br />exhaust fan were now showittg signs oY distress." The <br />two trees referred to were Healthy prior to the mina <br />installing the exhaust fan. We have not received any <br />confirmation that these fumes will not affect livestock <br />