My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2007-04-24_REVISION - M1977247 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977247
>
2007-04-24_REVISION - M1977247 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:36:00 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 7:39:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977247
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/24/2007
Doc Name
Objection Ltr- Hard Copy
From
The Holmes
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
2
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
including ours, and down to the alfalfa fields below to feed at night. What will be <br />the impact of the mining operation on that herd? <br />6. Finally, I am disturbed that Holcim, Inc, failed to acknowledge in their permit that <br />the surrounding properties aze no longer "primarily alfalfa fields", but instead <br />numerous lots with single family dwellings. I certainly hope your agency takes a <br />different view towazd the landownership pattern than did Holcim, Inc. <br />7. I also have concerns regazding noise and truck transportation activities, but I <br />understand that will fall under Fremont County review as a part of their process. <br />8. As one of our businesses, we currently own Mountain Top Miniature Horses <br />where we breed and show National and World quality performance miniature <br />horses. We currently own eleven of these horses that range in value from $5,000 <br />to $75,000. What will be the impacts of mining operations (primarily dust, noise <br />and blasting) on the breeding and reproductive capability of our horses? <br />As I stated earlier, I am not philosophically opposed to the mining industry. It was a part <br />of my cazeer for several years and it is a necessary industry to our nation's economy. <br />However, the State and others must realize that the Coaldale area has experienced more <br />new residents all the time while the quarry was continually moving toward a "reclaimed" <br />status and bond release. With this proposed restart of the operation, a degradation of <br />quality of life for the many new residents should be strongly considered in the review of <br />this permit application by both the State and Fremont County officials that serve the <br />residents of Colorado. <br />The "need" of the Coaldale gypsum material for Holcim's plant should be weighed <br />against the financial property decisions of current hazd-working people and retirees that <br />were "here first" when the quarry was idle from 1990 to now. If it is inevitable that <br />Holcim, Inc. will be allowed to operate this quarry, then I would strongly suggest that <br />Holcim be required, as mitigation, to offer purchase of surrounding landowner properties <br />so that some may move and not be subject to blasting, dust, noise and other annoyances <br />that are widely known to be incompatible with residences in close proximity to mining <br />activities. If it comes to that, I strongly believe that this would be a fair solution for <br />residents whose properties are their greatest financial asset and whose lives and inherited <br />family assets could be greatly impacted by the long-term needs of amulti-billion dollar, <br />international corporation such as Holcim, Inc.. <br />Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed action. <br />Respectfully, <br />Martin P. Holmes Angela J. Holmes <br />13246 CR 45 <br />PO Box 290 <br />Coaldale, CO 81222 <br />719-942-5511 <br />mholmesna co-isp.com <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.