Laserfiche WebLink
November 8, 1994 <br />Page 3 <br />v-~ <br />mine has submitted altered maps to the Division at different <br />times. The mine continues to deny any responsibility for <br />the subsidence we are seeing in our home. WE DO 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 />The Mid Term Permit Review prepared by Joseph Dudash on <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 Stipulation 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 zn 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, 1990, letter <br />from Wyoming Fuel to Berhan Keffelew. 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 how my property boundaries are designated. <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 was 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 />