My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE110521
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE110521
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:07:18 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 7:50:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998058
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/14/1998
Doc Name
FAX COVER
From
DMG
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.
/
4
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
..._.. ~",•~~••.••••• "^•"^OJ11 ~ iu 71J193CJC[i110b F.62 <br />• • <br />that is less than three years from now. Exhibit D states mining will continue <br />for a period of S years. Map 3 indicates mining will continue through 2011, <br />that is l3 years. How long will they be mining for? <br />(4) We still remain concerned about our well water quality and quantity. We <br />realize the Division will require the development of a monitoring well, <br />which should help determine whether our water quality/quantity is being <br />affected. The applicant's consttant states that "91 % of the mine area can be <br />concluded not to be hydrologically connected to the zone of saturation of the <br />Anderson well". Keeping this in mind, there is a one in ten chance that our <br />water will be affected. We want to know what the plan is if this does occur. <br />Yes, there will be testing done as indicated by Routt County. But if there is <br />a problem and a new well needs to be drilled, what do we do in the mean <br />time? This question remains unanswered. If this is an "old issue' as <br />descnbed by the applicant's consultant then why haven't we been given an <br />answer? We certainly hope that the response to our concern aad again we <br />quote, "they (Water Engineer in SS) would not waste their time <br />responding... to such a ridiculous issue," is not adequate in the eyes of the <br />Board. We have searched on page 16 of the 112 Reclamation Permit <br />Application for the answer, but somehow our concern got "lost" in the <br />consultant's attempt to once again avoid the issue. We just want an answer <br />to our question. <br />(5) Routt County Regional Planning Dept. is now concerned that conditions <br />of this application may contradict the conditions set forth by the County as <br />descnbed in the letter dated Dec.4, 1998 from Caryn Fox, Assistant Planning <br />Director. <br />Although the criteria involved with this application seems to fall within the <br />guidelines put forth by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, do <br />you honestly aad in good faith believe that this application is worthy of <br />approval with a family with three small children living right next door AND <br />with all 5 of these issues unresolved? <br />Diane E and Thane R. Anderson <br />25655 Routt County Rd 33A <br />Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 <br />(970)879-7104 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.