My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-03-19_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2009-03-19_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:44:35 PM
Creation date
3/20/2009 12:48:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/19/2009
Doc Name
Objection Letter
From
Frank and Mary Lou Morgan, Mike Morgan, Jo Ellen Turner
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR57
Email Name
MLT
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.
/
3
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
0311912009 15:46 9702475104 DMG DURANGO OFFICE <br />Ms Marcia L. Talvitie, P.E. <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />691 CR 233, Suite ,A,-2 <br />Durango, Co. 81301 <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Room 215 <br />Denver, Co. 80203 <br />PAGE 02/03 <br />P.1 <br />March 1.8,2009 <br />VJr4 FqX <br />W 1 9 2449 <br />/3"17 <br />UurG.41,Q Field OO <br />Division of ReclamA00111 <br />Mining and satatY <br />RE_ Revision of TR 57 the New Horizon Mine (permit No. C-1981-008) submitted by Western <br />Fuelq,-Colorado,LLC:. Sections 2.04.9E and 2.05,4(4) have been, revised for the purpose of <br />addressing Prime Farmland designations and topsoil redistribution in prime farmland areas. <br />We guess since you won't give a 10 day extension for al) of us to have time to read and re-view <br />T R57, We are totally objecting to it and it's contents for these reasons: <br />(1.) Bench 1 is about 55 feet thick within the permit area ans approximately 83% is suitable <br />subsoil. Why is only 34 inches of material being returned as suitable. This is not acceptable. <br />(2) The total amount of topsoil and suitable will be approximately 4 feet. Where did you get <br />this? <br />Since some places our topsoil depth alone is 72 inches. This is not right- <br />(3)Topsoil stockpiles : It says 1-1.3 as listed on the chart. Only there is 10 listed on the chart, <br />Where are these and they are all listed as inixed. Where is the rest and why are they not listed <br />and where are they out here? There is not 13 stockpiles????? And they list A-K on the chart, <br />where are those 11 stock piles??????? <br />(4)Much of the upper overburden is suitable subsoil. NO!!!! <br />NO topsail is available to be salvaged,from existing ponds, roads, residences, farmyards. This is <br />an, absolute untrue statement. There is a lot of topsoil, in these areas!i!!! M1!1!11 <br />(5)Pernli.t was submitted March 2008. There was NO newspaper addressing this. Mr. Morgan <br />received no letter addressing this, No ONE Knew Anything!!!! Mr. i1iT.orgaa..is blind and it has <br />been discussed and re-discussed between Western. Fuels and right here at the table with the <br />division and we were promised, that any permitting or re-permitting that directly affected the <br />Morgan, plain that as letter and a copy would be sent to Frank Morgan, This never happened. <br />either. <br />(6)1t is a shame that we are forced to Kilitpick and can't have 10 days to examine all ofthi5. We
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.