My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-01-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-01-27_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:59:00 PM
Creation date
1/27/2010 1:00:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
1/27/2010
Doc Name
Objection to RN-5, TR-49, TR-57
From
JoEllen Turner
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Correspondence
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
<br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety ? INJF-'D <br />1313 Sherman Street Room 215 <br />Denver, Co. 80203 ,JAN 2 7,Q1Q <br />January 24, 2010 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />pAining and S3fety <br />Dear Sandy, Marcia, and Dan <br />We are objecting to the Permit-Renewal#5, as well as TR49, and TR57 <br />TR57, we with-drew our objection a year ago based on the information that WFC and DRMS <br />presented us with. In my letter, however, I left the option of objecting at a later date once I saw <br />the entire picture. You may read my letter again, and you will see that is what it said. We were <br />given a letter from WFC stating that the entire 107 acres would be put back in the prime <br />farmland, irrigated crops as it was prior to them mining it. We were also given a document that <br />stated that WFC would address that in 30-45 days. That was August of 2008. Wow! That was a <br />long time ago and none of these things happened. If you remember, ALL of you agreed to that <br />and ALL of you got the same letters. <br />So, that covers our objection to the Permit-Renewal which was also in my objection at that time <br />and now, we are re-entering those objections. <br />As to TR49. We never saw a public notice or anything concerning it, but Marcia tells us and the <br />court house tells us that this was the revision that changed the Martin place from irrigated pasture <br />to dry land. We therefore are objecting to this because first off I believe that this should have <br />been a permit revision opened for discussion because it changes the PERMITTING from what it <br />was to DRYLAND. This was not just a MINOR change as it states in the laws to allow a <br />technical revision. Second, the property was all irrigated prior to the mine entering the property. <br />This comes to another issue. We have letters from the NRCS that were used inappropriately. <br />And we have proof of that. Some of the letters that WFC used were for a specific piece of <br />ground and most of their letters are for a specific piece, but WFC has used these letters for <br />EVERY piece of property that they want changed and this is illegal. They are furnishing you <br />with FALSE information. They are furnishing false information for ALL the properties WEST <br />of 2700 road, also. <br />So, we are entering our objections today, and if they cannot be entered with you because of the <br />time span, we will entered them with other agencies. After looking at the LAND USE <br />documentation at the court house, also, the permits were issued based on these properties being <br />returned to AGRICULTURAL USE, not DRYLAND. <br />Th youf re <br />JoE11?WW'Turner
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.