My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-03-09_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-03-09_REVISION - C1981008 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:01:02 PM
Creation date
3/10/2010 10:47:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/9/2010
Doc Name
Comment Letter
From
JoEllen Turner
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR6
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.
/
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
p.1 <br />r <br />ti <br />?AaA, ) <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Re: Letter dated February 11, 2010 <br />Dear Marcia, Sandy, and Dan: <br />When I objected to Permit-Renewal#5, We told Marcia that we had not gotten a copy of that. <br />ALL of you PROMISED faithfully that anything that concerned the Morgan Property that MR. <br />Morgan would receive a copy of that permit, revision, etc. THAT WAS NEVER DONE. Also, <br />I don't care that it included TR-55, Western fuels Permit Renewal I just couldn't give?hing <br />to do with the other. My objection still stood for The <br />specifics because I had nothing to read. Some of the Renewals do not have numbers nor does <br />some of the permit revisions, so sometimes, we don't even know which one is which. Yoitlaws <br />state that they must be much more specific in identifying eachjthan they are. <br />When we received the telephone message from <br />that it in <br />been at the court house, because of <br />that we had not gotten to read that renewal <br />JURY duty, they ran us out,, we looked at a few pages of what we thought was permit <br />Renewal#5 and when we went back, it was no longer there. The Federal and State laws require <br />for ALL information that is not confidential to remain at the court house for public inspection for <br />the duration of the mining activities <br />We were alsotold that one of yo went up <br />NOT THERE! those <br />there yesterday and IT WAS S <br />representing you were there about a week ago, so you should have known yourselves that IT IS <br />NOT THERE! So, I really don't care if you say it was publicized in the paper for PUBLIC <br />COMMENT! When? 2007? Then you did not make a decision until 2009? If it was not there to <br />be read by the public, then your public comment period means absolutely NOTHING! Mr. <br />Morgan NEVER received a copy. As far as I am concerned, you guys have violated again all of <br />the Federal and State Laws. <br />If you actually do a MONTHLY inspection as you told everyone at the meeting, every month, <br />then you would have seen for yourselves tht Permmost it Rnew things <br />al #5 was one of the MOSTbe at the <br />court house for public viewing are not there! <br />CRITICAL to US! During the public comment period, if it was there for one day, then we were <br />asked to leave by the Attorneys and when we returned in a few days, it was no longer there. But, <br />even when we told you guys that we had not read it in August, you continued with your decision <br />without supplying MR. Morgan with a copy and since we had to object to SPECIFICS contained <br />within the renewal, that was kinda hard when we had nothing to read or look at.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.