My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-07-29_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2010-07-29_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:17:00 PM
Creation date
7/29/2010 12:54:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/29/2010
Doc Name
Response to Adequacy Review No. 3 (Response to Morgan Property Issues)
From
Western Fuels Colorado
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
PR6
Email Name
SB1
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.
/
94
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
Comment No. 3: <br />Page 2.03.11 #9 Dirk Richardson. This is wrong, it should be Dirk Richards. <br />WFC Response: Noted. <br />Comment No. 4: <br />#44 Patty Morgan has not been mined nor is she going to be mined. <br />WFC Response: Noted. <br />Comment No. 5: <br />Page 2.03-28 "no Alluvial valley floors." There are several Alluvial Valley <br />Floors within the permit area and is documented as such. <br />WFC Response: <br />This statement was made by the Office of Surface Mining in its 1983 compliance <br />review, not by WFC. WFC is aware of no contrary documentation, and the <br />commenter does not cite any such documentation. WFC will consider any <br />relevant documentation brought to its attention and will make any appropriate <br />revisions to this statement if required by DRMS. <br />Comment No. 6: <br />2.03-30 How did they get this permit renewal to 2013' The have broken <br />numerous laws and violated rules and regulations, how did they get this <br />permit renewal #5 approved when we objected in 2007 to it and when we <br />have never received a copy of it. And how did they get by with putting "NOT <br />APPLICABLE" when asked if there was any prime farmland? <br />WFC Response: <br />This comment is the first of many that addresses the issue of Prime Farmlands <br />on the Morgan Property. Since 2008, through a combination of PR 05 (approved <br />October 8, 2009) and TR-57 (submitted March 28, 2008 and provisionally <br />approved March 4, 2009), WFC' has been treating all soils salvaged from the <br />Morgan Property as Prime Farmland soils (even before these permitting actions <br />required WFC to do so), and these requirements have all been carried through <br />into the current PR 06. Contrary to the statement made in the comment, no <br />objections were made to PR 05, and the objections of the Morgan family to TR- <br />57 were withdrawn on April 22, 2009, at which point the approval of TR-57 <br />became final. <br />The referenced statement that Prime Farmland requirements were not applicable <br />was based upon the soil surveys available at the time the statement was made, <br />which subsequent investigation established as erroneous. WFC does not agree
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.