My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-02-04_REVISION - M1981185
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1981185
>
2011-02-04_REVISION - M1981185
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:58:07 PM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:03:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981185
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
2/4/2011
Doc Name
Objections to CN-01
From
DRMS
To
R Squared Incorporated
Type & Sequence
CN1
Email Name
WHE
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.
/
6
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
proper, especially when you consider the chronic non-compliance with the Division, and <br />the non-compliance with a multitude of other agencies. I think this declaration also <br />applies to the DRMS approach to processing mining applications and assessments of <br />mining sites. I question if is proper to allow violation after violation, no matter how <br />serious. Is it proper to incorporate these violations into a permit and compromise the <br />Division's process, risk the surrounding environment, and force the people of Colorado to <br />pay for it? And is it proper for the Division to give an applicant a bigger permit when <br />they could not even meet the requirements for a smaller one with 4 years of the Divisions <br />assistance? It seems to me that legislative declaration section 34-32-102 needs to be <br />followed a little more closely. <br />For the past 5 years, I have observed Wildcat's mining unregulated development of <br />two mining sites. Since I live directly across the river from the sites it has been easy to <br />see that the DRMS needs to address some of the regulations that don't appear to stop a <br />mining company from redefining compliance what the confidence that these excesses <br />will be overlooked or added to their permit. <br />In conclusion, my expectation will be that mining development is controlled by the <br />Division and not by the miners. I appreciate your time and attention to my concerns and <br />would like this letter to be considered part of appropriate files. <br />Respectfully submitted; <br />Phil Vigil <br />cc: Governor John W. Hickenlooper <br />Ginny Brannon <br />Jeff Fugate <br />Steve Shuey <br />Wally Erickson <br />Victoria Schmidt
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.