2017-09-19_REVISION - M1977219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. September 14, 2017 Page 3 of 5 April 30, 2011 to meet the requirements of the Compliance Letter, and at the time of this writing, this firm is unaware of any resolution with respect to the Compliance Letter. Summit's application makes two references to exposed groundwater. In both Exhibit G and Exhibit M, Summit contends that no ground water will be exposed at the Mine. Such an assertion directly contradicts the substance of the Compliance Letter and the application provides no closure to the potential exposed water compliance issue. In light of the confusion surrounding exposed ground water at the Mine, Ms. Stuart-Bullock requests that Summit formally addresses the topic at the subsequent public hearing. Absent a plausible explanation for the application's silence on the topic of exposed groundwater, the DRMS should deny the application for failure to comply with Rules 6.3.30) and 6.4.5(2)(c). IV. The Application does not include a description of the Mine expansion's effect on wildlife of the area as required by the Rules and Regulations. Rule 6.4.8(d) requires Summit to include "a description of the general effect during and after the proposed operation on the existing wildlife of the area, including but not limited to temporary and permanent loss of food and habitat, interference with migratory routes, and the general effect on the wildlife from increased human activity, including noise." Summit received a letter dated December 27, 2016 from Mr. Michael Trujillo of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department (the "CPW Letter") and concluded that the Mine expansion should not increase the impact to wildlife in the area. A closer review of the CPW Letter uncovers real wildlife concerns not addressed in the application. Mr. Trujillo notes that the "surrounding area is abundant with wildlife, and has a variety of both big game and small game species, and numerous migratory bird species, including raptors." Further, Mr. Trujillo affirms that the CPW is "strongly committed to minimizing raptor disturbance" and recommends that Summit comply with attached guidelines and buffer zones. Summit's application neglects to provide any description of the general effect on the wildlife referenced in the CPW Letter. Summit's application is void of any discussion regarding raptor disturbance, a topic very clearly important to the CPW. Exhibit H does not reference or include the very guidelines and buffer zones recommended in the CPW Letter. Summit's application is incomplete without a description of the general effect on existing wildlife and without a premeditated plan to minimize raptor disturbance.