My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-11-14_REVISION - M1977219
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977219
>
2017-11-14_REVISION - M1977219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:40:54 PM
Creation date
11/15/2017 3:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977219
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/14/2017
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Environment, Inc.
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM3
Email Name
ERR
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
Summit Brick and Tile Company Fox No 1 Clay Pit <br /> M-1977-219 -Adequacy Response#1 November 13, 2017 <br /> II . This is not in the states purview and is a local government <br /> issue as noted in bold italics at the bottom of the notice letter <br /> and Public Notice posted in the local paper. However, Summit <br /> Brick and Tile is only expanding the permitted area to preserve a <br /> valuable natural resource and not expanding the activities at the <br /> mine beyond normal growth dictated by the marked demands . I <br /> suggest this is not a valid objection. <br /> III This is a generic letter distributed by the Division of <br /> Reclamation, Mining and Safety to all operators in 2010 and was <br /> intended to advise a mine operator with exposed ground water that <br /> they needed to comply with State laws governing exposed <br /> groundwater. This mine does not expose ground water, and it only <br /> accumulates surface stormwater for short periods of time . They <br /> misunderstood the intent of the letter and since it did not apply <br /> to the Fox No 1 Clay Pit, no exposed ground water, they might <br /> have figured out that for that reason there was no requirement to <br /> respond by April 30, 2011 . <br /> They are not correct, we do mention ground water in Exhibit G and <br /> to quote what was said "No ground water will be exposed at this <br /> mine. . . " and again in Exhibit M we said " . . .where ground water <br /> will not be exposed. " I ' m not sure how I could have made it <br /> clearer then to shout NO GROUND WATER WILL BE OR HAS BEEN EXPOSED <br /> AT THIS MINE! We believe this has been adequately addressed in <br /> the permit documents on file with the Division. <br /> IV, This is the fourth time that the Division of Wildlife has <br /> reviewed the mine and each time they note there will be little <br /> impact to wildlife on and around the site . Mining commenced in <br /> the 1950 ' s, nearly 65 years ago and there have been no <br /> detrimental effects to wildlife on the area. Mike Trujillo <br /> understands that there will only be limited area disturbed at one <br /> time and in most cases what we have now, is the maximum. This <br /> means that of the total permit area only 3 . 8% will be disturbed <br /> at one time . This leaves the remaining area open for use by the <br /> wildlife and Raptor' s on the mine. For this reason, as CPW <br /> states, mining will still have minimal impacts to wildlife on and <br /> around the area. Mr Trujillo recommendations and suggestions are <br /> just that . We can choose to follow or reject as we wish. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.