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 /> 16. The Mining Plan narrative discusses the sandstone will be drilled and shot as described in <br /> the approved Blasting Plan. Please provide this blasting plan for review based on the <br /> AM-03 proposal. <br /> The Blasting Plan as submitted will not change just because the <br /> area where blasting takes place changes . In reviewing the <br /> approved plan we found it was consistent with the current <br /> blasting activities at the mine and have been used successfully <br /> since 2002 . The only change is that Summit Brick and Tile <br /> currently uses Buckley Power or another local certified licensed <br /> blasting contractor, since the one in the plan has retired. <br /> Because the Blasting Plan is in the record, (filed on July 22 , <br /> 2002) according to Rule 1 . 10 . 1 (1) , I do not need to re-submit <br /> that information. However, I failed to reference the specific <br /> location in the file so for reference, it is listed under the <br /> NAME heading in Laserfiche as REP33597 . A copy is attached for <br /> your review. <br /> 17. The Applicant states for structures inside the permit boundary, a 200-foot setback will be <br /> maintained from buildings and an adequate distance for other structures. Please explain <br /> what other structures will have a setback and provide details on the "adequate distance" <br /> for the other structures. Please also provide details regarding if there are setbacks <br /> associated with any structures located outside of the permit boundary, if applicable. <br /> There are five houses on the mine not owned by Summit Brick. The <br /> Mining Plan Map shows that the minimum setback from all of the <br /> five houses is 205 feet, in particular the Langdon house in Area <br /> S and the Ballard house in Area F. The other structures are <br /> temporary barns, roads and fences or water wells . If a fence or <br /> road crosses a mining area and is disturbed temporarily during <br /> mining it will be replaced. If it lies outside a active <br /> excavation area a minimum 50 foot setback is planned. Review of <br /> the maps show that the mining setback north of the existing mine <br /> area along Siloam Road varies from 170 feet at its closest to 975 <br /> feet at the furthest . The structures in this band are below the <br /> final mine floor adjacent to them. Only the Ballard and Langdon <br /> water wells, that are in the house setback areas, are less then <br /> 200 feet from the excavation area. Around these yards the slopes <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.