Laserfiche WebLink
Your Phone Number* <br /> Used only to follow up. <br /> 2489960736 <br /> Extension <br /> Alternate Phone Number <br /> Used only to follow up. <br /> Alternate Phone Extension <br /> Connection to Operation <br /> Select all that apply <br /> Land Owner of affected land Structure Owner within 200' of affected land <br /> Mineral Owner Nearby Resident <br /> Adjacent Land Owner Concerned Citizen <br /> Government Agency Other <br /> DESCRIPTION OF COMMENT OR OBJECTION <br /> (Please be as specific as possioiE, <br /> Comment/Objection Narrative <br /> re: proposed clay mining expansion <br /> Denver Brick advised the State Land Board in March,2020 that they would no longer actively mine the current <br /> 9.9 acre site for clay and their intention was to ultimately transfer the lease to General Shale. <br /> the letter is in the Jeffco case file. <br /> This leads me to ask why is DRMS even being asked to consider the 110-112 conversion permit? <br /> Unless something has changed,seems like General Shale is/or will be the eventual operator here.Wondering <br /> then, if General Shale has a different vision/strategy for clay mining on the hogback?Should General Shale <br /> come forward with a more ambitious mining scenario,the community impacts would be magnified,read even <br /> more undesirable.Seems odd to me that DRMS is even contemplating a permit conversion with an entity that <br /> has stated they are"moving on"? <br /> Setting the above aside for a moment,a few other observations/concerns <br /> impact of Blasting:At one time blasting associated with clay mining on the Hogback was specifically prohibited <br /> (Flintlock ODP)near this location. Now am I to believe blasting is apparently safe and acceptable according to <br /> Denver Brick's blasting expert?Is this a reversal of position on blasting?Has the blasting"expert"ever worked <br /> for Denver Brick?Will they work for General Shale in the future?Did the blasting"expert"address fossil <br /> disturbance? <br /> Archeological impacts: Fact, historically significant fossils exist on the Dakota Hogback.The North Golden <br /> Tract, immediately to the south of the SLB hogback acreage proposed for mining expansion is a National <br /> Natural Landmark. Interestingly,the SLB is aware of the existence of fossils on their 160 acres of hogback, <br /> immediately to the north of the North Golden Tract. Recently,the SLB even provided GIPS locations of certain <br /> confirmed fossils to Denver Brick.These locations are not however,shared publicly. <br /> Am I then being asked to believe that the mine operator will be"on their honor"to be certain not to disturb <br /> historical fossils when blasting?Seems like a case of the fox watching the hen house. Besides Denver Brick is <br /> presumably not the future operator anyway. <br /> Air quality impacts: In reading numerous citizen opposition comments, it appears there is significant community <br /> concern over airborne particulates which may pose a potential health hazard. Expanded surface mining and <br /> stockpiling will exacerbate this.Significant residential development now finds this mining activity in proximity to <br /> hundreds of homes. Expanded mining operations close to expanded residential and recreational activities is no <br /> longer the acceptable proposition it may have once been. <br /> The mine hasn't even been active for months and dust can be seen blowing toward residential areas east of SH <br />