My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV00212
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV00212
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:57:55 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 8:44:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1985043
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/21/2001
From
JOHN STANSFIELD
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM2
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.
/
2
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
03/21/2001 12:23; 036605849 <br />3. .y„,.,. • . <br />and accurate documentation. <br />JOHN STANSFIELD <br />• <br />Envlronmentsl Impacts The proposed amendment is not minor. It is a massive expansion <br />over present operations, with effects on two watersheds, Red Creek and Banta Gulch. Operations <br />would take place on steep slopes in an azca subject to severe weather events. Witness the severe <br />erosion in both drainages in spring, 1999, for example. Potential for water and air quality damage <br />iu the cxpansiou arcs is high, iu ury estimation. Yet, the aiiicudnient provides uv detail, as to how <br />such threats would be mitigaud on-site. <br />The map showing proposed operations in Take Avoidance Areas for Mexican spotted owl (a <br />Threatened species) habitat shows a greatly increased likelihood that a taking will occur. Yet, the <br />proposed amendment does not justify this action or document impacts, at all. As I understand, the <br />US Fisb and Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for the owl's well-being, has advised against <br />operations above 7, 500 fee[, as on the ridgeline rising to 7,800 feet south avf Red Creek, which the <br />amendment proposes to do. Without proper documentation I can only ask, "Is this good <br />environmental stewardship?" <br />impacts on Wildland Resources The inadequacy of the proposed amendment mates it <br />impossible to determine whether the expanded quarry will be a good neighbor to adjacent <br />wildlands or not. The proposal only raises many more questions, such as: <br />• Given steep uiTain and severe weather poundal, will quarry management practices be <br />adequate to prevent off-site damage to water quality and supply? <br />• What about air quality in the forests and meadows in the adjoining WSA and Suwardship <br />Trust lands? <br />• How about impacts on the Mexican spotted owl, as welt as other species who depend <br />upon adjacent lands? <br />• Will the quarry retain an undisturbed buffer within the perimeter of Suction 36 to help <br />mitigate impacts to the lands beyond the permitted area. <br />• What about the effects of expanded operations on tccreationists seeking "solitude and <br />primitive and unconfined forms of recreation", as stated in the Wilderness Act of ]9647 <br />Red Canyon quarry does not exist in isolation. It is one element in an environmental, social, and <br />economic network. In that network the quarry has a responsibility to be a good neighbor, as do I, <br />as do we all. Because itS operation is based almost solely on public resources, I feet the quarry <br />also has the responsibility to practice good stewazdship, not just in mineral extraction, but for all <br />public resources its operation directly effects. <br />Best wishes, <br />~.~ ~ ~ ~~ <br />John Stans£eld <br />PACE 02 <br />,+ <br />., 4y <br />'~-'~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.