ENFORCE26864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mr. Michael Long 5 January 21, 1994 provided in the permit application. Boundary marking requirements were not adopted until 1991. Summit marked the boundary of its permit area and has always confined its activities to the boundary as marked on the ground. The application form in 1977 provided that the affected area could be defined by reference to the nearest quarter quarter section, and the permit as approved provided that the legal description was 9.9 acres contained within the NW1/4 NE1/4 and the NElj4 NE1J4 of Section 35 (as well as another quarter quarter section which we have deleted). Consequently, we submit that there has been no damage to areas outside of the affected area, as the affected area is defined by the original permit. In response to the other matters referred to in the report, Summit does not currently have plans to discontinue mining the clay reserves and leaving a highwall. Summit is in the process of requesting a letter from the Water Quality Control Division reflecting the approval of the Brick Institute of America Group Stormwater Permit covering this operation and will provide that letter for inclusion in the file. With respect to the additional bonding, Summit would like to either obtain a release from the BLM of its two existing $10,000.00 bonds and increase its MLRB bond to the $11,300.00 amount, or have the Division or Board determine that because of the $20,000.00 in bonds provided to the BLM, together with the BLM reclamation plan, that the existing $2,500.00 bond is adequate for the approximately two acres of private land included in the affected area. Summit will request the Board to find that there was no violation. We would also ask that the Division accept the enclosed map as the technical revision replacing former Exhibit C to the permit application, and the enclosed legal description replacing former Exhibit A to that application. Since the enclosed are clarifications, have no effect on the approved reclamation plan, and do not contain any increase in the affected area, we feel it clearly falls within the definition of a technical revision under 1.1(11) of the regulations. Summit takes this matter very seriously. Since the inception of the law, Summit has never been cited for a possible violation by the Division or the Board on any of its several permits. Summit has not only complied with the requirements of the law, but with the spirit of the law, and has reclaimed pre-law areas at this Beaver mine, its 8-Mile mine, its Trinidad mine and at the Cedarwood mine operated by Red Mountain Clay Company.