My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-09-29_PERMIT FILE - M2009056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009056
>
2011-09-29_PERMIT FILE - M2009056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:43:29 PM
Creation date
10/6/2011 12:04:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009056
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/29/2011
Doc Name
Draft Environmental Assessment
From
BLM Royal Gorge Field Office
To
DRMS
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
98
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
Public Comments <br />Scoping Meeting and Comment Period during September /October 2009 <br />Fairplay — Destiny Placer Mine EA (DOI- BLM- CO- 200 -2009- 0099 -EA) <br />Below is a summary of comments we received during the public comment period in 2009. The <br />responses to all comments have been incorporated into the analysis of the Fairplay — Destiny Placer <br />Mine EA document. <br />1. AIR QUALITY — 9 comments were received and are summarized below: <br />a. Residents will be negatively affected, in terms of quality of life, by dust pollution <br />resulting from increased heavy equipment and truck traffic. <br />b. There is no way to buffer nearby residences from dust. <br />c. The dust pollution associated with this proposal will cause changes in the elk migration <br />and herd areas. <br />2. GEOLOGIC AND MINERAL RESOURCES — 5 comments were received and are summarized <br />below; <br />a. Minerals are only where the deposits exist and therefore the BLM should avoid taking <br />any action that would foreclose access to scarce mineral reserves. <br />b. 1872 Mining laws cannot be relaxed or ignored without endangering abilities to make <br />use of natural resources. <br />3. SOILS — None <br />4. WATER <br />a. QUALITY, SURFACE AND GROUND — 4 comments were received and are <br />summarized below: <br />i. Mining this land would potentially contaminate scarce water resources. <br />ii. If our water is contaminated for any reason, people will be without water or <br />drinking water and who will help then? <br />iii. What happens when naturally occurring, potentially harmful chemicals are <br />exposed through the processes of open pit mining? Will these chemicals leach <br />into existing water supplies or groundwater? If so, who will reverse it and how <br />can it be rectified? <br />b. QUANTITY, SURFACE AND GROUND — 7 comments were received and are <br />summarized below: <br />i. The amount of water required to operate the mine may have an impact on <br />homeowner's wells and the aquifer. What would be the recourse if these wells <br />dried up? <br />ii. This proposal might take water illegally from the water table. <br />iii. What is the depth of the water table or water aquifer? <br />5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES <br />a. INVASIVE, NON - NATIVE SPECIES — None <br />b. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES — None <br />c. VEGETATION — None <br />d. WETLANDS & RIPARIAN ZONES — None <br />e. WILDLIFE, AQUATIC — 1 comment was received and is summarized below: <br />56 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.