My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE125435
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE125435
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:22:50 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 1:54:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1993080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
2/28/1994
Doc Name
MEMO CALHAN CLAY PIT FN M-93-808 LIST OF INDIVIDUAL OBJECTORS & THEIR ISSUES OF CONCERN
From
BOB OSWALD
To
BRUCE HUMPHRIES
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
<br />MEMORANDUM <br />* iii iiiiiiiiniiiiii <br />DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1994 <br />TO: BRUCE HUMPHRIES <br />FROM: BOB OSWALD <br />RE: CALHAN CLAY PIT, FILE NO. M-93-080, LIST OF INDIVIDUAL <br />OBJECTORS AND THEIR ISSUES OF CONCERN <br />1. Mr. Terry Galbreath, local landowner <br />(letters received by DMG on 12/3/93 and 12/14/93) <br />A. Water quality and quantity on nearby Bracket Creek <br />B. Water quality and quantity on nearby water wells <br />C. Noise and dust pollution <br />D. Daily scale of mining operations <br />E. Post-mining surface contours <br />F. Schedule of reclamation (during or after mining) <br />G. Erosion control <br />H. Unsightliness <br />I. wildlife, especially deer, antelope and aquatic <br />J. Effect on community of yet another local mine <br />K. Road damage by increased truck and equipment traffic <br />(Summit has responded to every point in both letters. I <br />spoke with Mr. Galbreath. He seemed to indicate that <br />virtually nothing short of abandoning this proposal would <br />satisfy him.) <br />2. Ms. Ruth Morehead, local landowner <br />(letter received by DMG on 12/23f93) <br />Her fears were that mining would occur on her land, that <br />it would never be reclaimed and the pasture would be <br />ruined (all this without her giving permission or <br />receiving compensation). However, she was not referring <br />to the actual land to be used by the applicant. (Summit <br />responded that her land would not be mined.) <br />3. Bennie and Thelma Kobilan, local landowners <br />(letter received by DMG on 2/17/94, through George Wing, Esq.) <br />A. Blowing dirt, sand and dust <br />B. Noise, dust and air pollution creating health hazard <br />C. Duration of operation (till 2040) unreasonably long <br />D. Site may never be reclaimed <br />E. Effects on wildlife and grazing livestock from dust <br />F. Road degradation and dust from heavy truck traffic <br />(We have not yet seen the response from Summit for this <br />letter. I spoke with Ms. Kobilan, who was also worried <br />that the mining would be on her property. Summit sent <br />her, an adjacent landowner, a notice of the proposed <br />mine. I told her that her land will not be mined. After <br />this breakthrough, she seemed to not be so concerned <br />about the other issues.) (dmgcorr2.94/11) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.