20210812_E-Portman_Public_Records

Kastrinsky, Josh
Subject: FW: Request access to super secret box of mining commission documents your told
me about last Friday, being held by another department
From: Ervin Portman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 10:52 PM
To: Miller, David <[e-mail]>; Wrenn, Brian L <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wilson, Reid <[e-mail]>; Michael, Jeff <[e-mail]>; Patterson, Dwayne
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Masemore, Sushma <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] FW: Request access to super secret box of mining commission documents your told me about last
Friday, being held by another department
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
From: Ervin Portman
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 10:40 PM
Subject: Request access to super secret box of mining commission documents your told me about last Friday, being held
by another department
Mr. Miller
Last Friday when I visited your office you showed me the mining commission documents from 1981, which
you placed into a red binder.
When I reviewed them in your office I commented that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated
January 27, 1981 was new, as it was the as amended and corrected version from April 3,1981.

In prior reviews of the mining file for permit 92-10 this document was missing.
I asked where you obtained this revised document as amended and corrected as it was missing before I
discovered it in the state archives in January of this year.
That's when you told me "somebody" found a old box of public records from the mining commission and it is
being held under lock and key by some other department of state government.
I'm glad to know more documents have been discovered and as these are public documents and you are aware
of their existence I request you either tell me the department holding the documents and at what location so I
can get a copy of them.
It was not available in 2018 when you agreed to modify the permit under the assumption that Director Conrad
must have just made a typo over the word sooner in the permit issued May 13,1981, as asserted by the
applicant.
I'm sure you also now know there were many differences between the permit issued and the final decision of
the mining commission;
1. The permit allowed berms be built in the buffer, the final decision did not.
2. The permit allowed development north of the 10 year line, The final decision said this area should not be
used for commercial purposes.
701

Excerpt from the Final decision of the MINING Commission
Condition No. 1 - f+uffer ?one Fla:,
1. The extent of the completely ur;.rstarbed Buffer zone to be maintained between
the pork Louradary durin4 the 10 ywr peraait shall be as indicated on t.w
revised plan and modified by Exceptions 2. J, and r listed M fare : of
Vake Stone Cor;>orvtioo's=esorand•ae of March to, 0111, except all of the
area north of the ten-year Duffer line shall bo left as a natural buffer
zone and not Ne devoloped or altered for coseercinl purposes.
2, berm dissensions ehkll be :.o less than indicated on Wake Stone Corporation's
rovised sites plan arA r..y be hi7hor and longor than stv-n, oxoept t%o born
shall not encroach on the µreawnt buffer zone.
But to me it seems you are selectively enforcing the mining commission final decision, by changing some
things that benefit the applicant but ignoring the other changes that would benefit the state and the park, in
effect changing the compromise that caused Director Conrad to issue the permit, and not appeal the final
decision.
Should you either change the permit to match the mining commission decision or leave the permit as issued?
How can you just change what benefited the applicant and ignore the compromises Director Conrad agreed to
when he issued the permit?
It seems to be a case of selective and perhaps capricious enforcement.
Could you help me understand why you feel this is appropriate and the right decision, as you said Friday you
are convinced gutting the sunset clause was the correct decision.
Thanks, I look forward to seeing the contents of the new "super secret" box of public records.
Ery Portman
Sent from my Whone