PERMFILE58415

• Permit No: m2004044
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/9/2004
• Doc Name: Objection
• From: B. Michl Lloyd
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

6. The main haul road is not the size of crushed rock called for in the plan
and thus does not provide the dust and mud control assumed in the plan.
7. Spoil and stockpiles do not appear to be aligned with the Floodway.
8. Berms (if you would like to call them that) are not in accordance with the
plan.
9. Highwalls (30 to 40 feet high and not at a 2-lgrade) are present. These
walls pose a very real danger considering the condition of the fence and
that there are children in the area.
1O.For quite some time, it does not appear that there has been any dust
control in the form of watering of roads, stock piles or spoil piles. Also,
there does not appear to have been any planting of grass on areas that
have not been active for over a year.
In general, the Tucson Pit is an eyesore and possibly a significantly dangerous area. Only
an inspection by your office can determine whether the above are violations or whether
there are other possible violations of Permit M-91-140 that may be present within the
mining area.
Because of the above, I request that your office hold the operators request for Permit M-
2004-044 in abeyance until such time that a full inspection of the Tucson Pit is completed
and all compliance issues are handled to your office's satisfaction.
As to the operator's request for Permit M-2004-044, I have numerous concerns, some of
which I believe fall within the purview of your office. As I mentioned above, the area
covered under this request is adjacent to the existing Tucson Pit and a portion of the area
within the permit area is adjacent to my property. The concerns I would like to bring to
your attention at this point are as follows:
1. The operator (Aggregate Industries) is proposing to remove approximately 27
acres from the Tuccon Pit and include this acreage under Permit M-2004-044.
This area is to be reclaimed as wet land and upland meadow. As I understand it,
a substantial portion of this area has been and is being currently mined. I have
not heard an explanation from the operator as to why they want to do this;
however, the reason that is obvious to me is that they want to defer the
substantial reclamation cost for this area as long as possible. To me, this is totally
unacceptable -especially considering that Permit M-91-044 requires concurrent
reclamation of the areas as they are mined. The operator should be required to
complete the current area under permit as is required by the permit and should
not be allowed to move this area to a new permit and have the ability to take 27
years to reclaim it.
2. The operator explained to us in a public meeting that they estimate approximately
7.5 million square yards of material to be mined. I believe the time that they are
requesting to mine this amount of material is unreasonably excessive. This mine
is in a populated area and on one of the major arterials into Brighton. I cannot
believe that anyone would want to put up with an operation like this for 27 years.
3. In the first paragraph of the processing section of their application, the operator
states as follows - "AI may process materials imported from other sites.'Z
do not know whether your office can deny the operator permission to import
materials from other sites for processing within the proposed permit area;
however, I find this to be totally unacceptable given the location of the permit