My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58415
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:00:42 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:51:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
area and other factors in the permit application. Aggregate Industries has other <br />mining operations very close to the existing Tucson Pit. These mining operations <br />are in a less densely populated area and if they find it necessary to move <br />materials from one location to another, I believe they should be required to move <br />them to one of their operations that is not in an area as densely populated and as <br />publicly visible as the proposed permit area. I understand that importing material <br />for reclamation may be necessary -however, again, I do not believe it is <br />reasonable to allow them to import materials for processing. <br />4. The mining plan proposes to stockpile overburden behind my property in piles <br />approximately 300 feet long, 100 feet wide and 30 feet high. This area is on top <br />of a hill (as is my property) and next to the Brantner Ditch. This plan specifically <br />calls for NO chemical or vegetation control methods to be employed if these piles <br />are to be "active" for less than one year. Given that the operator can make these <br />piles active by moving one shovel of dirt per year, this storage method will lead to <br />erosion and runoff problems, significant dust generation and more than likely <br />weed problems that will affect not only the surrounding areas (including my <br />property) but also will affect the water quality of the Brantner Ditch. This method <br />of storage is unacceptable to me. I find that I do not trust the verbal statements <br />made by the operator, because a high ranking official of Aggregate Industries <br />specifically told me that the overburden would be stored east of the Brantner Ditch <br />and that the area behind my property would not be used for any purpose and <br />would probably be sold for development. By reading the proposed mining plan I <br />find that I have huge unmanaged dirt piles behind my properly. <br />5. I believe the reclamation plan is not only totally inadequately described in the <br />application but also totally inadequate. This may be a matter to be more <br />appropriately addressed by Adams County. <br />I understand that you do not consider air pollution, noise, traffic, land value impact, <br />wildlife issues and other "non mining" issues. I and others will take these issues up with <br />the appropriate agencies. The intent of this letter is not to burden your office and I hope <br />I have limited my comments to ones that are applicable to the purview of your office. <br />Thank you for consideration of the enclosed matters and if you have any questions, <br />please contact me at 303-659-4545. <br />Sincerely, <br />/~~i~"! <br />B. Michl Lloyd <br />CC: Wayne Muhler <br />Christopher La Rue <br />Craig Tessmer <br />Michael C. Refer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.