My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-11-04_REVISION - M1998013
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1998013
>
2002-11-04_REVISION - M1998013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:51:53 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 5:14:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1998013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/4/2002
Doc Name
Proposed Amendment to MLRB permit
From
Concerned Citizens
To
Rocky Mountain Consultants Inc.
Type & Sequence
AM1
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
October 30, 2002 <br />ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. <br />1900 S. Sunset, Suite 1-F ~ ~ ~ p/t~ ~7 <br />Longmont, CO 80501 <br />Attention: Danna Ortiz <br />Dear Danna: <br /> <br />DECEIVED <br />NOV 0 4 2002 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />The residents adjacent to Hall-Irwin Corporation' a Shores Gravel Minine Oneratiorf~ <br />to Firestone are responding o to rooosed Amendment to MLRB 112 Reclamation <br />~P~t M-1998-013 o increase the size of the ponds. <br />j~-~1/f-C31 <br />Our response to the proposed amendment is not in the form of a protest, but does initiate <br />an update and review of the existing commitments of the Hall-Irwin Corporation to the <br />existing permit on file with the Colorado Mixed-Use Land Reclamation Boazd. <br />We, as the adjacent landowners, have noticed some lack of effort by Hall-Irwin to keep a <br />high quality of enforcing the commitments of the existing permits. <br />Listed below are our concerns that should be addressed before the above amendment is <br />unanimously accepted. <br />Dust Control - as the expansion of the ponds will be closer in proximity to our <br />homes, a more aggresive measure of control is needed. Wet mining is an option <br />to be considered. Also, a 25-yard barrier should definitely be part of the plan. <br />Truck Traffic -the original agreement of no gravel truck traffic on WCR 24 3/4 to <br />or from the mine has shown a slight breakdown in enforcement both in amount of <br />traffic and the speed of same. These two things need to be addressed. Thete are <br />small children on this road and there is no way that these trucks can stop in time <br />to avoid them at the speeds they are traveling. <br />Noise Control --both the level of noise and the hours of mining operations must <br />be a top priority. Closer proximity to our houses brings noise decibels to a new <br />height. The back-up beeper sounds are very prevalent now and can only get <br />worse. Also, we have reported machinery operating at times the mine was closed. <br />Beepers were heard at 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a. m. on several occasions. That <br />problem was solved at the time but we don't want future repeats of this problem. <br />The mine area has been open often on Sunday and we would like an explanation <br />as to why that is. We were told that this would happen only occasionally when <br />there were "emergencies." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.