REV106859 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Thomas A. Schreiner December 20, 1996 Page 2 4. We wish it be made clear that the proposed haul road, as finally designed and approved, will be wholly constructed prior to and as a precondition to commencement of operations i~r the expanded area. 5. The reclamation plan, and financial arrangements therefore, may not be adequate. 6. We remain concerned over the adequacy of the blasting plan due to damage that has already occurred to our homes. 7. We have serious concerns that the application lacks an adequate plan for the control of fugitive dust escaping t:he area to be mined, and by reason of the transported materials i`rom the site by either the new haul road or Tunnel Drive. 8. Expanded quarry operations will presumably result irc an increased number of trucks entering and exiting, and travelling upon, the affected land. 9. The public notice and public filings requirements irc connection with the permit amendment application may not have been properly and completely followed. In particular, with the additions and revisions to the application being made as part of the review process we are concerned that the public has Yiad inadequate continuing notice of the application. 10. While we understand that your agency may take the position that the hours and days of operation are beyond the juri::diction of your agency, we remain very concerned with this issue, and object to operation of the quarry during unreasonable hoL.rs and for seven days a week. In reiteration and/or in addition specific observations noted in Rita Everett's letter dated November 18, 1996 and the Smiths' letter dated November 22, 1996, the following specific observations are made: 1. It is our belief and understanding that the stone water detention ponds that are already supposed to exist on the property as part of the presently permitted quarry operation have never been finally constructed or maintained in compliance with the SWMP we understand to presently be in effect.