Laserfiche WebLink
Specific Comments on AI's Filing with Adams County: <br />1. Timing of Approval by Division of Minerals and Geology ("DMG': <br />The reason for my mentioning the Tucson Pit is that in August 2004, <br />several neighbors filed letters of comment with the DMG (my letter of <br />comment is incorporated herein by reference and attached hereto as <br />Exhibit A) including items that the neighbors believed to be violations of <br />AI's Tucson Pit mining plan, potentially dangerous conditions that exist at <br />the Tucson Pit and comments regarding the proposed Tucson South <br />operation. In response to these letters, DMG performed an inspection of <br />the Tucson Pit operation, on October 12, 2004 conducted aPre-hearing <br />Conference and issued aPre-hearing Order, which the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board (the "Board") will consider at a hearing presently <br />anticipated to be held in mid December 2004. This Pre-hearing Order (a <br />copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B) outlines 6 items of concern <br />to be considered by the Board. Item number 3 in this order states the <br />question "Was the Applicant in violation at the time of application for the <br />27 acres to be transferred from Permit No. M-1191-140?" If the Board <br />finds that AI was in violation at the Tucson Pit at the time of application <br />for the proposed Tucson South operation, AI may not receive approval <br />from the DMG for the proposed Tucson South operation until such time <br />that the violations are corrected. At the Pre-hearing Conference, AI <br />representatives stated they would extend the date for hearing on their <br />application with DMG in order to resolve issues with neighbors. To date, I <br />am not aware of AI contacting any neighbors to resolve any of the issues <br />raised. <br />2. Inconsistencies: <br />There are numerous inconsistencies between the information AI filed with <br />the DMG for their Permit Application and the information filed with the <br />County. Some of these inconsistencies include the overall timing AI is <br />estimating to complete mining and reclamation and the order of mining of <br />different phases. As the filing with DMG and the County presently exist, <br />AI has the ability to almost do as they please. I find this totally <br />unacceptable and I believe AI should be required to be specific in their <br />filing and not present alternatives that have vastly different consequences <br />for the surrounding area and neighbors. <br />3 <br />