My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL41062
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL41062
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:00:10 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:00:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004044
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/22/2004
Doc Name
Letter of Comments to Adams County
From
Mike 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.
/
11
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
5. Life of the Mine <br />AI explained in a public meeting that they estimate approximately 7.5 <br />million square yards of material to be mined from the Tucson South <br />location and that at its peak; the Tucson Pit was producing 1.25 million <br />square yards of material per year. At a rate of production of 1.25 million <br />yards of material per year, the mining should be able to be completed in 6 <br />years. AI is requesting 12 years to complete the mining and an <br />additional 5 years to complete the reclamation. <br />The period for the mining operation should be substantially less than 12 <br />years and AI should be required to do concurrent reclamation as areas are <br />mined. Accordingly, I believe an additional 5 years for reclamation is <br />totally unreasonable. <br />AI has demonstrated a history at the Tucson Pit of mining for a while and <br />then letting the mine sit idle for a substantial period of time and having <br />substantial areas "torn up" because they still have some material to be <br />removed from areas that are virtually complete. I understand various <br />business reasons for doing this; however, the problems it creates for the <br />neighborhood are substantial. With the size of the proposed mining area, <br />the problems with an idle mining operation will be magnified many times <br />those of the Tucson Pit. <br />The mine will be in a populated area (with nearby substantial residential <br />development currently occurring and planned) and is on one of the major <br />arterials into Brighton (RT 7). The shorter the time of disruption that will <br />be caused by the operation the better and I believe the County should <br />impose specific deadlines for completion of both the mining and the <br />reclamation in the various phases to ensure that potential problems are <br />minimized. The consequences to AI for not meeting the time tables <br />required by the County should be that they are no longer permitted to <br />mine in this area and have to complete all reclamation within a reasonable <br />period. <br />6. Imported Materials <br />I did not see any mention of imported materials in the information I <br />received from the County. However, AI included one sentence in their <br />filing with the DMG that states, "AI may process materials imported from <br />other sites." <br />I find this to be totally unacceptable and I believe the County should <br />specifically deny AI the right to import materials from other locations for <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.