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
processing within the proposed Tucson South operation. The only <br />materials that AI should be allowed to import are those they can <br />demonstrate are necessary for reclamation. AI has other mining <br />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 <br />to move them to one of their operations that is not in an area as densely <br />populated and as publicly visible as the proposed permit area. <br />7. Reclamation <br />I believe the reclamation description AI provided to both the County and <br />the DMG is totally inadequately described and totally inadequate. <br />The County should require AI to submit a much more detailed reclamation <br />plan and should require AI to concurrently reclaim areas as they are <br />mined. Also the County should provide a definition of "concurrent <br />reclamation" so there is no question as to what reclamation needs to be <br />done and when it needs to be completed. AI's "plan" should include <br />drawings and a much more specific description of the reclamation to be <br />performed. The County should include reclamation deadlines as part of <br />the conditions to the conditional use permit. I also believe the County <br />should require AI to perform more extensive reclamation in the form of <br />trees and vegetation than is currently being proposed by AI. I believe the <br />reclaimed area should be similar to a park. <br />8. Item 3 -Grading of area west of Water Storage Reservoir B <br />The area west of Water Storage Reservoir B is the area adjacent to my <br />property. AI proposes to stockpile overburden in this area in piles <br />approximately 300 feet long, 100 feet wide and 30 feet high. This area is <br />on top of a hill (as is my properly) and next to the Brantner Ditch. To <br />reach this area, AI has to cross both the Brighton Ditch and the Brantner <br />Ditch. AI's mining plan specifically calls for NO chemical or vegetation <br />control methods to be employed if these piles are to be "active" for less <br />than one year. Given that AI can make these piles active by moving one <br />shovel of dirt per year, this storage method will lead to erosion and runoff <br />problems, significant dust generation and weed problems that will affect <br />not only the surrounding areas (including my property) but also will affect <br />the water quality of the Brantner Ditch. Weed seeds, sediment, etc. <br />making it into the Brantner Ditch will affect properties for many miles up <br />stream from this location. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.