My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE109312
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
100000
>
PERMFILE109312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:02:03 PM
Creation date
11/24/2007 6:05:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
m2004044
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
10/4/2004
Doc Name
Objectors and Issues
From
DMG
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.
/
2
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
MEMO <br />Date: Oct. 4, 2004 ~~ <br />To: Sandy Brown,"Pre-G~~onference Officer <br />From: Larry Oehler <br />Re: OBJECTORS AND ISSUES, Aggregate ustries- <br />Tucson South Resource- M-2004-044 <br />s~~~P~~o,~f ,w <br />Sfeve 13ro~.~.`z f ~ '~ys~ pvw-~~s <br />Y,... ai ~ S~o7~/ <br />WCR, Ina 112c Permit Application, <br />Attached are copies of letters of comment and objection to Aggregate Industries' application for <br />a 112c permit for the proposed Tucson South Resource gravel operation (File No M-2004-044). <br />The letters from Mr. Muhler, Mr. Lloyd and the City of Brighton each contain the same list of 10 <br />items of complaint. These items aze in regard to another of Aggregate's operations, the Tucson <br />Resource Mine, permit No. M-1991-140, which is immediately north of and adjacent to the <br />application area. After the 10-item lists of complaint, they each list their comments/objections to <br />the application. Ms. Kent's letter is a mixture of complaints regarding M-1991-140 and concerns <br />about the application. I have not yet contacted her to see if she is objecting or just providing <br />comments. She does not have a listed phone number. Since she is concerned about the potential <br />for damage to her property, I have listed her as an objector. The others have all stated that they <br />want to be considered objectors. <br />I have listed below what I believe are the objector's issues regarding the application. I have <br />combined Mr. Muhler's and The City of Brighton's issues into one list since they are essentially <br />the same. The City has one additional issue that I have listed sepazately. <br />Wayne C. Muhler and City of Brighton <br />1. Aggregate Industries proposes to stockpile overburden in piles approximately 300 feet <br />long, 100 feet wide and 30 feet high. This storage method will lead to significant erosion <br />/ runoff problems and real dust generation. <br />2. Aggregate will only grade the azea around the pit, plant "dry land gasses" and plant <br />some cottonwood trees. Not much of a reclamation plan (erosion control? wildlife <br />habitat? surface water impact? Etc.) <br />3. Aggregate proposes to remove approximately 27 acres from the current mine (Tucson <br />Resource Mine M-1991-140) and include this area in the new mine. The area will not be <br />reclaimed for up to 28 years. Not a good plan. <br />City of Brighton <br />1. The City requests that Aggregate Industries evaluate the impacts on the Morgan Smith <br />Nature azea, which is quite close to this mining area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.