Laserfiche WebLink
Lee B. & Kathleen Worthington <br />RE: SerFer Pit Letter of Response <br />July 3, 2008 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />As shown in the mining site plan of the DRMS permit application, setbacks from the <br />Poudre River have been established to further reduce any adverse affects to the adjacent <br />wildlife and human communities. <br />Comment 8, Length of Permit: If the Board approves the proposed operation in any manner, <br />the length of time permitted for the operation should be severely limited..A four year permit <br />period would extend the adverse effects and agrievement to us and other residents in the area. <br />This length of time would further impact our property values. The proposal site is approximately <br />forty four acres. The resources and experience of the proposed operator are significant as it <br />operates Wellington Downs, a major mining facility within approximately 3.7 miles of the <br />proposal site. If an operating permit is to be granted we suggest, at a maximum, an operating <br />permit not to exceed one year with no onsite processing or storage. Additionally, if an operating <br />permit is granted, a definite timeline should be set for operations and reclamation at the site in <br />order to minimize the affect on us, the neighborhoods and surrounding areas. <br />According to the DRMS if an application for a permit is approved by the Board of the <br />Division, the approved permit is for the life of the mining operation and cannot have an <br />expiration date. Revocation and forfeiture of the mine may only occur due to an <br />uncorrected violation of the acts, the rules and regulations, or the terms of the approved <br />permit. While there is no limit on the life of a permit approved by the board, the life of <br />the mine should be approximately four years. <br />Comment 9, Processing and Storage of Materials: If the Board approves the proposed <br />operation in any manner, the onsite processing and storage of onsite and offsite mined materials <br />should be prohibited or severely limited. The size of the proposed operation would seem <br />inappropriate for such activities. The location neighborhood and environmental concerns traffic <br />and other issues would be even more severely, dramatically and negatively impacted by onsite <br />processing and storage. <br />The processing and storage of the material will not be performed offsite in order to <br />ensure efficiency. On-site processing will provide less congestion to surrounding roads, <br />as the trucks will be able to come and go at a time of low traffic. It is not feasible for all <br />parties involved to haul away the fill and then bring it back for reclamation. <br />Comment 10, Aesthetics: A gravel pit operation is unattractive and dangerous, especially if it is <br />allowed to operate in a populated area. If the Board approves the proposed operation in any <br />manner, detailed professional landscaping, safety, security and aesthetic plans acceptable to all <br />parties should be required. <br />It is unclear which aesthetic standards to which the objector is referring. Noise <br />abatement measures will also limit the visual impact of the mining operations. In the <br />absence of enforceable guidelines for aesthetics, Connell Resources, Inc. intends to <br />complete mining operations in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner, and <br />reclaim the proposed site to an aesthetically pleasing area once operations have been <br />completed.