My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-04-23_PERMIT FILE - M2013007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2013007
>
2013-04-23_PERMIT FILE - M2013007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:19:47 PM
Creation date
4/26/2013 8:33:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2013007
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
4/23/2013
Doc Name
Opposition Letter
From
Pam East
To
DRMS
Email Name
WHE
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
thick enough to block out the mid -day sun. The Mountain Studies Institute in Silverton, Colorado <br />documents these dust storms and measures the impact of dust layers in the snowpack of the San Juan <br />Mountains just 30 miles south of here. With such strong wind events which mostly blow from the west <br />and south, I am also concerned that excessive dust would be stirred up by a large gravel pit operation <br />and thus diminish the air quality of the nearby area. The landowners apparently have water rights <br />attached to that land that they propose to use to help control dust. I would argue that in drought years <br />that water needs to available for the farmers and ranchers who depend on it for their livelihoods rather <br />than being used for dust control. I also believe that toxins from an asphalt batch plant would diminish <br />the air quality to an even greater degree. <br />According to Montrose County land use records, there are currently approximately 10 gravel pits <br />surrounding the immediate municipality of Montrose. There are most likely more than that as those are <br />the only ones that have been put in place after the county began requiring special use permits in the <br />late 90's. At this time there is also a new pit that was granted a special use permit in 2007 near Highway <br />50 and Kinikin Road that has not yet begun operating. I would argue that for a municipality of just over <br />20,000 people, there are enough gravel pits currently to sustain the needs of the area. <br />I ask that you seriously consider all of these arguments and others before moving forward with this <br />application. Our county commissioners are very pro resource development so if it passes at the state <br />level I am certain that it will have no problem passing locally. Personally I am not anti development and <br />I am sympathetic to economic opportunity. However I do feel that development must be done in a <br />responsible manner and I do not feel as though an operation of this size and magnitude would be <br />responsible. It would have too many negative effects on the rural area and residents that surround it <br />which include a dangerous increase in the amount of traffic in an already hazardous area, air quality <br />issues and water use. There are also currently enough gravel pits in the area to qualify not granting an <br />application for a new one. <br />Thank you for your time in reading my concerns. <br />Sincerely, <br />Q,tiln G <br />/Pam East <br />pameast @centurylink.net <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.