Why are we opposed to the revised mining plan?
The following provisions of the revised mining plan are unacceptable:
- The revised plan expands the strip mining of Azusa's
- More acreage of undisturbed hillsides are mined.
- Larger amounts of rock are mined, resulting in increased dust, pollution, and noise.
- The revised plan destroys one of Azusa's most scenic ridges - Van Tassel Ridge.
- The revised plan ignores recommendations from the AQMD on increased dust monitoring stations.
- The Development Agreement allows Vulcan Materials to avoid doing enhanced reclamation (micro-benching) as a result of "any scientific, technical and geotechnical factors or events" skirting reclamation through micro-benching. At that point, Vulcan merely pays a $1 million fine and submits a revised reclamation plan to return to reclamation using 40 ft benches.
- Language in the Development Agreement is contradictory. The Development Agreement says that the revegetation standard is to be 100% of existing, unmined slopes. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) says that the revegetation standard is to be 40% of the revegetated existing benches ("Mayan steps")
- The Development Agreement requires "substantial compliance" with the terms of the CUP. The term is never defined, but is obviously less than full compliance.