NEIGHBORS-TRYING-TO-FIGHT-INJUSTICE

FROM DEAN AND SIGNE JOHNSON 500' FROM MINE SITE 300' FROM MINE ROAD

Dear Mr. Lane,

Thank you for your kind assistance this morning regarding the documents relating to the proposed mine petition for Crazy Acres Inc. and Yahara Minerals. We have gone over the information and we are in complete shock. We received no proper and legal notice including any date for the Town of Albion meeting, and in conversation with our neighbors, including but not limited to the Bussey's, the Rosebaum's, the Klubertanz's, and the Opitz's, none of these neighbors had received any information regarding a date for the town meeting, and none were aware of the scope of this mine. I have forwarded to them the information you sent to me, they are unanimous in complete objection to this proposed zoning change, and many will be forwarding them to you this afternoon. Many are out of town, and one has just lost his wife and is understandably not able to attend. My husband is planning to appear tonight for our objection in person. Below please find a detailed response in objection from us as well, please forward this complete email and all other objections you receive to the zoning board prior to the meeting tonight as you told me you would in our conversation this morning. Thank you again for your kind assistance.

Dean and Signe Johnson 983 State Road 73 Edgerton, Wi. Town of Albion

Dear Dane Clounty Zoning Board,

Today we received the notice of the zoning meeting regarding the mine on the property of Crazy Acres Inc. to be operated by their agent Yahara Minerals. We object to this zoning change and/or any mining or mineral extraction operation in this proposed area, for many reasons. We purchased our adjoining property in 1986, it is our home, and we choose this property for many specific reasons, but most importantly that it was represented to us by James Wileman owner of Crazy Acres Inc. and owner of our property at that time as a quiet farming area, we were specifically assured that there would be no change in future use of the surrounding property, that it would remain as tillable farming acreage for the production of crops. We have owned our property since 1986 and invested our entire lives savings in the property, we feel this project will destroy our right to quiet enjoyment and use of our property, as well as destroy the value of our property. We were served with no notice of the date of the Township meeting on this matter from either Crazy Acres Inc., Yahara Minerals, or the Town of Albion, the only mailing we and others received contained no meeting date, no petition number, and no description as to the scope of this project. We and other immediate neighbors are shocked, we believe that this notice was deliberately vague and deliberately omitted the important and required information in a deliberate attempt to avoid legal objections being filed, and legal representation obtained by neighbors of this proposed mineral extraction. We received the notice of tonights meeting only this morning from Dane County Planning & Development, postmarked last Thursday, we are only aware of the meeting because we happened to return from out of town this a.m., neither we nor none of our neighbors have received any other notice with a meeting date, this has not been proper notice, we have been given no reasonable or proper time to organize and present a case for our objection, nor obtain legal representation to protect our property rights and interests. The ten year time proposal for this mineral extraction next to people homes is outrageous. This time frame could effect the peace of our home for the rest of our natural lives.

There is very deep concern by us and our neighbors for the absolute destruction of our right to quiet enjoyment, the potential contamination of our ground water, and the absolute pollution of our air quality. We have strong and continuous prevailing winds from the south and west that had only increased in severity since we purchased our property from the removal of all tree line wide break protection by Crazy Acres Inc. farming operations, we have already suffered the destruction of over 70 trees we planted for wind protection due to herbicide drift and extreme eye irritation during Crazy Acres Inc. operation of a fertilizer plant in this exact area, as well as dust storms on a continual basis due to this increased wind, there is no possible way to contain the debris from this extraction from invading our property be it during or after hours of operation. My family associations include mining engineers and a retired professor of mining engineering, I know this to be fact. As an asthma sufferer, this proposed extraction operation is a direct threat to my life.

The proposed hours of operation include hours that are required for us to sleep, our work schedules are very often second and third shift. Blasting was never mentioned in any conversation we have had with the DOT, nor in any of the information we have heard among the area residents. It is unreasonable to locate a mining operation/mineral extraction within the area of proximity to our home and others as proposed. Crazy Acres Inc. owns several thousand acres in the Town of Albion and soil maps that are in my fathers collection from his time as a water quality expert at the DNR and as a former director of public works for Dane County show similar mineral deposits in many areas Crazy Acres Inc. owns in the area that are not in any close proximity to homes as at this proposed site. It is completely unreasonable to cause this level of harm to us and our neighbors and our properties by locating this mineral extraction in the proposed area under the reasoning to just "be able to farm in flat". This will deprive us of sleep, and cause to endanger our required level of energy, alertness, and concentration in my husbands profession which is construction. We are unable to adjust our work hours around the blasting schedules of this proposed operation without weeks of notice. This will damage us financially as well as physically in our occupations.

This will also effect the health and well being of our livestock, the noise and blasting will cause panic in the animals, and we will have to invest great expense in trying to construct further effective cover of their feed and water containers from dust and debris. This is an unreasonable burden to be placed on us.

We also have a great number of birds and wildlife that have made natural habitat on our property, including badgers, deer, raccoons, rabbits, hummingbirds, and owls. This will disrupt their ability to remain on the property as well as our enjoyment of their wild presence on our property. In addition, the area west and down the slope of this proposed site for mineral extraction is a wildlife preservation area, it is a large marsh, it is a wetland. The information in the petition regarding this is not correct. We are a 28 year witness to the river of soil that flows into the marsh from this site with each substantial rainfall. We can and have observed this regularly from our property. The project is a threat to the wildlife and environment and we have been provided with no evidence of an environmental impact study that states that it is not. It is unreasonable and dangerous to locate this mineral extraction operation on a parcel of land that is elevated directly above and drains into a wildlife preservation area and wetland, the site is NOT outside this area.

Our water supply is obtained from a well, and our water supply level is originated at a depths that puts it in the range of possible damage to the aquifer. There is a high level of danger for the contamination of our water supply by this mining/mineral extraction. It is unreasonable and unsafe to locate this sight so close to homes that depend on wells for their only source of water for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Other sites owned by Crazy Acres are available that are not in populated areas.

This absolutely destroys the property value and resale ability for our homes for at the least a full decade and possibly forever. It was confirmed to me that this operation will take place as close as 500 ft. from our property line. Blasting and crushing equipment operation in this proximity will render our properties useless and cause us irreversible, complete, and extreme financial harm. The proposed berms could obstruct our view of the countryside. The noise will disrupt of health and sleep patterns and endanger us. The dust and noise will effect our health and the health of our animals, contaminate our feeds and water troughs, as well as disrupt wildlife habitat. It is a violation of our rights as it is a determent to our health, safety, comfort, and welfare. It is a violation of our rights in that it will prevent us from the uses, values, and enjoyment we have been already permitted, they will be impaired, diminished by this operation. Their is other available property far away from homes available for this proposed use by this land owner. It is not compatible with the existing or permitted use on adjacent lands. The hours of operation and the length of the permit are unreasonable and potentially damaging to the residents of the adjacent homes both in health and property value and salability. Use of a water truck is not sufficient protection to residents of adjacent properties from dust and debris in this high wind area, and no plan to contain these dusts and debris after hours of operation has been proposed. This is a violation of our right of enjoyment of our property, our backyard is our place of rest and recreation and is in the wind fallout zone and adjacent to this proposed operation, this will destroy the use and enjoyment of our yard and gardens for an unreasonable length of time.

The only information that was released to area residents was the possibility of a small hill being removed and immediately covered by top soil in the back of the Crazy Acres Inc. property, residents were deceived to believe this was a very short term operation, we had heard it to be a length of a couple months and more than a half a mile from any homes. We feel this was a deliberate oral misrepresentation that was spread and designed to fool the affected residents into a false reaction to this project. We were left unaware of the adverse consequences of the operation through omission of the facts that we as adjoining neighbors had a right to know. We plan to appeal and fight any decision of the Dane County Board in favor of this Mining operation/mineral extraction. It is unconscionable that this site was chosen let alone even considered for this mining/mineral extraction operation by Crazy Acres Inc. and Yahara Minerals. We strongly object and are considering seeking civil damages from all parties involved for our losses and punitive damages should this be approved.

Dean and Signe Johnson immediate neighbors 983 State Road 73 Edgerton, Wi. Town of Albion

FROM THE ZICKS A FAMILY WITH TWO YOUNG CHILDREN AND A THIRD ON THE WAY - LESS THAN 1000' FROM THE MINE SITE

Opposition to CUP 2260 approval

3-04-2014

Dear Town of Albion Board Members and Planning Commission,

I am writing to you to explain my vehement opposition to your Township approval of the

conditional use permit 2260 for Crazy Acres and Yahara Minerals. This proposed site is also in

and near an Environmentally Sensitive Area, which is in great danger of pollution due to the

proposed quarry.

I have outlined reasons below, as to how this approved CUP 2260 is violating the Dane County

Code of Zoning Ordinances and the Town of Albion Comprehensive Plan:

1. Taken from CUP provisions section 10.255 in Dane County Code of Ordinances.

“That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use permit will not

be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or welfare.”

2. Taken from CUP provisions section 10.255 in Dane County Code of Ordinances.

“The uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes

already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished

by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use.”

3. Taken from Town of Albion Comprehensive Plan Goal #1 Agriculture - “Maintain the rural

lifestyle and character of the Town of Albion. 1. Preserve existing farm operations. 3.

Protect and preserve the soils and other natural resources of the Town for future

generations.”

4. Taken from the Town of Albion Comprehensive Plan Goal #9 Land Use - “Objectives 1.

Minimize the negative effects of incompatible land uses. Policies 4. Promote land uses,

densities and regulations that result in the protection of valued resources…”

5. Taken from the Town of Albion Comprehensive Plan Goal #14 Natural Environment - “Protect

natural resources and environmentally sensitive land from inappropriate use and/or

development. Objectives- 1 Minimize disruption to environmentally sensitive lands (e.g.,

wetlands, floodplains, riparian habitat, woodlots, and other natural areas) for aesthetic,

recreational, and wildlife habitat values. 2. Protect surface and groundwater quality.

Policies - 1. Restrict development along stream corridors to protect riparian habitat,

water quality, and aesthetics. 4. Protect wetlands from development for their ecological

and hydrological functions. 5. Support the efforts of landowners to keep natural areas

from being developed by using conservation easements or other means.”

Opposition to CUP 2260 approval

6. Taken from the Dane County Code of Ordinances 10.123(5)!

“(5) Standards for conditional uses in the A-1 Exclusive Agriculture zoning district. In

addition to the requirements of s. 10.255(2)(h), the zoning committee must find that the

following standards are met before approving any conditional use permit in the

A-1(exclusive agriculture) zoning district.

(a) The use and its location in the A-1 Exclusive Agriculture zoning district are consistent

with the purposes of the district.

(b) The use and its location in the A-1 Exclusive Agriculture zoning district are

reasonable and appropriate, considering alternative locations, or are specifically

approved under state or federal law.

(c) The use is reasonably designed to minimize the conversion of land, at and around

the site of the use, from agricultural use or open space use.

(d) The use does not substantially impair or limit the current or future agricultural use of

surrounding parcels of land that are zoned for or legally restricted to agricultural use.

(e) Construction damage to land remaining in agricultural use is minimized and repaired,

to the extent feasible.”

This CUP 2260 is in clear violation and is not consistent with the Dane County Code of

Ordinances and/or the Town of Albion Comprehensive plan due to the reasons stated above.

I also want to express mine and my husbands grave concern for our family welfare, as I

am currently pregnant (due in May) and we have 2 young children, ages 8 & 6. Ten years is

NOT a temporary time, and due to the type of mine/permit this is renewable year after year, if

you were not aware. By the time this permit is “over” my oldest will be 18 and her most

impressionable and memorable years will be destroyed due to this mine and its incompatibility

with the surrounding land owners current uses. There is a major concern, and proven fact from

other quarries and their immediate residences of increased and dangerous noise, air, and water

pollution to our home, the homes of surrounding neighbors, and the wetlands and wildlife habitat

that this proposed site is on and adjacent to.

We have horses and my children ride frequently, especially in the summer, and now

there is a major increased uncontrollable risk of increased fight or flight response in our horses,

due to the blasting, vibrations, and noise created by the quarry/mine, increasing the risk

exponentially of my children being thrown and seriously injured or killed. Who will be

responsible for that?

We will no longer be able to enjoy harvesting and cultivating the large garden we use to

provide food for our family and others, due to noise and dust. Not placing noise regulations on

Yahara Minerals, shows disrespect for your town residents that would be in close proximity to

this site.

In the summer, we live outside, which is when the majority of construction will take place.

If approved, we will be unable to enjoy the peace and beauty of our home, which was

purchased in 1994, and is an already permitted use to which this CUP2260 will cause great

disruption.

There is also the fact of a major decrease in home values from as far as 3 miles away,

from 6% to excess of 30%, which will decrease the towns revenue for income taxes. If

approved we will be sure to have/request regular assessments due to declined property value,

which we have done nothing but improve since we’ve purchased the place.

I am also concerned for the wildlife habitat for migratory and non-migratory animals that

will be destroyed and contaminated with this quarry/mine in place. It will render the adjacent

Opposition to CUP 2260 approval

wetlands unsuitable for nesting and residences of many wildlife. This area is an

environmentally sensitive area and is also a major flyway, stay over for migratory birds. The

wetlands in the area and on the site will be degraded and damaged in ways that are irreparable,

of which you as a town board are supposed to protect.

I am very disappointed in the township government and lack of concern or respect for

the residents and the detrimental impact they would receive from this proposed quarry/mine.

There are already open or historically active sites that can facilitate these projects without the

destruction that would ensue should this approval of zoning change for CUP 2260 go through.

Recycling….huh maybe that is a thought, why not reuse the road materials already there?

I request that you as a Town Board revisit this matter and withdraw your approval of the

CUP 2260, and/or that the Zoning Committee deny the zoning change for this CUP2260 for

Crazy Acres and Yahara Minerals.

Concerned Citizens,

Timothy & Erica Zick

690 Craig Rd

Edgerton, WI

608-290-0378

tezick2001@gmail.com

CC: Dane County Zoning, Planning and Development

From Dean and Signe Johnson - detailed objections - personal matter covered

Dear Mr. Lane,

Thank you for your patience with me yesterday on the phone. I am understandably quite distraught about the adverse effects of this entire matter on our income, our land use, our land value, our quiet enjoyment, our health, and our wildlife etc. But, what is most hurtful to me at this moment is that I lost and can never recover the five days I was forced to spend away from a dying family member to resource this information that I knew existed but had been left no time for me to find with the only six hours notice we had of the county meeting on CUP 2260, and the final meeting only delayed until March 11. Now I have it in hand and it is undeniable proof of the absolute destruction of our life's investment, and very possible loss of life or permanent disability that the approval of this quarry/mineral extraction will cause to us and many neighbors. It has been found as grounds for denial of a permit for a quarry in this incidence, and there are others. This material has been reviewed and compared with our situation in respect to the Town and County plans both there and here, they are almost identical with the exception that this quarry proposed to be in my backyard is twice as close to my facility, making the hazard even worse. I have been assured that case law supports this document, and if it is ignored in this incidence, all parties will incur liability for punitive damages over and above any money damages that may be awarded to us.

I have been the owner of the business named Grandeur since 1981. The scope of my business includes yearly income from antiques sales, renovation, design, horse equipment manufacturing and horse breeding/training and sales. I do not board horses, nor train outside horses, I breed and train my own horses, and provide stud service to outside mares through both natural cover and personal collection for artificial insemination. I purchased our property in 1986 as a home and as a base for my antiques sales and horse breeding/training business and obtained zoning for same before I even purchased it because I needed a property where I was able live as well as to conduct my business. I carry extra liability insurance coverage at great expense to cover that activity, and have been in continuous activity in that business on my property at 983 State Road 73 Edgerton, Wi. since 1986. I have tax records to support this. Even during times of caring for family members, when I have had to reduce my hours, I have continued to train and breed my horses and I stand 2 registered stallions and own 3 broodmares.

My breeding activities involve visits to my farm by very valuable horses, my Saddlebred stallion "Fancy" is a nominated National Show Horse Nominated Sire, the cost of that nomination alone was $7,000.00. His breeding fee runs between $500.00 to $1500.00, depending on whether he is bred to produce a registered offspring, or whether he is bred to produce an unregistered carriage horse, such as my Amish customers desire.

My horse has extensive training and show experience, my investment in this horse is now approaching over $40,000.00, even though I owned his Dam and he was bred by me, on my farm. Three years ago, I invested in addition over $15,000.00 for surgery for him, he is not a "backyard horse" nor a pet. He is the sire of a Canadian National Champion. The dam of that son was valued at over $75,000.00 and that mare was trusted to be personally handled by me for natural cover breeding. I also stand Fancy's son "Prize" on my farm. Fancy has been exhibited at shows all over the country, he was perfectly trained by national and world championship level trainers and he can still spook, as do all horses, at the slightest sound, vibration, or movement.

I am an equine professional with 28 years experience on my farm. In 1987, I had a bad accident riding a well trained regional champion show horse (Dark Victory NSH) 300 ft. back from the road when an empty semi crossed the rumble strip in front of our home. Both mine and my sisters horses spooked and flew into a panic, my horse crossed the highway at full bolt, as an expert rider, I did everything I could to try to stop him, including pulling his nose back to the saddle, but he did not turn or slow. Other riders pursued trying to catch a rein but could not even come close, we estimate his speed was 30 mph The horse hit a large tree in the Martins lawn, but it did not stop him, he then hit the side of the barn, that still did not stop him. As he approached Hillside Road I saw a semi headed right in a collision path, at which point I had no choice but to attempt an emergency dismount at full gallop. At that moment when I swung to the side of his back to jump from the horse, the horse did a skid, he peeled sod for over 30 feet and I was thrown directly to the pavement in front of the semi that managed to stop only four feet from my body, striking my forehead hard enough to embed gravel that had to be removed by a physician in the emergency room. I was taken to the hospital and treated for a severe concussion, multiple bruises and lacerations. My pelvis was so badly bruised that I had pain and difficulty standing and walking for over three months. It is a miracle that I was not killed.

In 1993 I was hit by a drunk driver, I was left unable to walk unassisted for 3 years, and was not fully recovered for another 4 years, I was unable to ride and train on horseback again until 2000. At that time I made further and substantial investment in my horse property with the construction of a multi use ag building that serves both my horse business winter riding needs as well as my ag business in growing dried ornamental plants for decorators and floral arrangers (also at risk from this mine as they cannot be washed after drying and dust will destroy the value). The mine site is located directly behind this building on the south parcel, and right behind my stables and my outdoor riding area, on my north parcel. My outdoor riding area is a strip of land behind my pens that is right next to my rear property line. There is no other riding space available on my north parcel near my pens, and only safe ground exercising area is to the rear corner of my south parcel, and this mine truck road use will make that area completely unusable due to the noise and dust and risk of my horses spooking. I have been injured numerous times by horses that spooked at noise and vibrations.

As evidenced by materials from the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, the American Academy of Pediatricians, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, New Hampshire Horse Council, and Mheac Insurance that I have attached, and countless other news report and studies, even the best trained horses can become dangerous and unpredictable when any sight sound or vibration startles them, and they NEVER get used to a sound. My stallion bolts in his stall every time his hay is put in his feeder, that has been done twice a day for his entire life. If he is outside and someone tosses hay, or the wind blows hay, he bolts. I rarely use my property bordering Hwy 73 to even walk a horse because trucks and cars bother them, so we are restricted due to traffic during peak hours to only use of the back and rear south corner of our property to ground exercise them, and the back strip of our north parcel to ride them.

A horse broke through our fence and ran me down several years ago at the sound of a combine starting up far back in the same field this site is proposed to be operated on, although this horse had no reaction to farm equipment before, this required another trip to the hospital. We have restricted our horse activities ever since so as not to occur during field work, planting, and harvesting already, this is a necessary hazard, and we accepted that as part of buying a farm surrounded by crops, but this is unusually only about 20 days a year. Only two of our horses have not run through fencing during farm work in that field, our other horses cannot be let out into our turn out pens when the farming work is underway, they have to stay inside, or be confined to small steel pens outside. This mineral extraction will be operating at all times that I need to conduct my horse business, and not just could, but very likely could cause a fatal injury to us or our horses due to noise, movement, and vibrations coming from this operation. We would also have to invest tens of thousands of dollars in solid steel pens to safely let them out at any time at all once this mining operation starts, and that will not prevent them from injury from crashing into those pens, nor injury to us while walking them to nor from the pens, nor potential injury to neighbors or guests should they escape our control in panic. I also have three valuable horses with history of stomach ulcers that cannot be stressed by this noise. blasting, and trucking activity.

Based of the volume of daily truckloads Yahara testified to at meetings, we would have a truck moving past our horse farm every two minutes, one loaded and one unloaded. Only 100' of that road is to be paved, leaving 400+' of road dust and silica particulates blowing off both the road and the loads directly onto my property where I need to conduct my business, and paving more of the road will not prevent the silica particulates and dust from blowing off the trucks, nor the diesel noise and fumes. Our winds are strong on a daily basis, they come predominantly from the southwest. When we recently had looked into a wind generator for our farm, we tested the southwest corner of our property for wind speed and it rated at an averaged 18 mph at just 20 feet off the ground. The size of the tower and turbine had to be exact for our wind speeds. Just during field plowing time alone, my house and buildings fill with dust already, again we accept this as we are located in planted fields. We also have had heavy losses from chemical drift of fertilizers and herbicides, which destroyed our ornamental tree business we invested in 2000. Again, we had to accept that Crazy Acres had a right to use those products, and if they chose to be a bad neighbor and apply them in high winds there was little we could do. We also experience regular very high wind gusts far in excess and in addition to the average strong winds.

There is no possible way that Yahara minerals can contain and stop dust and silica particulate contamination of my property, our animals, and our lungs while operating those trucks continuously on that road just 300' from my south property line where the wind will be blowing directly over the mine site and this road. Dust and wind do not stop when the mine stops for the day either, the wetting will rapidly dry every evening and blow dust onto my property. Two weeks ago, in the high winds, our south parcel went black with dirt dust over the snow, when the snow cover on that field drifted off and exposed the topsoil. Also, they have no plan for wetting when freezing temperature set in on the site. I have purchased gravel several times well after freezing temps begin in Nov., Dec. and even early January. I know for a fact that quarries still operate in the winter, and I know for a fact that we will be exposed to the full mine dust all winter with no effective preventative measures. Silicosis is an irreversible and often fatal disease to both humans and horses, Wisconsin recognizes silica particulates as a cancer causing agent, there are studies that show silica through farming dust is a health hazard, and again we have accepted this risk, but there are studies that have shown silica dust from gravel roads and quarries three times as much and more the exposure. It is unreasonable to force us to except that level of damaging exposure to silica particulates, we do not have to accept that, nor be required to wear a dust mask to even live on our own property. We did extensive research on the locations of all historic mines in the Albion area prior to purchasing our property and specifically selected our property over a property in the Cross Plains area due to the absence of any mine that could be reactivated near this Albion property. We also checked the zoning regulations to make sure that one could not be put in. My Uncle was a mining engineering professor at the UW Platteville at the time, and my father, a civil engineer who's career include state planning, director of public works of Dane county, and a private water specialist for the Wisconsin DNR they helped us to select this property because we were investing our entire life and livelihood in this property.

It is not fair nor legal for this mine/mineral extraction to be placed on this site, it is not and cannot be made to comply with the standards required for granting a CUP in Dane County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10 Section 10.255(2)(h):

Standard 1. it specifically will be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort, and welfare of not only ourselves and our neighbors, but our families, guests, workers, delivery people, anyone and everyone that sets foot on our property or near our animals, and creates a new high level of liability for us.

Standard 2. it will substantially impair the uses, the value, and the enjoyment of my properties and it is specifically not compatible with my already permitted use of my property.

Standard 3. it will specifically impede and completely prevent our normal and orderly improvement of our property for it's permitted use, through, including but not limited to, the devaluation, the dust, the noise, the loss of quiet and peaceful habitably, the loss of our safety, and loss of our horse and ag business income activities necessary to pay for normal improvements and development. Example: Dust destroys turbines, we can longer improve our energy costs. There are many more examples.

Standard 5. it cannot meet this requirement because no amount of improvement to the road from the mine can prevent the traffic stoppage on Hwy 73 that will be constant due to the amount of truck loads entering and existing the property.

Standard 6. It cannot conform to all applicable regulations because it does not comply to standards 1.,2.,3.,5. and 6. listed above, those standards are regulations.

It is also not fair, nor legal for this mine/mineral extraction to be placed on this site because according to S.10.123(3)(a) it does not conform with the standards and factors that the ZNR committee must also consider when approving a CUP in the A-1 Exclusive District:

1. It does not conform with the statement of purpose of the zoning ordinance in that it is for 10 years it does not state specific dates required in 10.191 5. Proposed dates to begin extraction, end extraction and complete reclamation. They are not stated specifically. It is not specific in 10.191 10. Types, quantities, and frequency of use of equipment to extract, process, and haul. These are not fully stated. And regarding the application mapping in 10.191 15. (d) 2. 2. Zoning district boundaries in the immediate area. Label all zoning districts on the subject property and on all neighboring properties. The application map Yahara submitted failed to label the Zick property at all or the zoning on all neighboring properties.

2. This CUP #2260 has proven potential for conflict with our agricultural use of our property.

3. There is no unique feature to this site that has impeded the full planting of crops for the past three decades and the same mineral extraction potential is readily available all over the area, it is not unique to this site. There is no justifiable need for the proposed use of this property next to homes, and properties with non-compatible already permitted uses.

4. Crazy Acres Inc. is owned by James Wileman who also owns Dane County Growers and several other corporations with thousands of acres of land holdings in Albion that contain the mineral properties of this site, and are convenient to the projects the minerals will be moved to, and would not cause the traffic congestion on Hwy 73 that this site will cause, and that could be used without the close proximity and the harm to neighboring properties.

5. This CUP is absolutely and completely incompatible with existing permitted use on adjacent lands.

6. This will take this site out of the current level of agricultural use for 10 years, and not increase the agricultural use after reclamation. This field has been fully planted and harvested for the 28 years we have been in residence.

7. This site will not reduce the amount of productive agricultural lands converted, there is a REAL rock outcroppings that DOES impede planting and harvesting that are owned by this land owner, this site is not one of them. Use of those sites would return more agricultural land to planting.

8. There is a need for the public services of a quarry in the area, but not one located in such close proximity as to cause others that have the same rights to the safety, use, and enjoyment of their land, irreversible damaged by use of this site over other sites available for this purpose to this land owner. This site was not selected for the good of the public, it was selected for the profit/convenience of Crazy Acres Inc. and Yahara Minerals as testified to by the Yahara Minerals representative in front of witnesses. It is unnecessary to locate this site in this location to provide the same service to the public need.

9. The Town Board of Albion has put a completely unreasonable burden on the neighboring property owners, and the interests of the Town of Albion residents as a whole in their failure to uphold the integrity of the procedure and follow the regulations and procedures required to issue this approval for CUP #2260.

10. No one has addressed the dust and silica particulate contamination that will occur after operation hours, after freezing temperatures set in, or from the hauling trucks and the mine road, nor has any plan to eliminate that possible. No one has addressed the destruction of existing and sensitive natural wildlife habitat due to noise and continuous mining activity in such close proximity to the wetlands and natural areas on private neighboring properties.

Also, the zoning staff report includes that no water shall be pumped on the site, but Yahara Minerals and Crazy Acres Inc. intends to sink a high capacity well to wash gravel on sight introducing an enormous amount of extra water flushing through bedrock filtering rock media material that is already contaminated with large amounts of farm chemicals, speeding the introduction of that natural chemical migration into the aquifer that supplies homes and animals with fresh drinking water. The run off containment plan is also deficient in the opinion of several people familiar with this process.

This letter is a specification of some matters in our original objection to CUP #2260, the full transcript emailed to Roger Lane Dane County Zoning prior to the Feb. 25th meeting and attempted to be read in full by Dean Johnson at the same meeting.

Attachments: A .pdf of proof of harm and denial of quarry zoning in close proximity of a stable.

A text document containing published health hazards of same.

Other supporting documents available upon request.

Thank you, Signe Johnson

IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS TO THIS MINE ARE 100% OPPOSED TO IT'S APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD OF ALBION AND WILL BE POSTING MORE OBJECTION HERE UNTIL TUESDAY.

March 9, 2014

DANE COUNTY ZONING & LAND REGULATION COMMITTEE

City-County Building

Madison, WI

Dear Committee members,

I request that this statement be included in the hearing record regarding CUP #2260 mineral extraction.

I am writing to request that that the Committee deny CUP #2260 because it does not meet the standards of Dane County zoning laws. Further the proposed project may be in violation of the federal Clean Water Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

I am David Blockstein, Ph.D. I hold a doctorate in ecology from the University of Minnesota and a bachelors of science in wildlife ecology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I resided in Madison from 1964-1987 (including time that I studied at the University of Minnesota.) My late mother Liesl Blockstein was an elected member of the Dane County Board of Supervisors until her untimely death in December 1986.

Since 1987, I have primarily been in Washington DC, where I was a Congressional Science Fellow with the Natural Resources and Environment subcommittee of the US House of Representatives (1987-88) and have been working at the interface of environmental science and policy for more than 23 years with the National Council for Science and the Environment, where I am Senior Scientist.

In my professional opinion, the proposed mine has significant potential to damage the immediately adjacent Albion prairie and Albion wetlands, and the wildlife that resides therein.

The Albion prairie and wetland is a rich local ecosystem that contains both wetland plants and wildlife and is part of the Lake Koshkonong watershed. The wetland is a part of a resource protection corridor that was identified in the Albion town plan. Such corridors are critical to providing transit routes for wildlife as well as maintaining the quality of the water downstream.

The importance of wetlands is identified in federal statutes such as the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, which states "The Congress finds that —(1) wetlands play an integral role in maintaining the quality of life through material contributions to our national economy, food supply, water supply and quality, flood control, and fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and thus to the health, safety, recreation and economic well-being of all our citizens of the Nation.” (16 USC 3901 SEC. 2).

According to the Dane County Wetlands Resource Management Guide, “Wetlands are among the most complex and least understood of natural community types. Most wetlands also serve multiple functions. One of the

greatest threats to wetlands has been the incremental and piecemeal destruction often described as “death by a thousand cuts.” The loss of wetland resources has become a national problem. Efforts are needed at the local level to protect, restore, and enhance the wetlands that remain, preserving the many benefits which they provide.” http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/PDF/capd/Wetland_Guide_web.pdf (page 107)

The paragraph above describes the situation with the Albion wetland. Located in an area with significant agriculture, the wetland is threatened by projects such as the proposed quarry. The quarry, of course, would provide many of the “thousand cuts” leading to the death of the wetland.

Because the proposed quarry site has a significant slope towards the wetland, it is very likely that dust and runoff from the site would enter the immediately adjacent wetland, should the mine be built. Thus, it may be necessary for the mine operators to first apply for a fill permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

There are frequent sight records of Bald Eagles over the past three years in the area of the proposed mine. It is not known whether the eagles are nesting in the area. Although the Bald Eagle was recently delisted under the Endangered Species Act, it is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit Bald Eagle sitting in tree (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). If the eagles are nesting in or nearby the area that is proposed to be quarried, the disturbance caused by the mining operation would be considered to be molesting (a “take”), which is a felony under the Act. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

Additionally, the take of all migratory birds, including bald eagles, is governed by the Migratory Birds Treaty Act’s regulations. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).

The standards of the Dane County zoning laws state:

(h) Standards. No application for a conditional use shall be granted by the town board or zoning committee unless such body shall find that all of the following conditions are present:

1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare;

2. That the uses, values and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use;

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district;

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made;

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; and

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

The risks to the wetlands, wildlife, including Bald Eagle and to the human residents that benefit from them are very likely to violate at least the first two of these standards. The quarry is very likely to substantially impair the Albion wetland and has the potential to damage the protection corridor.

The burden of proof should be on the applicants for the permit. Unless they can show to “courtroom standards” that their proposed use will not violate these standards, it should be the responsibility of this committee to deny the permit.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

David E. Blockstein, Ph.D.

7016 Sycamore Ave. Takoma Park, MD 20912

CLICK TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN ALBION MARCH 24

From: aaaa66aaa@aol.com

To: kolar.mary@countyofdane.com, plandev@countyofdane.com, miles@countyofdane.com, matano@countyofdane.com, bollig.jerry@countyofdane.com, hendrick@countyofdane.com, parisi@countyofdane.com, allan@countyofdane.com, andros@co.dane.wi.us

Sent: 3/25/2014 11:38:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time

Subj: CUP 2260 information

Dear Ms. Kolar,

We attended the Town of Albion meeting last night, all chairs were filled, approx. 75% of those attending were in strong opposition to CUP 2260. The Town Board of Albion completely ignored the concerns of their citizens who one after the other requested the CUP to be voided and allowed to be resubmitted so all citizens and neighbors of this pit be allowed fair notice, and a fair voice.

Again Yahara Materials and Crazy Acres Inc. showed up with no qualified experts, no studies, and no evidence that supported the claims they made in regards to the damage to home values, the dangers to neighbors health, and the dangers to the environment. They allowed lawyer Buck Sweeney, the attorney, and a sand and gravel business owner himself, testify as an expert on home valuation. Buck Sweeney has no credentials in this area, we were not allowed by the Town Board of Albion to submit our documents on the specific devaluation of properties from qualified experts on this matter. Nor did they even look at the further objection and information provided to them on the environmental damage from David Blockstein PHD.

At the March 11 meeting, Yahara Materials rep was less than honest with you about the horses near their quarries and complaints from horse owners when he had to think hard to remember where he thought their might be horse farms near their quarries. We traveled the area of Hwy 19, from Middleton to Waunakee searching for this farm that Yahara thought might have horses on it. We found it, but it turns out it belongs to Mr. Burcalow, the CUP applicant. Mr. Burcalow was present at the March 11 meeting with you, and sat silent when his longtime friend and employee Tim, had to search his memory about whether anyone had horses near their quarries, they both knew exactly who and where these farms were, yet deliberately gave a false impression that they did not, Tim by his vague response to the question from the ZLR committee on that, and Mr. Burcalow by his silence.

My husband and I traveled down the road past this very small quarry off Hwy 19, the property is not posted no trespassing, as ours is. There was clear evidence of mining activity that day, there was machinery and piles with still moist gravel and sand that had not yet dried like the undisturbed areas of the site, and there was fresh tire mud tracks from trucks leading in and out of the gates, and heavy mud tracks onto Hwy 19, but the gates were already secured, it was 4:45 pm.. Since there were no horse farms on hwy 19 adjacent to the quarry, and since the road to the quarry was not posted, we continued down that road and found the horse farm. It was not posted no trespassing either, but we did not enter with our vehicle. We parked at the gate to the farm and did not enter until we saw a man crossing the barn yard, at which point my husband got out of our vehicle and called out to him for permission to enter. The man crossing the yard was Mr. Burcalow. It was at that point we realized we had been deceived. The reason they had no complaints, is that they own the horse farm and the quarry.

Mr. Burcalow was rather embarrassed to be found out, and he apologized to us for both the deception to us and the board, but explained that it is "just business". Mr. Buralow also told my husband, and I heard this from the open window of our vehicle, that we cost him the contract for Hwy 73, that he is no longer going to be a supplier to that project. My husband told him that we had nothing to do with that, that the neighbors had spoken to the contractor Rock Road, and that they had told us that they have their own aggregate pit and Yahara Materials was not their subcontractor for supplies for Hwy 73. Mr. Burcalow insisted that my husband allow him to apologize to me personally for the trespass on my property and approached my vehicle. I asked him what the hours of operation his quarry had next to his home. He was dressed in chaps, and had been working with his horses. He said 6 am to 6 pm. When I pointed out to him that it was only 5 pm and his quarry was closed he said it was closed because they had not even opened yet for the season. When I told him that someone had been hauling gravel today from his closed quarry, he changed the subject.

I questioned him about his fencing. He has 4 rail 5 quarter solid oak fencing set on 8' spaced heavy posts, even along his pasture. That type of fencing is what is commonly used for "breaking pens", those are pens usually used for handling untrained or wild horses that are at risk of panic and escaping. Most horse farms have light three rail set on 10' spaced lightweight posts, or simple hot wire or safe tape. When I asked him why he had need of such extremely expensive and heavy fencing, considering he has very well trained cow working and trail horses of a quiet temperament breed, he had no explanation, other than I needed to get rid of my horses because "Arabs and Saddlebred are too high strung to be around noise". When I told him I could not "get rid" of my horses, and I could not afford to fence my entire property such as he has, he asked if I ever heard of giving my horses "ACE". ACE is a powerful horse tranquilizer (Acepromazine or acetylpromazine (more commonly known as ACP, Ace, or by the trade names Atravet or Acezine 2). It is not safe, it is not humane, and it is not ethical to dope horses!

He further said that he wouldn't put his own family at risk, but when I pointed out that his quarry was closed early today, while he was working with his horses, and that I had no ability to close his quarry when I need to work with my horses, he suggested that I change my working hours with my horses to the hours when his quarry will be closed. That is not practical, nor reasonable. I purchased my farm to work with horses, and I purchased addition property and erected a riding arena on it, at a cost of over $100,000.00 for that specific purpose. That was an already permitted use of my property and it is unfair for this CUP to prevent me from the continuation of that use of that property and investment. I am tax assessed at $95,200 each year for that property and arena that has been made worthless to me or anyone else by the granting of a CUP for this mineral extraction.

David Blockstein PHD has submitted an additional letter of objection to CUP 2260, although it was submitted to the Town Board of Albion last night, and they were specifically told that it was a revised objection with addition information, they did not read it prior to their vote. I attach that letter for you, I hope that I can report to Dr. Blockstein that your members will read it and give it due consideration prior to your vote tonight.

The Town Board of Albion Chairman Venske also falsely stated that more than half the petition signers (I believe almost 70 between the online and area petitions) were not residents so the petition objections "did not count". I have seen the petitions and it is not even close to true that more than half are not residents. Town Board Chairman Venske also took written questions from the residents, then proceeded to ignore many of those questions, and change and edit many of the other questions he did read to suit his own purposes. I hope these written questions will be saved and available to be checked against the audio transcript of last nights meeting. This was unethical behavior. Town Chairman Venske has a long personal and business relationship with Crazy Acres Inc., and although he has stated in a prior public meeting that he has had no interest in his concrete construction business for many years, he is still filing annual reports with the Wisconsin Dept of Financial Institutions for that business as of 2013. Mr. Venske should have recused himself from this matter at the start.

The only people that spoke in support at the town meeting were those with a direct financial profit interest in CUP 2260, I believe they had only one person show to speak in support that was not involved directly with financial gain from CUP 2260 (although he does own a trucking business in Janesville) but he is a close personal friend of James Wileman of Crazy Acres Inc., and he is not a close neighbor of the proposed site.

Again savings to the state, and farming was the only reasons cited as the reason for the site location. We provided an email from Craig Pringle Wisconsin DOT stating to the contrary, and we are all witness to Crazy Acres Inc. full planting and harvesting of that entire field for decades, including 84 year old Mr. Bussey that testified that this field is next to his family homestead, that he had worked those fields, and that they have always been fully utilized for farming with no impedance from the "ridge", he has witnessed this field directly behind his house plantred and harvested for 68 years. Even when the Neil's owned the property and Mr. Neil had an air landing strip there, the rest of the field was fully planted.

The Town Board of Albion also failed to review the photographic evidence exhibit of David H. Thompson on the extreme lack of attention to erosion control at Yahara Materials Meinholz quarry.

Yahara Materials erosion control violations - a set on Flickr Mr. Thompson attended an testified to the authenticity of the photos. Yahara Material rep then outright lied about those problems, said they were an isolated incident caused by a rare heavy rain, and presented some papers related to their supposed remedy of the situation. When confronted by photographic proof taken last Friday showing that three years later the Yahara Meinholz quarry is still not containing the erosion and runoff, Yahara Materials rep said those photos were not recent, eluded to a deception on the part of the photographer, and that the erosion was repaired and no longer existed. When I told him I had taken those photos and have them time, date, and location stamped proving they were taken last Friday, he changed his testimony, suddenly recalled the erosion and stated that it was due to the recent weather. He also denied the presence of gravel spilled in the road, until it was proven to be there last Friday by these same photos. I will be at the meeting tonight with these photos if you wish to review them, the Town Board of Albion had no interest in them, did not bother to review them, and would not take them to add to the file on CUP 2260.

Neighbors to CUP 2260 were also taken by surprise in the removal of the water pumping condition that was removed from the CUP by Dane County. We were also surprised that the rule of 5 years and extension consideration of 5 years for CUP 2260 that we had all thought had been added to CUP 2260, is not present in the current version. We also proved last night that the Town Board of Albion held the public meeting and passed CUP 2260 in January based on an incomplete application. According to the Wisconsin open meetings laws, incomplete applications cannot be heard at public meeting.

This application was incomplete in several areas at the time it was passed, including the neighbor names and neighbors zoning that would have been necessary for the Town Board of Albion to give the due and required consideration to standard #2 of the Dane County CUP regulations in their approval of this CUP. It is not lawful to approve an incomplete CUP and then add to it at a later date to complete it. CUP 2260 should be voided for many reasons and be made to reapply. The Town Board of Albion could also again provide any proof of mailing a "correction letter" on Dec. 27, 2013 to cure the deficiency of no meeting date of location in the certified letters sent by the applicant on Dec. 23, 2014. In previous conversations between Town clerk Julie and several residents, she has made conflicting statements people on this supposed letter of correction, first saying Yahara mailed it, then telling another that she mailed it regular mail because it was holiday time and people would not be home to sign for it. Regardless, they have no proof they ever mailed a correction letter, and could provide no proof of mailing when repeatedly asked to do so last night. It is clear by the fact that no close neighbors knew of or attended the Jan. 7 meeting at the Town of Albion, and Tim Zick specifically was not in attendance, someone other than him added his name to that attendance record of that meeting. People that were at that meeting and know Tim Zick witnessed that he was not present. Town Board members know Tim Zick as well, they know he was not in attendance.

Yahara Materials rep stated last night that they never wanted a 105 acre site, that they only want to mine 25 acres, that the boundary next to and extending into the wetlands was drawn by Dane County zoning and the ZLR board. That if we had a problem with those boundaries we needed to complain to you. I have checked Yahara Materials original application and the 105 acre boundary is on that application map. Am I to understand that Dane County zoning officials drew the boundary on that map and did not notice that this map omitted the required labeling needed to insure that the non-zoning experts on the Town Board were able to properly judge the compatibility of neighboring properties already permitted uses in their decision on CUP 2260?

We will attend the meeting tonight in Madison, I will also have photographs of my property with me to show that my property is not a dump, or a mess as testified to by Buck Sweeney at the March 11 meeting. We have also taken 360 degree photos of our entire property from the posted no trespassing signs to show that whoever was supposedly on our property, if they were on our property, were there as a criminal trespasser.

Please consider denying CUP 2260, we all support the applicant having an opportunity to reapply when we the neighbors and residents of Albion all have fair notice and time to respond.

I thank you for your kind consideration. Signe and Dean Johnson

READ DAVID BLOCKSTEINS FURTHER OBJECTIONS

March 24, 2014

Albion Town Board

Albion, WI

Dear Board members,

I request that this statement be included in the hearing record regarding CUP #2260 mineral extraction.

I am writing to request that that the Board deny CUP #2260 because it does not meet the standards of Dane County zoning laws and of the Albion town plan. It has significant potential to damage the Albion wetland and prairie. Further the proposed project raises concerns related to the federal Clean Water Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

I submit this further detailed objection to CUP 2260 in addition to my previous letter of objection that was submitted to the zoning committee of the Dane County Board. I appreciate the consideration that was extended by the county zoning committee that the project have a 75' border expansion next to the wetlands, but feel that the buffer zone of '75 feet, or even twice that buffer, is still insufficient to protect the Albion wetland corridor. I submit a more detailed reference to my concerns in my letter as follows.

Environmental Impacts

In my professional opinion, the proposed mine has significant potential to damage the immediately adjacent Albion prairie and Albion wetlands, and the wildlife that resides therein.

The Albion prairie and wetland is a rich local ecosystem that contains both wetland plants and wildlife and is part of the Lake Koshkonong watershed. The wetland is a part of a resource protection corridor along Saunders Creek that was identified in the Albion town plan. Such corridors are critical to providing transit routes for wildlife as well as maintaining the quality of the water downstream.

The probable impact of the proposed quarry on the existing wetland is based on simple physics – the law of gravity. Materials and water flow downhill. The wetland and the connected waterways exist where they are because they are in low spots where water from the atmosphere (rain and snow) settles above the surface of the land. This can add to water from below the ground, if the water table is high enough. The land is saturated and a special set of plants and animals inhabits these places of generally high biological productivity - producing ducks, turtles and other animals that we utilize and enjoy. Of course, the wetlands are not isolated from the larger landscape. Some egg-laying species such as ducks and turtles move out to the adjoining uplands, even in agricultural lands, to lay their eggs because if the eggs are water-saturated they will not hatch.

These low spots can also be a repository from materials from the upland. This is particularly the case when the upland is disturbed. This is likely to happen should a quarry be mined directly upstream from the wetlands. Sediment and airborne particles will be deposited in the wetland. This of course degrades the quality of the wetland and also eventually can cause filling of the wetland.

I have read the staff report for CUP #2260 (February 25, 2014) and recognize that the potential conditions to be imposed do include efforts to control dust and erosion for the site. Dust from a mining operation is very difficult to contain, as is runoff.

Also it is my understanding that erosion from the Meinholz quarry site operated by Yahara Minerals has allowed silt to run off from that site in violation of their permit. It is highly possible that this situation could be repeated should you allow a quarry adjacent to the Albion wetlands.

Because the proposed quarry site has a significant slope towards the wetland, it is very likely that dust and runoff from the site would enter the immediately adjacent wetland, should the mine be built. A small buffer zone of 75 or even 150 feet is not likely to be sufficient to protect the wetlands. A strong rain could easily carry dirty water that far despite the proposed measures to minimize erosion.

There is also a question of what will happen when the quarry operators dig deeply enough to hit the water table. The water will interfere with the operations of the quarry. The recommended potential conditions of use state that “no water shall be pumped or otherwise removed from the site.” What are the operators planning to do with that water, which will be contaminated by sediments from the mine? Diligence will be necessary to ensure that this water does not enter the wetland system that leads to Lake Koshkonong.

I have heard that in Milton a proposal for a quarry was denied because it was situated in a similar location – an upland that drains to a wetland.

Geological considerations

The geologic maps for the site indicate that the proposed quarry would be on the Ancell group of minerals (primarily sandstone), the most common formation in Albion. Most of the nearby quarries are located in the Sinnipee group of formations, which are formed of dolomite (limestone), which is the common mineral used in the manufacture of concrete as well as in other aspects of road construction. The Ancell group and the Sinnippee groups are the predominant geological formations in the Albion area. Thus it is not clear that the proposed site is either optimal geologically or unique in the local area. There are alternative sites with the same mineral properties that could be just as if not more suitable.

Legal Aspects

If the mine operators are planning to deposit materials from the mine directly to the wetland, they may need to first apply for a fill permit from the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

An additional benefit of the current wetland-river-lake system is the frequently sighted Bald Eagles over the past three years over the area, probably including the upland area of the proposed mine. It is not known whether the eagles are nesting in the area that is proposed to be mined.

Although the Bald Eagle was recently delisted under the Endangered Species Act, it is still protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit Bald Eagle sitting in tree (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). If the eagles are nesting in or nearby the area that is proposed to be quarried, the disturbance caused by the mining operation would be considered to be molesting (a “take”), which is a felony under the Act. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

The standards of the Dane County zoning laws state:

(h) Standards. No application for a conditional use shall be granted by the town board or zoning committee unless such body shall find that all of the following conditions are present:

1. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare;

3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district;

4. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary site improvements have been or are being made;

5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; and

6. That the conditional use shall conform to all applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.

The risks to the wetlands, wildlife, including Bald Eagles and to the human residents that benefit from them are very likely to violate at least the first two of these standards. The quarry is very likely to substantially impair the Albion wetland and has the potential to damage the protection corridor.

It would not be good for the Town of Albion to approve a Conditional Use Permit only to have it denied by the county. It also would not be good if the mine were approved but then caused damage to the wetland corridor. It would be a more prudent to work with the landowner to locate a potential quarry site in a less sensitive area ecologically– maybe somewhere already zoned for industrial use.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

David

David E. Blockstein, Ph.D.

7016 Sycamore Ave.

Takoma Park, MD 20912,

CLICK HERE TO OPPOSE CUP 2260