Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />In part, your disagreement is that "the Phase N processing area is specifically labeled asphalt plant and that the <br />asphalt plant was eliminated from the permit application." The asphalt plant was removed from the application: <br />however, the gravel plant remained in Phase N. You also say that aggregate processing, as stated in the permit <br />application, will be located "adjacent [o the active mining pond." That is not substantially correct. The permit <br />states that the "aggregate will be washed (sand removed at the pit) [hen hauled to [he plant site." The revised <br />Mining Plan Map and legend dated 5-12-99, shows [he asphalt plant removed, but [he gravel plant remaining in <br />Phase N. <br />During the inspection I questioned you about the large built up area in the southwest comer of Phase [and you <br />indicated that it is the location for staging and the processing area. This is a new location from what was <br />permitted and the topography has been significantly altered to accommodate it. [told you, during [he <br />inspection, that [he Mining Plan Map should be changed to show the new location. This can be accomplished <br />with a Technical Revision, as requested. <br />The fact that this area has been built up with several feet of overburden material alters [he mining plan and <br />possibly the reclamation plan. The Division should know the topography change and the final disposition of the <br />material so that we know whether i[ will affect the reclamation bond. <br />If indeed [he staging/processing/stockpiling area will be reconstructed several times as you say, the Division <br />should know the approximated azea and the Mining Plan should be changed by Technical Revision to reflect <br />that it will be moved as mining progresses. <br />Problem No.3 - A road not shown on the plan map has been constructed in the permit area along [he north <br />boundary of [he azea not designated far mining in the southwest permit area. <br />Your disagreement refers to a letter from Otero County Board of Commissioners regazding the road <br />improvement and the correspondence from the Division on June 2, 1999, which you believe eliminated [he area <br />from the permit. <br />You do not have to add the road by Technical Revision. This problem is deleted from the inspection reuort. I <br />do specifically remember telling you that since the road pre-existed prior to mining and that it was not part of <br />your mining plan but rebuilding was ordered by [he county commissioners that you should provide <br />documentation of that for inclusion in the permit. The letter from the Otero County Commissioners is adequate. <br />You stated that the road would only be used for employee ingress egress. However, if All Rile Paving and Redi- <br />Mix or a future operator decides to use the road for mining or hauling equipment, it should be added to the <br />permit by Technical Revision. It IS in the permit area as shown by the latest Mining Plan Map dated 5-12-99. <br />The June 2, 1999 Division document you refer to (the Division Recommendation regazding the application) did <br />not eliminate any area from [he permit but only acknowledged that the applicant had eliminated an area of <br />possible jurisdictional wetlands from the mining plan, not the permit area. <br />Problem No. 4 -The permit committed the operator to obtain a wetland delineation from the Corps of <br />Engineers, prior to starting excavation. <br />Your disagreement states [hat "the area with alleged wetlands was eliminated from the permit...in <br />correspondence from [he Division on June 2, 1999." <br />This problem is deleted from the inspection report. You told me during the inspection that a U. S. Corps or <br />Engineers staff person toured the site and was satisfied that the permitted 200 feet setback from the Arkansas <br />River was sufficient to prevent disturbance of any potential wetlands areas. You also stated [hat the Corps <br />person told you that other areas within the permit boundary did no[ meet the criteria [o be considered wetlands. <br />I asked you to provide something in writing from the Corps substantiating [here claims. You said that the Corps <br />did not provide you with a report of their findings. I suggested that you contact them and request something in <br />writing far inclusion in [he file. The Division would still like [o have such a document in [he file. <br />