INSPEC23832 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. 2. The excavation limit coincides with the permit boundary at this area. I discussed this proposal with the San Miguel County Road and Bridge Department Road Superintendent, Mr. Mike Homer by telephone. During that conversation Mr. Homer did not think that there would be any problems as a result of this proposal. I sent (dropped at his office October 12, 2001) a copy of the proposed Mine Plan Map and the proposed Reclamation Plan Map to Mr. Mike Horner for his review. Mr. Horner responded with a letter stating that San Miguel County has no objection to United's proposal. A copy of Mr. Homer's letter is attached. The property owner of the United/Norwood Pit site is Skelton, Inc. United Companies leases the Norwood Pit site. Skelton, Inc. also owns the property located to the south of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 mining areas. Skelton, Inc. has requested that United Companies maximize gravel extraction a[ the boundary bet`veen the mine site and Skelton, Inc. property to the south. United Companies has complied with this request on an informal basis and permit documents have not been changed to this point. United Companies requests that mining to the permit boundary be allowed in this case. A letter from Skelton, Inc. stating the request for maximum gravel extraction is attached. In addition, this notarized letter includes a damage waiver from Skelton, Inc. The Mining Plan Map and Reclamation Plan Map have been revised to show the proposed changes. These new maps are attached to Technical Revision 1. United Companies requests that these maps be approved and substituted for [hose that were approved with the original permit application. The berms mentioned in the Inspection Report have not been used at this site. This was a United Companies decision. The bean was to serve as a visual/noise barrier and as soil storage. The implication in the permit application is that the bean would be used at the perimeter of previously undisturbed mining areas (Phase 2-5) as each area was being mined. Based on the expected locations of the berms in Phases 2-5, the berms served no useful function as visual or noise barriers. Mining will create a pit floor that is 25-50 fee[ below the natural ground surface. The pit walls that result from mining should provided sufficient barrier effect for the mining activity. United Companies requests that perimeter berms, for the purpose of visual and noise abatement, be dropped from the Mining Plan. 2. The ponds observed during the inspection are not correctly located on the current Mining Map and incorrectly documented in permit documentation. Specifically; only one pond is shown the mining map and documented in existing permit. The location of this pond is shown in the southeast corner of Phase 1. The plan does not address the additional pond in the pit area or the one in Phase 5 that appears to be feeding the in-pit ponds. The Mining Plan states that this