Laserfiche WebLink
ORIGINAL-PUB61C FILE <br />(Page 2) <br />MINE lD # OR PROSPECTING ID #: ~~-iean-ie~ <br />INSPECTION DATE: v/~nx INSPECTORDS INITIALS: ~- <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />The Division conducted a monitoring inspection of the site in a response to a Citizen Complaint letter received <br />on February 5, 2006. A group of Citizens sent the complaint letter as part of their objection to the operator's <br />amendment application to expand the permit by 253 acres. In their letter the objectors stated the following: <br />1) "The existing Sokol Pit hqs encroached into Washington Road ROW, owned by EI Paso County. The <br />existing 'dam' (or berm) that prevents surface water from exiting the pit appears to be located within <br />the ROW of Washington Road. The dam in the ROW has apparently existed since at least 1995". <br />Present during the inspection of the site were Messer's Rob Mangone and Tom Smith of Rocky Mountain <br />Materials (RMM) and Ms. Diana Humphreys of fhe Army Corps of Engineers. Ms. Humphries observed the site, <br />but did not take part in DMG's inspection, <br />The area in question lies adjacent to and immediately north of the section line fence that bounds the existing <br />permit area. According to the objectors, the previous operator, EI Paso County, mined close to the permit <br />boundary, affecting an area within an EI Paso County road Right of way (ROW). The current operator, RMM, <br />agrees that EI Paso County, the previous operator, affected the area by creating a small berm near the section <br />line fence, within the present and then-existing permit area. <br />RMM contends that the 30-foot ROW does not preclude mining because that portion of the Washington Road <br />ROW is a Reserved ROW rather than a Deeded ROW and, as such, it could be affected with out being in <br />violation of the existing permit. <br />It is the Division's position that the reported disturbance, which is the subject of the Citizens Complaint, does not <br />constitute mining outside the permit boundary or mining without a permit. The disturbed area lies wholly within <br />the permitted area. The area was under permit when the questionable disturbance took place, which was <br />when EI Paso County was in charge of the permit. Because the disturbance was created by EI Paso County at <br />a time when EI Paso County held the permit, because EI Paso County knew of the disturbance at the time RMM <br />took over the permit, and holds the ROW reservation, the Division concludes that EI Paso County agreed to the <br />disturbance and agreed to allow the successor operator, RMM, access to the site for the purposes of mining <br />and reclamation. The Division anticipates that the questionable area will be reclaimed under the requirements <br />of the existing permit, on a timetable established by the permit. <br />