Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />1. There was probably more than one sand and gravel operation on <br />the property, and there may have been a topsoil(?) operation. <br />2. A&S Construction clearly and undeniably extracted gravel under <br />contract to the State of New Mexico during 1984. <br />3. The State of New Mexico accepted much of the responsibility <br />that our permits normally require. They identified the <br />resource, procured legal right of entry, and promised <br />reclamation to the landowners. They subsequently released the <br />construction company of reclamation obligations at the request <br />of the landowners. NM certified archaeological clearance. NM <br />paid royalties to the landowners. NM agreed to take all <br />reasonable precautions to prevent pollution of streams and to <br />avoid or minimize siltation to the streams. <br />4. A&S Construction was aware of MLRD requirements at the time of <br />this operation as they held permits of their own. <br />5. With this evidence, I believe NM should be viewed as the <br />operator. <br />6. Without aerial photo and other information to the contrary, we <br />have no factual evidence that the Valdez's conducted mining. <br />7. I believe A&S acted prudently in assuming that NM served as <br />the operator. <br />m:min/A&S-NM.ltr <br />