Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• ~. <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # }{-~(q {`7S~ <br />INSPECTION DATE_12{I(e I4 `~ <br />(Page 2) <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />• <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS JtS~ <br />This inspection was conducted primarily in response to a complaint by Ken Hershel who has <br />indicated that he is the owner of the property south of and adjacent to the San Acacio Pit. <br />Mr. Hershey stated in his complaint chat the County had encroached upon his property with the <br />mining operation and has also mentioned that he was never notified of the County's permit <br />application for the pit. The application was received by the Division on 4/21/99 and called <br />complete on aJ30J99. Approval of the permit application by the Division was made 9/21/99. <br />The pit was inactive at the time of the inspection. The County was represented during the <br />inspection by Mathew Valdez of the Costilla County Planning and Zoning Office. Ervin Jacquez, <br />District Foreman and Clarence Pence were also present briefly during the inspection. <br />The ID sign for the site was in order and the southern boundaries of the permit area, where <br />the inspection was focused, were adequately marked by steel fence posts. The permit area <br />boundaries correspond to the boundaries of the County's property in this area. <br />An inspection of the site was conducted by the Division on 6/17/99 during the permit <br />application review process and prior to its approval. At that time, there was evidence of <br />mining related disturbance outside of the proposed permit boundaries. County representatives <br />at that time indicated the County was not responsible for this disturbance. As a result, the <br />Division's report of that inspection included a recommendation that the County fully describe <br />and illustrate this disturbance on the Exhibit E Maps in the petmit application in order that <br />the County not be held responsible for it in the future. <br />This inspection revealed that these disturbed areas, outside of the approved <br />permit area boundaries, had now been graded to slope into the pit. In that <br />the County apparently did not secure the adjacent landowner's permission to <br />extend their reclamation efforts onto his property and outside of the permit <br />area, the County's grading and sloping activities amount to damage outside <br />the permit area. The total disturbance related to the grading outside of the <br />approved permit area boundaries is estimated at a minimum of 0.65 acres. This <br />is a possible violation and will be included on Page 4 of this report. <br />In regard to Mr. Hershey's report of not being notified, as an adjacent <br />landowner, of the County's permit application in early 1999, Mr. Hershey has <br />provided evidence indicating his purchase of the property identified in the <br />permit application as belonging to Margaret Munro prior to the time of the <br />County's permit application. If Mr. Hershey did own the adjacent property at <br />that time, he should have been notified of the application. Rule 1.6.2 (1) <br />(e) of the. Construction Materials Rules and Regulations requires, in part, <br />that the applicant for a permit shall mail or personally serve a copy of the <br />notice (of the application) to all owners of record of surface lands within <br />200 feet of the boundary of the affected land. Since all landowners adiacent <br />becomes a compliance~roblem and will be included on Page 4 of this report <br />