2002-05-02_PERMIT FILE - M2002004 (4)

Home Browse Search

05/02/2002 16:06 4716922 EILAND LAW PAGE 09 crossing railroad lines. The newspapers recently reported on Pueblo County's efforts to get one put into a new eastern access to the airport, and the PUC. turned the County down, advising the County that they don't allow at-grade crossings at all now, and they would have to bridge over or tunnel under the railroad line. Rio Grande is likely to get the same reply from the PUC, especially considering the high volume of 18-wheelers, half of them carrying maximum. loads, passing over the tracks (29,000-49,OdO/year, according to Rio Grande's Traffic report submitted with its County Special Use Permit application. Rio Grande states that the railroad line will not be affected by the new access road so no "below grade excavation or construction is needed." Yet, heavy trucks-will be crossing the railroad where it was not originally designed for this type of activity. It seems that they will have to do below grade excavation and construction in order not to destroy the railroad line. .The part of the legal description exhibit referring to railroad crossing is likely inaccurate. The Mining Plan states generally that "upon review of all potential impacts to people, structures, water wells, animals, and the surrounding natural environment, Rio Grande has found no conditions that would prevent safe operation of the proposed mining and blasting operations at the site, Rio Grande and its-parent company have a long history in other states of mining and rock blasting, on a similar scale without incident." Rio Grande provided no evidence, in or outside the permit application,. to support this statement. Mining and blasting cannot be safe to the 250 species of animals living on the site, or to the 146-yr.-old adobe house, a former way station located just off the Company's property, a historic structure built without foundations that is likely to crumble after extensive blasting. Although this structure is likely to be affected, it is not mentioned in the application. Nor is, the fact that no independent archaeological survey has been made of the land, even though•adjacent property has evidence of tipi rings and human habitation for hundreds of years. We are. given no indication that the Company even recognizes that archaeological and historic remains exist on the land, let alone that it has any wish to preserve them. The company has misrepresented the level of its experience. Rio Grande's parent company, Grupo Cementos de•Chihuahua, started operating in the U.S. only in 1985, when it purchased an existing, and much smaller, Holnam plant in Tiheras; New Mexico. They recently purchased an existing plant in Rapid City, South Dakota in 2000; According to available information, there is no such "long history" of operationsin the U.S. The parent company is located in Mexico, which has different regulations. Requirements or reclamation were only recently instituted in New Mexico, and Rio Grande's efforts there have been on a very small scale compared to that required in Colorado. Rio Grande has virtually no experience in reclamation; and it shows in this permit application. Consultations with the State Water Engineer, blasting engineer, revegetation experts, and•a qualified landscape architect are still needed. Due to the inadequacies in this application; it would be appropriate to delay your decision until you have allowed time for further technical investigation and consultation with them.