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