Laserfiche WebLink
Division of Minerals and Geology <br />April 30, 2002 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />In summary the reclamation plan submitted by GCC Rio Grande, Inc., is inadequate and should be <br />rejected by the State. 'lie plan as described in exhibit E, which is less than three pages long, is <br />incomplete, vague in meaning, and evasive in responsibility. The total plan, which is an inch <br />thick, is responsive to bureaucratic requirements but not to the work of reclamation. There is an <br />annoying lack of specificity and a failure to use the word "shall." For example: "disturbed areas <br />will be amended as necessary," eroded areas or noxious weeds "will be evaluated," "problem <br />areas may be re-seeded," failed seeded areas may be re-seeded." <br />The "Reclamation Plan" Exhibit F shows the proposed contours of the land 50 years later but <br />nothing of the 30 to 40 foot pits with attendant drainage, earth handling and erosion problems to <br />be expected and anticipated during the preceding 50 years. <br />Exhibits E and F should be reviewed by a registered landscape architect, a professional <br />hoi ticulturalist and checked by an attorney. This permit is, after all, a contract and the final <br />warranty is only as good as the written description of the services and responsibility required of <br />the cement company. <br />Very truly yours, <br />1?? <br />Robert B. Cain <br />cc: Gov. Bill Owens <br />Att. Gen. Ken Salazar <br />Sen. Bill Thiebaut <br />Sen. Lewis Entz <br />Rep. Joyce Lawrence <br />Rcp. Lola Spradlcy <br />Rep. Abel Tapia <br />John Klomp <br />Mike Occhiato <br />Randy Thurston <br />Bill Sova