Roper Appeal

95 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Cynthia Wall

10/22/22 @ 7:53 PM
I have asthma and I believe the dust from this plant will greatly affect my lungs and my ability to breathe. I walk daily and don't want to be walking in nature with white cement dust covering all of the vegetation, buildings, etc. we moved up here t...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sheena Postenrieder

10/22/22 @ 9:28 AM
As a full time resident of Ruidoso who hikes and spends a significant amount of time outdoors in the Alto and Ruidoso area, I'm highly concerned with the chemicals this plant will release into our air. I'm a cancer survivor and have allergy and breat...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gail Crites

10/21/22 @ 5:15 PM
We moved to this area 23 years ago for the clean, healthy environment and the hiking. The amount of water, light, sound and air pollution this plant would generate is not in keeping with the area. Too many people would lose their access to a healthy ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Vanessa Blackburn

10/21/22 @ 4:36 PM
I retired in Alto, NM for a reason...pristine wilderness areas to hike & ski and to get away from the pollution, noise and over development of the city & its suburbs.
PLEASE, don't let my dreams, and numerous other residents dreams, be squashed by
perm...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cindi Moore

10/21/22 @ 4:23 PM
Please do not allowing this air pollution making and water drain be allowed to ruin our peaceful homes. I am immune compromised and have Respiratory issues and If this plant starts polluting our air it might make me have to move away from it. It wi...↓

Please don't ruin our beautiful NM home.
No attachments

Comment From: Pierre Pfeffer

10/21/22 @ 3:58 PM
to: EIB in the matter of 22-34 Roper Construction Permit
From: Pierre Pfeffer (augment oral testimony)
Hearing Date: 2022.10.18
Submission Date: 2022.10.21
Re: Testimony in opposition to granting Roper Construction a permit to build a concrete bat...↓

Follow on submission after oral statement on 2022.10.20

* 74 year old retired lawyer, homeowner, full time resident of Alto, living ~2.5 miles from the proposed plant on lake shore drive
* Lifetime asthmatic, retired here not just for the climate and the beauty, but the purity of the air
* I am opposed to construction of a concrete batch plant at the designated location


In response to Board Member Garcia's expressed concerns with Roper self reporting - those concerns are well founded

Roper has not demonstrated the kind of credibility that would allow him to meet the burden of persuasion to secure a permit Carrizozo plant because ...

Roper mislead the Board when he testified regarding the emissions from his Carrizozo facility
Per Roper: "The Carrizozo facility is in compliance with the applicable air quality permit. NMED has not issued notices of violation or compliance orders for that facility." (Roper exhibit 3, p.5 - my attachment 1)
The truth - the Carrizozo facility has never been inspected by, nor does the NMED have any self reporting records of, the Carrizozo facility.
Ruidoso News media request for NMED inspection records (attachment 3) resulted in no records provided, but a statement from NMED that states in part "The permit for the concrete batch plant in Carrizozo contains similar requirements, but no further specifics nor dates of previous monitoring were provided. " This is the same Response Bill Horton, Alto resident, received - as he has testified to. See full article: https://www.ruidosonews.com/story/news/local/2022/02/23/alto-concrete-batch-plant-hearing-draws-critics-support/6753434001/
A look at the "draft permit" confirms that it is up to the operator to monitor, keep records, and supply those records to NMED on demand. B110
Roper misled the realtor who sold him the property
1. Purchased property with deed restrictions (attachment 5) which first he denied existed, then denied having received notice of. Realtor who sold him the property, and the escrow officer (supported by email exchange) both proved otherwise. His denial of receiving notice was within a verified pleading submitted to the District Court in Carrizozo
Roper misled the Carrizozo court by filing a "related matter" pleading
filed 2022.10.11 (see my attachment 4)
Attached to it was an NMED draft
The pleading itself advised the court that "... Roper hereby provides notice that the Air Quality Bureau and the Environmental Protection Division of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) has approved Roper's revised air quality permit application ..."
On the date that was filed Roper knew the EIB had jurisdiction and NMED could NOT approve his air quality permit.
The misrepresentation was obviously designed to mislead the District Judge into believing Roper's permit had been approved.
Roper has consistently submitted testimony and plant configurations in the District Court that contradict the testimony and plant configurations he submits to NMED and the EIB
two conflicting stories in two courts - under oath
How can he do this? Silo the cases with two separate law firms, both located in Sante Fe
Atty Rose can't knowingly offer testimony that contradicts other testimony given under oath in another court ... unless he doesn't know about it.
Vigil plays the same game ... don't ask my staff about that other case ... they know nothing!
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: Ron m michelena DDS

10/21/22 @ 1:33 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen, I left a comment about the air quality concerns I have, about the batch plant last week. After listening to the hearing, I would like to address The Board. We are not talking about a small or unobtrusive project proposed by Mr. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Katherine Nelson

10/21/22 @ 12:09 PM
To Whom this Concerns,

Hello, my name is Katherine Nelson, and I am a resident of Alto, New Mexico. I live about 5 miles down the road from this proposed location for a concrete batch plant. My opposition to this plant being constructed in such a beau...↓

Plants like this, as you know, require large heavy trucks that are needed to haul concrete in and out of a facility like this, and they are a known road hazard. But this mountain community has an exceptionally active tourist population who frequently have little to zero experience driving in the mountainous area in which we live. I have seen how these trucks operate already on Devils Canyon Road in Lincoln County. That road was once a sleepy mountain dirt road but recently it has become an even more dangerous road because of a gravel pit that has been established in that area. Those heavy trucks take up nearly both sides of the road coming and going so frequently that after one time of getting stuck between two of these trucks on that road, I won't go near it again. That experience was very scary. Those types of trucks and dump trucks will be coming and going from the insection of NM Hwy 48 and 220 with heavy loads. Those dangerous trucks have the potential to put the lives of tourists and the people who live and work in this community at greater risk of a bad accident. That is already a dangerous intersection because of the steep incline there, and this would only make it exponentially worse. Then there is the pollution factor that gets amplified by a very dirty plant like a concrete batch plant. This is the waste runoff that occurs from a number of common practices that these plants routinely perform. These biohazards are easily found online, but here are just a few commonly known environmental impacts to areas near or around a concrete plant:

"Nitrogen oxide (NOx) can cause or contribute to a variety of health problems and adverse environmental impacts, such as ground-level ozone, acid rain, global warming, water quality deterioration, and visual impairment" (EPA.GOV,2022).

Concrete Plants are an enormous environmental hazard and the U.S. Government has pages of information on how these plants are dangerous to humans, plants, and wildlife alike. The community of Alto is a pristine spot right next to a Wilderness Area and a National Forest where people come to get away from these types of health hazards. And, the road in which this plant is proposed is a Scenic Byway for heaven's sake! What would make anyone want to put something so unpleasant in such a beautiful spot in our county? The only thing that I can come up with is greed and a complete lack of humanity. It's sad but it's all many of us who live here can come up with.

I know that my home in New Mexico is more valuable than that, and our beautiful community of Alto is too. Those who live here love it and value the incredible views around us, we aren't taking it for granted. But to have so little concern for your own neighbor's health and happiness is something I will never understand or stand by without doing what I can to say no to an awful idea. I have faith that those I've voted for and this state, along with the Environmental Agency taxpayers provide will put civility, our lands, and the health of its citizens first. Please stop this awful legal battle for good.

Thank you,
Katherine Nelson
No attachments

Comment From: Kay Smart

10/21/22 @ 9:17 AM
Mr. Roper has intentionally misrepresented this project from day 1. He lied to the person he purchased the property from, about his intended use for the property. He ignored the restrictions stated on the Deed to the property he purchased, stating th...↓
Mr. Roper has an operating facility just a few miles from the intended new location, and an operating Batch Plant in Carrizozo, NM. Talk to the residents in Carrizozo and they will tell you of the issues with concrete dust inside their homes, in the air, and on everything they own since the Plant began operating. Mr. Roper is NOT being the responsible business owner he claims to be in Carrizozo and will NOT adhere to the environmental standards he claims he will at the new site. He cannot be trusted to protect the environment in the future, because he has shown complete disregard for the environment in the past. Please do NOT approve his request to place a Concrete Batch Plant in Alto, NM.
thank you,
No attachments

Comment From: Josh Botkin

10/21/22 @ 8:49 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Debra Higdon

10/21/22 @ 8:40 AM
I wanted to followup after my presentation to the EIB Board yesterday because in an attempt to keep my emotions in check, I forgot many salient points that I wished to make. Again, I apologize for repeating information that you have heard before but...↓

I am puzzled by what seems to be a push by NMED's Legal Representation to issue an Air Quality Permit in spite of the excellent work their staff did in the previous hearing, seeing "the data manipulation" (per hearing officer) being performed by Roper in an attempt to obtain his permit. Multiple witnesses have stated that there are multiple discrepancies in his original as well as revised applications, that he is using irrelevant modeling in his arguments and is quilty of "significant oversights" (especially related to air quality impacts of traffic and placement of things in his yard). He has continually tweeked his models to stay just below the line of acceptance and when you factor in his inappropriate modelling THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WILL BE EXCEEDED and, of serious concern, he is creating NON-ENFORCABLE CONDITIONS. This man has yet to produce the required reports to NMED related to his existing plant and NMED has failed in oversight of that plant; therefore, we as a community have absolutely no faith that either of these items will be corrected in relation to the new plant.

This plant WILL endanger the health of the citizens of Alto as well as our abundant wild communities including wild horses, elk, deer, red fox, etc. and our wondrous bird community. We, as citizens and neighbors, have spent over $1 million in an effort to stop this plant and protect our environment. Please understand, Mr. Roper purchased a pristine land parcel WITH STRICT DEED RESTRICTIONS AGAINST ACTIVITIES SUCH AS HIS PLANT - those restrictions were in place at his time of purchase and he agreed to them by signing the Deed. Shame on him for his ignorance and/or arrogance, whichever is the case, for thinking the rules of a civilized society do not apply to him. There are over 4800 square miles in Lincoln County and Mr. Roper could find a more appropriate location for this plant rather than smack dab in the middle of its most natural community. Please assist us, and NMED, in "fostering a healthy and prosperous" community - despite the leanings of the NMED legal staff. Thank you again for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Susanne Mathis

10/21/22 @ 7:11 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Elizabeth Devara

10/20/22 @ 6:46 PM
We are not in favor for concrete plant.
No attachments

Comment From: Tanya Tyler

10/20/22 @ 5:55 PM
This concrete batch plant will be a DISASTER for this beautiful, scenic, serene area. I urge you to DENY the petition. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Thompson

10/20/22 @ 8:06 AM
This proceeding might be renamed:

"Ryan Roper & Air Quality Board versus Quality of Life in Alto NM"

Mr. Vigil said he understands the disruptions to area residents BUT has insisted throughout that NMED is fully within its statutorily granted powers to...↓

Seems sketchy. Also sketchy is how many cubic yards might or might not be produced in one year, down now from a max production of 500,000/cu. yards/per year (roughly 53 acre feet of water would be necessary to make that quantity) to 4 acre feet of water, enough to make 37,000 cubic yards of cement. Quite a difference, obviously.

The message we residents of Alto have gotten from NMED is: "We feel your pain but regulations are regulations. Authorities are authorities. The question of sufficient available water for Mr. Roper to do what he says he will do is not in our domain of concern."

I'd guess any of the individuals supporting that view would fight tooth and nail if a cement batch plant were proposed for their own neighborhoods.

Again, re the use Holloman AFB meteorological data in Roper Construction's Air Quality application...Met Data... I've listened to a lot of testimony as to the validity of using Holloman data and repeated testimony over the months as to why Alamogordo and Sierra Blanca Airport weren't used. Holloman is 46 miles distant with different topography & at 3500 feet lower elevation. Our recent devastating area fire started on April 12, 2022. On that day, winds in Alto were gusting to 70-80 MPH. Winds at Holloman varied over the course of that same day, April 12, between 10 and 44 MPH, dropping off to almost nothing at night.

Our winds can be mind boggling and last for days. Strong long lasting winds are definitely not one of the reasons I love living here. This spring during the long dry period before the rainy season, strong winds blew continuously for days. At times during the 22 years I've lived here, sand and gypsum have blown up from White Sands, turning our skies to a murky haze.

The ways in which quality of life would be compromised for area residents with this cement batch plant have been amply detailed in public testimony in this hearing. But it isn't just the people and their homes. It's everything. The animals. The vegetation. It's potentially the air despite whatever environmental measures may or may not be in place. Or enforced. There was some mention in yesterday's testimony that pollution particles have to be VISIBLE to the naked eye to be reported and subsequently acted upon by regulators.

(END)
No attachments

Comment From: Dr. Charles Dixon

10/20/22 @ 8:03 AM
Attached are remarks from Alto resident and wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Dixon regarding impacts to the native wildlife and their habitat should the proposed Alto concrete batch plant be permitted to be built and operate.
Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Severance

10/20/22 @ 7:56 AM
Attached are my remarks to be presented to the EIB during the public comment period on Thursday October 20, 2022
Attachments:

Comment From: Pierre Pfeffer

10/20/22 @ 6:05 AM
to: EIB in the matter of 22-34 Roper Construction Permit
From: Pierre Pfeffer
Hearing Date: 2022.10.18
Re: Testimony in opposition to granting Roper Construction a permit to build a concrete batch plant at designated location

* 74 year old retired ...↓
* Lifetime asthmatic, retired here not just for the climate and the beauty, but the purity of the air
* I am opposed to construction of a concrete batch plant at the designated location

There are any number of reasons this permit should be denied. Here's just a few.
plant emissions will have a negative impact on my health, and the health of so many of my neighbors
(1) It risks causing my asthma (currently controlled with inhalers) to morph into emphysema - primarily caused by air pollution
(2) I use the valley for recreation - from the White Mountain Wilderness area to road bicycling along the 220 That will be foreclosed to me
(3) My allergist advises me to stop bicycling or hiking near the plant if it gets built,
and suggested I relocate my residence given its current proximity to the plant.

His demonstrated inability to meet emission standards
(1) Technical testimony - persuasive (may in fact be a major source)
(2) roll back of throughput (another one) and another redesign - an admission he can't meet standards under original application, though he says "for the neighbors"
(see attachment 1 - Roper testimony, p4&5)
(3) use of water to remediate. 1st Roper claimed it was irrelevant, now he gives source and quantity, but nowhere does he describe the technology employed at the plant. "The proposed Alto facility is a new batch plant,which consists of newly manufactured equipment, modern dust suppression systems ..." (see Attachment 1, Roper testimony p.6) What are those "modern"systems?
Kathleen Primm - senior minor source NMED expert "There's nothing in the Clean Air Act that prevents me from ... (considering water) (see attachment 2, p.155 - hearing transcript)


D. Roper has not demonstrated the kind of credibility that would allow him to meet the burden of persuasion. Garcia's inquiry - self reporting

Carrizozo plant

Roper testimony: "The Carrizozo facility is in compliance with the applicable air quality
permit. NMED has not issued notices of violation or compliance orders for that facility." (attachment 1, p5)

Ruidoso News media request for NMED inspection records (attachment 3) resulted in no records provided, but a statement from NMED that states in part "The permit for the concrete batch plant in Carrizozo contains similar requirements, but no further specifics nor dates of previous monitoring were provided. " This is the same Response Bill Horton, Alto resident, received - as he has testified to. See full article: https://www.ruidosonews.com/story/news/local/2022/02/23/alto-concrete-batch-plant-hearing-draws-critics-support/6753434001/
A look at the "draft permit" confirms that it is up to the operator to monitor, keep records, and supply those records to NMED on demand. B110
Purchased property with deed restrictions (attachment 5) which first he denied existed, then denied having received notice of. Realtor who sold him the property, and escrow officer (supported by email exchange) proved otherwise.



Process

NOTICE OF NMED DECISION IN RELATED PROCEEDINGS
"Defendant Roper Construction, Inc. ("Roper") hereby provides notice that the Air Quality
Bureau within the Environmental Protection Division of the New Mexico Environment
Department ("NMED") has approved Roper's revised air quality permit application, in advance of
the scheduled October 18, 2022 ..." (attachment 4) This filed 2022.10.11 in State District Court considering deed restriction violations "related case"

two conflicting stories in two courts - under oath
How? Two sets of lawyers? Rose can't knowingly offer testimony that contradicts other testimony under oath ... unless he doesn't know about it.
Vigil ... don't ask my staff about that other case ... they know nothing! Does Vigil
NMED attorney advocating against his own department. How does that work
Roper testimony (attachment 1) contrasts the carrizozo plant with the proposed alto plant: "new ... newly manufactured equipment ... modern dust suppression systems" Brooms?

Please see supporting attachments uploaded as attachments 1,3,4 and 5
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: Rosalind Langford

10/19/22 @ 11:50 AM
To whom it may concern: New Mexico is blessed with a tremendous amount of open land. It is hard for me to believe that there is no other place to build a batch plant other than a residential area! People have worked very hard to be able to live in a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Clayton Murphy

10/19/22 @ 6:10 AM
I am in opposition to the construction and operation of this concrete plant. For one, I am opposed to the increase in heavy truck traffic that would directly impact the area of my residence. The 2nd reason is the likely noise associated with this pla...↓
No attachments

Comment From: RICK HAWKINS

10/18/22 @ 1:08 PM
I HAVE READ THE PROPOSAL AND THE ARGUMENTS OPPOSING THE ROPER CONCRETE PLANT BEING PERMITTED TO OPERATE IN THE CURRENT PROPOSED SITE.I AGREE WITH THE OPPOSITION TO THIS SITE. MY REASONS FOR DISAPPROVAL INCLUDE -1.THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO THE QUALI...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa French

10/18/22 @ 11:29 AM
I am deeply opposed to the permitting of the Roper Construction Batch Plant in Alto, New Mexico.
Attachments:

Comment From: Dorothy Wilson

10/18/22 @ 8:12 AM
We oppose the proposed batch concrete plant in Alto. Here are a few reasons why:
1. We moved to Alto 14 months ago to escape the pollution, traffic, and noise of big-city living. As full-time Alto residents, we are now concerned about how the concret...↓

2. As retirees, it's not surprising that we both have pre-existing conditions that require ongoing treatment and medication, putting us at risk. As cancer and auto-immune disorder patients, we're afraid dust emissions from the plant will exacerbate our respiratory and overall general health.

3. Our mountain perch overlooks herds of roaming indigenous wildlife that stop and graze frequently. We are gravely concerned that the concrete batch plant will affect not only the respiratory health of these animals, but many will also be making a regular diet out of dust-laden foliage.

4. One of the biggest adjustments of our move to Alto was tolerating the windy conditions several months out of the year. With 20-30 mph winds (with gusts up to twice that on occasion) we are bombarded with dust and debris on our property and it accumulates inside our home, as it is. There's no question that the dust emissions from the proposed plant, will worsen the problem. We also find that it's difficult to prepare for windy conditions when the weather channel and other sources are at odds with our private outdoor weather monitor, particularly as it relates to forecasting wind, its frequency, and wind speeds. We're concerned about how the dust will affect our health.

5. As property owners we are fearful that our property value will decrease significantly, based on reports we've seen. You need only drive by a concrete batch plant to see the devastation that can occur. We purchased our home because we were confident it would be a sound real estate investment with minimal risk. We have already made significant improvements to our property, the structures, and the native landscaping. As retirees, we need to protect this investment, but will that be possible with a concrete batch plant down the road? If our scenic and recreational areas decline, we all lose.

For all these reasons, we feel that a concrete batch plant is inappropriate in Alto, New Mexico. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sidney Miller

10/18/22 @ 6:34 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Pete Gnatkowski

10/17/22 @ 9:54 PM
Construction of the Roper concrete batch plant will provide benefits to the very people who are opposing the construction. It will provide a service that is much closer, easier to access and more economical than the current plant in Carrizozo. Transp...↓
No attachments

Comment From: GARY RESTIVO

10/17/22 @ 9:19 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

10/17/22 @ 8:21 PM
It seems that the NMED has already approved this permit, more then once. Why is there so much regulation if they are not going to follow the regulators and requirements? The opposition to the Roper concrete plant just doesn't want the plant in their ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Barbie Roper

10/17/22 @ 4:31 PM
Lincoln County needs this small independent locally owned business. Roper Constructions has followed all of the rules and passed all of the test. Money and politics should not play a part in the decision to grant Roper Construction to go forth with...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Douglas Thompson

10/17/22 @ 4:27 PM
The attached file, "EIBTestimonyR1.pdf" corrects an error entering the maximum wind speed at Holloman AFB on April 12, 2022.
Attachments:

Comment From: Doug Thompson

10/17/22 @ 4:12 PM
The attached file named "EIBTestimony.pdf" contains the comments I will present during the Public Hearing on Oct 18, 2022, and includes supporting charts for those comments.
Attachments:

Comment From: Louis Goode

10/17/22 @ 3:16 PM
Why is The NM-EIB entertaining an appeal for an Air Quality Permit Application (RCI's) that was previously denied at the highest level by the Secretary of the Environment for NM?
While the NMED AQB was/is only concerned about the air pollution associa...↓
Where are the biographies and financial disclosure records of the 7 NM-EIB members located for review and examination please?
How many additional appeal requests can Roper file, and with what agencies, should the NM-EIB reject his already denied request for an AQ Permit?
Is the EIB or its individual members subject to lawsuits filed by the more than 200 residents residing within 1/2 mile mile of the proposed CBP, should they grant Roper's appeal to build and operate his Alto CBP?
What financial assistance can the NM-EIB provide to ensure the preservation of the pristine air quality and water purity, low light and little noise pollution, currently enjoyed by nearly 3000 NM residents and taxpayers in Alto, NM?
Finally, will you please define the concept of "Environmental Improvement", the responsibility that you are charged to manage for the Governor of NM?
Please answer these questions as you kick off the public hearing at 0900 on 8 October 2022.
Also know that your attention in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Respectfully,
Lou Goode
575 336-1164
No attachments

Comment From: Laurie Benavides

10/17/22 @ 2:09 PM
My name is Laurie Benavides and my husband Roy Benavides and I reside full time at 112 Goldenrod Lane in Alto, New Mexico, 1.5 miles from the proposed Concrete Batch Plant on Airport Road.
We wish to register our opposition to the proposed Concrete Ba...↓
I have asthma which is currently controlled with albuterol and my husband is a cardiac care patient with a pacemaker. The impact of dust clouds will mean that I will have difficulty breathing and will require that I take more drugs to be able to breathe. Roy and I both walk for fitness reasons and there are a few times a year when we have particulate matter from the White Sands or smoke from a forest fire in the air and are not able to go outdoors. The regular and persistent fugitive dust from a concrete batch plant will daily render the air unbreathable for us.
We moved here full time in 2005 because of the fresh mountain air, the wildlife, the available water supply, and the pristine forests. A concrete batch plant will endanger our health, and the health of our wildlife, water, and forests.
Please do the right thing for us, our neighbors, and our environment. Do not permit the concrete batch plant to open.
Sincerely,
Laurie (and Roy) Benavides
112 Goldenrod Lane
Alto, New Mexico 88312
(432)770-4480
lpbenavides@gmail.com
rcbenavides@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Weaver

10/17/22 @ 12:54 PM
I am a long time resident of a home located less than ½ mile from this proposed project. I am very concerned about the impact of this batch plant on the air quality of the area and the long term effects of the many people who live nearby. It may als...↓

Sincerely,
Mary Weaver
mary@ruihomes.com
Off. 575.257.3221
Cell: 575.937.5229
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Burnett

10/17/22 @ 10:36 AM
I am resending an email sent to the NMED in July of 2021. The points made in 2021 remain topical and are worth resending to the EIB. Thank you for your consideration.

Hello Ms Saikrishnan,

My name is Jim Burnett and I have residence in Alto, NM, livi...↓

I am writing to you today, regarding my understanding of Roper Construction's application. As I am not a civil engineer and/or EPA expert, I am confining my feedback to areas in which a layman's understanding might still be germane to your process. My feedback is a result of having linked to Roper's application, on-line, and reviewing sections aside those citing technical information and analysis.

The following inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies were noted:

1. There are several mentions of Ruidoso's "average wind speed". The first mention is in Section 6, page 2 in the sub-section, Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions Rate (there are other referrals to this table in Roper's application). Firstly, there's a certain amount of risk involved when using averages, as I'm sure you already know. Ruidoso/Alto residents are well aware of the high, consistent winds that frequent our area, typically in the spring and fall seasons. While a relatively low average wind speed of 8.3 mph paints a generally low risk of particulate dispersion, it is exceedingly high wind speeds that will have the greatest consequence for Alto residents. Secondly, while the average wind speed table used by Montrose Air Quality Services in their analysis might be the only such reference document available to them, utilizing a table that is 15 years old, runs the risk of minimizing or understating the impact to the area. Are there no more current wind speed data available?

2. Following this same line of thinking; please reference Montrose Air Quality Services' analysis, which is appended to the Roper application, specifically, Section 2.5, page 12 (page 181 of the on-line Roper application). Montrose states, "early morning and late afternoon hours with low wind speeds are typically determined to represent the highest modeled hourly concentrations for low release fugitive emission sources". Again, the risk here isn't the average wind speed, or, utilizing the two periods of the day when wind speeds are at their lowest. The true risk is during periods of peak wind speeds (see #1, above). Montrose may have used accepted modeling practices, however, this is flawed reasoning, at best. It is specious reasoning, in its worst application.

3. In analyzing the meteorological date, the Roper application cites Holloman AFB as a likely comparative data set to Ruidoso/Alto. Please refer to section 16-S, page 12 (page 162 of the on-line Roper application) in which "Dispersion model meteorological input files were created from meteorological data collected at Holloman AFB, NM for the years 2016 - 2020, about 45 miles north-north-east from the site". Please open and refer to the attached web capture file. (I apologize for my underdeveloped computer skills. You will need to use the magnification tool at the top of the opened file to enlarge the area map and then drag the area map downward, in order to view the Holloman and Ruidoso areas.)

Holloman AFB sits a full 2,500 -3,500 feet below Alto, NM's elevation (approx. 4,000 feet for Holloman vs approx. 7,500 feet for Alto). Additionally, as is depicted in the screen shot, Holloman AFB sits on a high desert plain, while Ruidoso/Alto is in mountainous terrain and in fact, the proposed CBP sits in a bowl, defined by surrounding hills and peaks. The Roper application states, "The similar elevation, topography, terrain, vegetation, and climate of both sites make this meteorological data representative of the model area". This logic is questionable, at best. At worst, it's specious application of data that's inconsistent with the proposed site for the CBP. Finally, as noted in the paragraph above, the Roper application states that Holloman is 45 miles north-north-east of the proposed CBP site. It's plain to see that's just not correct. This might be a minor point. However, it suggests that Montrose has been less than thorough in their preparation of Roper's NMED application and that there could be other inaccuracies in the application.

4. Please see section 16-J, Sensitive Areas, page 5 (page 155 of the on-line Roper application). Herein, when asked whether there were likely to be public comments opposing the permit application, the Roper application response is, no. Given the extent to which Roper has gone in documenting the required notification of residents and/or interested parties in the immediate area of the proposed CBP, surely the "no" response is an attempt to shorten the application review process. More likely is Roper's misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the reaction of the local community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please include me, via my email address, on future developments, especially regarding details of a public hearing.

Jim Burnett

Alto, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Wilson

10/17/22 @ 9:53 AM
I am writing to protest the possibility of allowing Ryan Roper to build a concrete batch plant, which is currently under consideration, on Hwy 220 near the intersection of State Highways 48/220 in Alto.

I believe this is a horrible idea that will have...↓

Several Doctors have testified that the particulate matter coming from a concrete batch plan would have very negative health consequences to the individuals at the many residences and businesses near the concrete batch plant, particularly the many retired individuals near the plant that already have significant breathing challenges.

The Ruidoso/Lincoln County Association of REALTORs surveyed their 200 members regarding this subject and 9 out of 10 are strongly opposed to this development at this location. A similar percentage of Alto residents are also strongly opposed to this development at this location.

My wife and I bought a house at 136 Placitas Drive in Alto, New Mexico 88312 on March 10, 2021 for the beautiful surroundings, dark skies, plentiful wildlife, serene settings, etc. Our house is less than 1,000 yards from the proposed concrete batch plant. We are both 65 years old. We have both used inhalers recently for respiratory issues and my wife has asthma. Allowing this concrete batch plant to be built at the location proposed by Roper would cause a significant medical problem for these respiratory issues. The particulate matter from the concrete batch plant would significantly reduce the current clean air we experience at our home and would cause significant respiratory issues for us and the many other retired residents near the concrete batch plant.
.
We moved from the Dallas, Texas area and I am frankly shocked and saddened that this horrible idea is still even a consideration when the vast majority of residents and businesses vehemently oppose placing this industrial nightmare in the middle of a beautiful, mountain area. This industrial site will create significant health concerns for the many residences/businesses in close proximity. Our quality of life would be significantly diminished and realtors have told us that our property values would be significantly reduced if this concrete batch plant is allowed in our neighborhood.

The opposition to an ordinance has largely been defended by a focus on individual property rights, but only focusing on Ryan Roper's property rights. What about the property rights of the many individuals who invested in the area long before Roper decided to build this industrial nightmare near our homes? The property rights of many individuals that have already invested in properties surrounding Mr. Roper's property prior to his purchase should definitely be considered. In fact, the property rights of the hundreds if not thousands of individuals harmed by this plant should be given much higher priority than one construction person wanting to make more money by creating a nuisance for the many people who would be negatively affected if this proposed concrete batch plant is built.

Mr. Roper wants to place his plant in an area that is already primarily residential, and his industrial business is a MAJOR deviation from the current use of land in this area. For many reasons, he should not be allowed to shove this concrete batch plant down our throats, disrupting the wonderful ambiance of our peaceful settings and our dark skies. There are many other places he could build his concrete batch plant that would be much less intrusive to so many residences and businesses that are in close proximity to the proposed plant.

Mr. Roper purchased his property with full knowledge of the deed restrictions on that property, specifically regarding nuisance. This was specifically placed in the property deeds as a concession to other property owners. It's hard to imagine that it never occurred to him that his operation might be considered by his neighbors as a nuisance given the noise and pollution inherently/unavoidably associated with any concrete batch plant. I am sure that is why his public notice couldn't effectively be seen from Hwy 220, as he was trying to slip this by the local residents who he obviously knew would not be happy with his plans to ruin the neighborhood.

We, and many of our neighbors in the area, chose this peaceful, beautiful, serene and quiet area to retire. Allowing this nuisance to be built so near our residences, would cause many of us to sell our properties and move somewhere else, outside of Lincoln County, where residential and businesses voices are heard in order to be sure a disaster like the concrete batch plant being built in our neighborhood would quickly be denied.

The intrusion on the property rights by the concrete batch plant (noise, air pollution, water contamination/depletion, dramatically increased traffic, etc.) CANNOT be limited to his property but will definitely and unavoidably impact surrounding property owners. Each of these property rights will be negatively affected by allowing this industrial development to occur. The proposed location on Hwy 220 is along the Billy the Kid Scenic Byway and near the White Mountain Wilderness. Allowing this industrial development would have very negative consequences to the beauty and wildlife currently living near this development and be an eyesore for the Billy the Kid Scenic Byway.

Our individual welfare, including health concerns (especially respiratory issues previously mentioned and described in the attached letter) should be considered. Other negative issues like diminished night sky viewing, impacts to vegetation and wildlife, water and the peaceful lifestyle that will be impacted by the constant traffic and noise associated with a concrete batch plant. The noise and increased traffic of concrete trucks running nearly 24/7 and water trucks running nearly 24/7 would significantly diminish our quality of life at our home.

We already have significant water issues in the area near the proposed concrete batch plant. Water is scarce in our area. We are extremely concerned about our very limited ground water supply being contaminated and depleted by these activities because all of the homes in the area are supplied water from domestic wells which rely on the same ground water supply. The contractor has estimated water use of nearly 20 million gallons per year which could be devastating to those of us relying on this same underground stream.

We had zoning for this corridor until 2013 when the Extra Territorial Zone (ETZ) was dissolved. The ETZ (jointly administered by LC and the village) did control land use along the Hwy 220 corridor. There are land owners that depended on the ETZ to protect their investment in this area.

Please consider these points when considering whether a concrete batch plant should be allowed at the current site proposed by Roper Construction. I respectfully request that you deny this Air Quality Permit to build the concrete batch plant. Please make every effort to deny a concrete batch plant from being constructed at this location as outlined in the attached letter from the Ruidoso/Lincoln County Association of REALTORs.

I respectfully request that the Environmental Impact Board consider these objections and the objections of so many of our neighbors and businesses about the negative impact of allowing this concrete batch plant to be built in our neighborhood. I have been coming to the Ruidoso/Alto area for over 60 years. It is a beautiful area currently, but allowing this concrete batch plant at this location would be a terrible mistake and would have a very negative impact upon the residents' quality of life and property values. Mr. Roper should be required to consider other sites that wouldn't impact so many citizens.

Please call me at 972 965-1211 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.

Best Regards,
Mark Wilson
No attachments

Comment From: Fort Stanton Cave Study Projec... (Leadership and BoD Fort Stanton Cave Study Proj.)

10/17/22 @ 8:23 AM
The attached statement was submitted in the Feb. 2022 public hearing on the proposed Alto concrete batch plant. The content of this statement remains relevant and is being submitted to the Environmental Improvement Board for consideration. This sub...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: William Deane

10/17/22 @ 8:17 AM
My wife and I are local year round residents in Alto. We are opposed to the construction of this concrete batch plant at the proposed location. We oppose this appeal for the following summary reasons:
A) Proximity to residential housing,
B) Proximi...↓
C) Flawed representation of air quality study on the quantity of particulate emissions and variance in local wind patterns to spread those emissions into residential areas and wilderness area,
D) Sources and usage of scarce water resources to operate such an industrial facility,
E) Lack of consideration for waste water discharge into local environment.

In summary, this is a stupid location for the type of industrial plant proposed.
Thank you for rejecting this appeal.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Miller, M.D. F.A.C.S.

10/17/22 @ 8:12 AM
Please find the attached brief on the health hazards associated with living in proximity to a concrete batch plant and exposure to particulate matter and volatile chemicals found in wind-blown concrete dust.
Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Severance

10/17/22 @ 8:03 AM
The attached file from the February 2022 hearing on the proposed Alto concrete batch plant is being resubmitted to the EIB to highlight the health concerns expressed by members of the Alto community should the plant be allowed to operate. I would li...↓

Additionally comment I-15 provides a summary of medical issues arising from prolonged exposure to emissions from concrete batch plants, as cited in published medical journals.

Lastly, comment I-118 describes the impact of silica dust emissions on people and areas in proximity to a concrete batch plant, as observed by the quality control manager of a concrete plant in the El Paso area.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this material.
Attachments:

Comment From: Rory Lacy

10/17/22 @ 7:21 AM
Rory Lacy
143 Legacy Lane
Alto, New Mexico
Ref: AQB 21-57

I live at 143 Legacy Lane and my property is south of the proposed concrete batch plate on Highway 220. My property runs parallel to Mr. Roper's property for approximately 100 meters. My reside...↓
I listened to the public hearing and I came to the conclusion that my property will be dusted from time to time with particulates from the proposed concrete batch plant. I'm not certain how many pounds or tons my six acres will accumulate annually or how to rid my property of these particulates. It seems to me these particulates will contaminate my turf, topsoil, physical assets and find ways to enter my home. So, when I mow my turf, disturb my top soil, clean my rain gutter, sweep my porch or dust my home these particulates will become airborne again and again.
I listened to hours of discussions on modeling. Whether or not to use Hollman or Sierra Regional meteorological values and how much water is needed to settle these particulates. I believe after listening to hours of discussion more local data is needed to determine how much and where these particulates will settle.
The State of New Mexico charged the NMED, through the air quality permitting process, to protect people and our natural resources from these pollutants, not to force residents adjacent to the proposed plant to seek refuge away from our homes to preserve our quality of life.
Don't second guess the New Mexico Secretary of the Environment. DENY Roper Construction's Permit.

Respectfully,


Rory Lacy
No attachments

Comment From: Preston Stone

10/16/22 @ 8:56 PM
We are a nation of freedom that has been preserved by Americans placing themselves in harms way on foreign battlefields at the cost of death to live one's right to live as an American with rights to have their own business of choice given they follow...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sheri Lacy

10/16/22 @ 6:40 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Rory Lacy

10/16/22 @ 6:23 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Sabine Dufis-Elizabe

10/16/22 @ 6:20 PM
Re: Air Quality Permit Application for Roper Construction Inc. Alto Concrete Batch Plant

Dear Environment Improvement Board members,
Out of all the places we have been looking at as a retirement place for my husband and myself, we picked Alto, NM for i...↓
It was such a shock to hear about the concrete batch plant project, as this would totally disfigure and negatively affect this amazing area. This is also a big health concern for older persons, young children and people with lung conditions.
No claimed business profits could outweigh the risks to the health of residents and visitors such plant would create.
One wouldn't expect to find such a nuisance in a touristic and peaceful, pristine area.
Who would want to come and visit to experience air pollution, noise, truck traffic and such an eyesore along a scenic road?
Thank you for your kind consideration towards this issue of Alto concrete batch plant for the benefits of the community.
Best regards,

Sabine Dufis-Elizabe.
No attachments

Comment From: Brett Wilkinson

10/16/22 @ 4:50 PM
I am not a NM resident but I have owned a home in Alto for over 12 years. I am deeply concerned about the impact of building a concrete plant in the Alto area. I would like to express three major concerns:

1. This is a unique environment and one of NM...↓

This is the southernmost ski resort in the Rocky Mountain range. As a result, Alto is a unique mountain community in a region that many outsiders to NM perceive as being a southwestern desert. The majesty of the tall pines, the mountain air, the peace and quiet, along with the mountain terrain, combine to make this a special place. Not only does this special place serve as home to the locals, but it also draws tourists to NM from other states and from within the state. This serves to bring added prosperity to the region and to the entire state.

I would question the wisdom of building a concrete plant in one of the more precious and fragile environmental jewels of the entire state. The likelihood of environmental degradation, even at lowest estimates, imposes far too great a risk to this unique region. There is an abundance of space in NM and I would suggest that the more environmentally polluting production activities should be placed in regions where the (inevitable) costs to the environment will be much lower than they would be in this unique mountain area.

2. The plant imposes risks to tourism and other tourism-focused businesses

I don't oppose business development at all, but I would argue that the external costs of the concrete plant have the potential to damage other tourism related businesses in this area, if they diminish the aesthetic value of this unique mountain region. One business doesn't have the right to jeopardize the broader tourism-facing industry.

3. There are other options that present much less risk

Although I love all of NM, there are many places in NM that do not have the charm and tourist-drawing power of the Alto region. These other places are more barren, less mountainous, and less green. In contrast, Alto, along with places like Ruidoso, Taos, Red River, etc., offer something very different and very special. Moreover, it is something that, once lost, will never be able to be replaced.

We all need concrete and if there were simply no alternatives, I would understand the need to build the plant. However, there is an abundance of alternatives and it seems remarkably short-sighted to increase the risk to the area, when there are many other good options.

In summary, I ask you to consider the importance of this unique mountain region, that is popular within and without the state, and known for its special environment. I ask you to consider whether the costs that may be imposed by this plant on others, and the increased risks to other businesses in the community, are really justified, when there are other options open that present far less of a threat. Ultimately, I ask you to evaluate whether the citizens of NM would be better served by placing a concrete plant in one of their more precious mountain environments, or would they be better served by protecting this precious natural environment by placing the plant in a less fragile environment?
No attachments

Comment From: Shirin O'Gara

10/16/22 @ 3:02 PM
Please deny Mr. Roper's appeal to build a concrete batch plant in my community.
Mr. Roper has already failed to prove that his concrete batch plant will not adversely affect our neighborhoods. I am concerned for the health of my family and for my neig...↓
Mr. Roper did not notify the neighbors within one half mile of the site as required. He has continually amended his application and still can not show that the air quality will not be damaged by his plant.
Your mission is to protect the people New Mexico, please do your job.

Thank you,
Shirin O'Gara
No attachments

Comment From: bobby smart

10/14/22 @ 10:25 AM
The heading on the page says: Environmental Improvement Board.This is the organization that Mr. Roper has applied to for reconsideration of his proposal to build a Concrete Batch Plant in Alto, NM. I think the name of the Board should say it all. Ple...↓
I implore you to stick by your first decision to REJECT the proposal to place a batch plant here. It is in no way going to improve the environment in our area. It will do the exact opposite.
thank you,
bsmart
No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Santo

10/14/22 @ 9:07 AM
Requesting that the hearing return a denial in the appeal of the Air Quality Permit Application, Roper Construction, LLC, Alto Concrete Batch Plant (Permit #9295, EIB 22-34) because it will be located less than 2 miles from a National Wilderness area...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas & Mary Beth Owen

10/14/22 @ 8:21 AM
Lt Gen (Ret) Thomas J. & Mary E. Owen
Lot 388, Ranches of Sonterra
Alto NM 88312

New Mexico Environmental Department
Pamela Jones
NMED Office of Public Facilitation
P.O. 5469
Santa Fe NM 87502

Subject: Roper Construction Inc., application for an air qualit...↓
To Whom It May Concern: October 14, 2022
I request firm and final denial of Roper Construction's application for a new air quality permit (or any other permit, such as water permit, supporting their industrial operation) for the construction of a concrete batch plant in Alto NM.
As landowners in the Ranches of Sonterra planning to build a retirement home, my wife and I were shocked to hear about Roper Construction's desire to build a concrete batch plant. This cement operation would obviously be an industrial facility in our predominantly residential area. This is a devastating prospect! I ask you; would you want this plant in your neighborhood? Of course, the answer is an emphatic "No"!
Many homeowners will be able to see the plant and the lights will be visible at night. We anticipate the light pollution will be in violation of our night-light covenants because it will greatly degrade our beautiful view of the stars. The noise from the plant and all the concrete and water trucks will be a constant dull roar, further degrading our environment. The strong winds we receive will undoubtedly bring suffocating air pollutants throughout the area. We have people in our home with bad asthma and the clean air of Alto NM is why we purchased land the mountains. Sadly, it seems Roper Construction cares little for the impact they have on people, our health, or the environment.
From my communications with friends and family in the area, everyone we know with homes and businesses along 220 and throughout this entire area have extreme concerns about what the construction of this plant would mean for all of us. Some of the major concerns are:
1. My wife has bad asthma and she will suffer greatly because of the proven negative health issues related to particulate matter in the air;
2. Degraded air quality for humans, plants, as well as domestic and wild animals because of the great increase in dust;
3. High water usage putting our long-term viability as a community at risk. Further, I understand Roper does not have any local water rights but if this air quality permit is approved, their next step will most likely be to seek water rights;
4. Significant industrial noise that will most surely continue 24 hours a day, disturbing sleep and the ability to enjoy being outdoors;
5. Unreasonable hours of operation, up to 18 hours per day;
6. Industrial lighting in violation of the Night Sky Protection Act and our Ranches of Sonterra covenants, as described above;
7. Significant decline of property values with possible serious financial consequences for landowners and homeowners;
8. Excessive damage to roads due to cement and water truck traffic, plus the likelihood of a great increase in truck traffic on 220 which would also create noise and potential traffic hazards;
9. Serious financial damage to businesses who might be forced to close or see a drastic reduction in customers;
10. Adverse affect on wildlife (one of the best things of living in this area is watching elk, deer, jackrabbits, and coyotes in their natural habitat) proximity of a Class 1 Wilderness Area;
11. Creating an offensive industrial "visual" that is not in line with the National and New Mexico Scenic Byways program.
Bottom line, there seem to be no valid reasons for allowing this plant to be built in what is essentially a residential area. Surely there is plenty of space that is more appropriate for an industrial business and would not so adversely impact so many people.
Please add my name to the list for notification of any and all actions on this application in order for me to be continually informed of the status of this issue.
You may contact me at the email or telephone number below. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,



Thomas J. Owen, Lt Gen, USAF (Retired)
thomas.j.owen.iii@gmail.com
210-693-8632
Attachments:

Comment From: Paul Pino

10/14/22 @ 6:44 AM
Since when does a conservative county want to crush businesses of hard working locals? Mr. Roper has jumped through the many hoops of fire created by the State of New Mexico, his project has been approved by the state of New Mexico, and now they hav...↓
No attachments

Comment From: David Bromley

10/13/22 @ 8:18 PM
My wife, lorel, has interstial lung disease. We live aprox. 1 mile down wind from the Roper location. She is on an Inogen oxygen machine to help her breath. This would be bad for her health. Please end this appeal. Air quality and equipment nois...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Watson

10/13/22 @ 7:37 PM
Locating a concrete batch plant in Alto, NM would do untold damage to the air, water and road infrastructure of this area. Property and home values would be considerably diminished. The safety and welfare of both area residents and wildlife would be ...↓
Bob and Barbara Watson
No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Yount

10/13/22 @ 7:00 PM
Attached below are my letter to the Environmental Improvement Board and additional comments in a 2.23.22 letter to Secretary James Kenney.

I also wish to make oral comments at noon on October 18, 2022
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: Debra Higdon

10/13/22 @ 3:22 PM
I am adamantly opposed to issuance of an Air Quality Permit to the proposed Roper Concrete Plant in Alto, NM. Not only has Mr. Roper continually misrepresented his intentions but he has not honestly represented the danger to our citizens, wildlife a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Jones

10/13/22 @ 9:35 AM
See attached Letter in opposition.
Attachments:

Comment From: Richard Hood

10/13/22 @ 7:42 AM
I agree that a new batch plant is needed. It is just not needed at this location. There are more appropriate places to place such an industrial complex than on a scenic byway, adjacent to several high end neighborhoods, the #1 voted private golf cl...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Foster

10/13/22 @ 7:33 AM
I support the batch plant. There are wait times of up to 2 weeks from the other supplier of concrete.
No attachments

Comment From: Stirling Spencer

10/13/22 @ 6:16 AM
Being a retired Professional Engineer and having been involved with permits both local and governmental I find it very hard to understand why this permit has been denied after passing review by the technical and legal fact finding arm of the Environm...↓
Having been a past Lincoln county commissioner I also find it is not governments role to stifle and denied private property and business rights of entities wishing to do business in the county which benefits the general public and tax roles that helps to develop a growing community
Having been a past Judge, I also know that rulings are to be made on facts not bias or personal feelings.
I therefore as the hearing commission to approve the Roper application based on the technical and legal findings and as long as the inity meets the environmental standards allow this business to help Lincoln county prosper and not stifle business here.
I thank the review board for this consideration in possible support of the issue
No attachments

Comment From: David Whatley

10/12/22 @ 10:38 AM
For this purpose my two comments may be rather minor compared to the extensive technical and scientific presentations which have been offered.

First, my personal eye and throat health is compromised by "bad air". Blowing dust carrying all kinds of mat...↓

Second, I believe we need to at least consider the history of this particular area. Years ago folks came seeking refuge from heat and bad air. My family arrived in 1942 or 1944 and along with others, loved the variety of individuals, animals, and opportunity for recreation. While looking to the future, we have some responsibility to those who came before us and invested their lives to maintaining the great environment for humans and animals. We stand on their shoulders as the next generation will stand on ours. Don't let them down. Say NO to the proposed plant.
No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Thompson

10/12/22 @ 9:26 AM
We in the Alto/Ruidoso area have been fighting this battle for close to 1 � years, ever since Roper Construction filed its initial application with the Air Quality Bureau in June, 2021 and posted its not very visible Notice at the site (6 acres) alon...↓

Understandably, some battle fatigue has set in, following the AQB hearing in February and legal objections filed separately in the 12th Judicial District.

I live about 2/3 miles from the proposed site, just off Hwy. 220.

1. The Air Quality Bureau has consistently maintained that available sources of water to produce the cement outlined in Roper's application and achieve emission controls lined out in that document are not in its designated area of concern. There is no water available on site. To produce the total cubic yards of cement outlined in Roper's initial application (the application has been amended many times since initial filing) would require 55,000 gallons/day. Large water trucks carry about 8,000 gallons each, so we're talking about 7 water trucks alone per day. This doesn't even include additional water for emissions control, which, combining the two, would amount to some 62 acre feet/year, over 20 million gallons.

2. Additional trucks would be hauling in all the materials to make the cement itself, sand, fly ash etc. Cement delivery trucks would be coming and going. Estimates of 305 trucks per day have been made, all this along a narrow 2 lane Hwy (220) with homes directly to the south and directly to the north of the site. The truck traffic alone would effectively destroy Hwy. 220 as the main access road for all residents in the area, extending many miles east.

Can you imagine this in YOUR neighborhood ?

3. Holloman AFB meteorological data were used in Roper Construction's Air Quality application. Holloman is 46 miles distant at an altitude of 4000' while Alto is mountainous at 7550' Holloman has different topography, windspeeds and direction. Our last big fire in the area (The McBride Fire) started this year on April 12. On that day, winds in Alto were gusting to 70-80 MPH. On the same day, winds at Holloman AFB were gusting to 28 MPH.

4. As noted in previous public testimony and as I have witnessed quite a few times since moving to Alto 22 years ago, on occasion our skies turn to a white haze with sand & gypsum glowing up from White Sands (40 miles away). These substances are much heavier than cement dust.

I have read that cement dust itself is 30% cancer causing crystalline silica. Regarding "proposed" mitigation of hazardous air particles, I remain unconvinced.

5. This proposed industrial facility, close to homes along a designated Scenic Byway with no water available on site to manufacture a water intensive product, cement, is the exact opposite of an improvement to the environment.

It's a mystery why Roper Construction continues to doggedly pursue building a cement batch plant in such an obviously unsuitable location, particularly when restrictions on land use were well known to the buyer at time of purchase. It seems there are forces at work that want to turn a Scenic Byway into an Industrial Byway, potentially destroying Air Quality and quality of life for people, plants and animals in the process.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Helm

10/12/22 @ 7:24 AM
As an Alto resident with young children and as a survivor of cancer on my vocal cord and as an avid runner there are significant health concerns for myself and our family. We hike together, play golf together, and I've run miles and miles along Hwy ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Glenn Remington

10/11/22 @ 11:49 AM
I am a contractor in Lincoln County and believe the batch plant would be a good thing for the area. Giving us another source of concrete that is owned by Lincoln County folk. If the plant has the recommendation of the NMED and is in full compliance w...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Milvenan

10/11/22 @ 9:46 AM
It is truly disappointing that Roper continues this quixotic attempt to destroy the Alto area. There is simply no call to locate a concrete batch plant in this bucolic environment. It is not as if there are no rural sites away from the residentia...↓
I think about citizens like my wife. She had asthma growing up and suffered a collapsed lung during the birth of our third child and still has breathing challenges to this day. Being subject to the inevitable dust emissions from the plant would be a major negative for her being able to enjoy any outside activities. She is not alone. Everyone on both sides realizes that the citizenry will suffer from air pollution from the plant.
And it not just the human populace who will suffer from these emissions. One of the reasons people live in this area is exposure to NM wildlife. There are wild horses, elk, mule deer, wild turkeys, bears, ravens, and many more that will also suffer from this air pollution. Is NM now becoming an anti-wildlife state?
Dust emissions will also have a likely negative impact on the flora of the area. Much of NM is desert. The Lincoln National Forest is one of the prettiest areas in NM. Why destroy it?
This area is filled with amenities enjoyed by locals and tourists alike. Ski Apache, Alto Lake, golf courses, hike and bike trails, etc. Yet, this plant will drive away locals and tourists alike. Who wants to come to a place where they are going to suffer long term lung damage?
The number of trucks rumbling in and out of the plant all day will cause choking traffic and extreme noise pollution. Is it good government to allow one property owner to destroy the enjoyment of all of the other property owners?
It would be a very sad day for the State of New Mexico for this concrete batch plant to be built at this location. It would represent a failure of government and a failure of the process. If this damage is allowed to occur, it would take decades to reverse. This is the time for government to do the right thing and make sure the concrete batch plant is not permitted to go forward in Alto.
No attachments

Comment From: Randall Pierce

10/11/22 @ 5:08 AM
I am against Roper Construction's concrete batch plant. This proposed concrete batch site will negatively effect my property values significantly. It will be harmful to the water table and environment.
Roper construction should utilize their existing ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Burnett

10/10/22 @ 8:04 PM
Hello Ms Saikrishnan,

My name is Jim Burnett and I have residence in Alto, NM, living along Airport Road, just east of the proposed Concrete Batch Plant, named in the subject's NMED application. As I understand the situation, the subject application ...↓

I am writing to you today, regarding my understanding of Roper Construction's application. As I am not a civil engineer and/or EPA expert, I am confining my feedback to areas in which a layman's understanding might still be germane to your process. My feedback is a result of having linked to Roper's application, on-line, and reviewing sections aside those citing technical information and analysis.

The following inconsistencies and/or inaccuracies were noted:

1. There are several mentions of Ruidoso's "average wind speed". The first mention is in Section 6, page 2 in the sub-section, Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions Rate (there are other referrals to this table in Roper's application). Firstly, there's a certain amount of risk involved when using averages, as I'm sure you already know. Ruidoso/Alto residents are well aware of the high, consistent winds that frequent our area, typically in the spring and fall seasons. While a relatively low average wind speed of 8.3 mph paints a generally low risk of particulate dispersion, it is exceedingly high wind speeds that will have the greatest consequence for Alto residents. Secondly, while the average wind speed table used by Montrose Air Quality Services in their analysis might be the only such reference document available to them, utilizing a table that is 15 years old, runs the risk of minimizing or understating the impact to the area. Are there no more current wind speed data available?

2. Following this same line of thinking; please reference Montrose Air Quality Services' analysis, which is appended to the Roper application, specifically, Section 2.5, page 12 (page 181 of the on-line Roper application). Montrose states, "early morning and late afternoon hours with low wind speeds are typically determined to represent the highest modeled hourly concentrations for low release fugitive emission sources". Again, the risk here isn't the average wind speed, or, utilizing the two periods of the day when wind speeds are at their lowest. The true risk is during periods of peak wind speeds (see #1, above). Montrose may have used accepted modeling practices, however, this is flawed reasoning, at best. It is specious reasoning, in its worst application.

3. In analyzing the meteorological date, the Roper application cites Holloman AFB as a likely comparative data set to Ruidoso/Alto. Please refer to section 16-S, page 12 (page 162 of the on-line Roper application) in which "Dispersion model meteorological input files were created from meteorological data collected at Holloman AFB, NM for the years 2016 - 2020, about 45 miles north-north-east from the site". Please open and refer to the attached web capture file. (I apologize for my underdeveloped computer skills. You will need to use the magnification tool at the top of the opened file to enlarge the area map and then drag the area map downward, in order to view the Holloman and Ruidoso areas.)

Holloman AFB sits a full 2,500 -3,500 feet below Alto, NM's elevation (approx. 4,000 feet for Holloman vs approx. 7,500 feet for Alto). Additionally, as is depicted in the screen shot, Holloman AFB sits on a high desert plain, while Ruidoso/Alto is in mountainous terrain and in fact, the proposed CBP sits in a bowl, defined by surrounding hills and peaks. The Roper application states, "The similar elevation, topography, terrain, vegetation, and climate of both sites make this meteorological data representative of the model area". This logic is questionable, at best. At worst, it's specious application of data that's inconsistent with the proposed site for the CBP. Finally, as noted in the paragraph above, the Roper application states that Holloman is 45 miles north-north-east of the proposed CBP site. It's plain to see that's just not correct. This might be a minor point. However, it suggests that Montrose has been less than thorough in their preparation of Roper's NMED application and that there could be other inaccuracies in the application.

4. Please see section 16-J, Sensitive Areas, page 5 (page 155 of the on-line Roper application). Herein, when asked whether there were likely to be public comments opposing the permit application, the Roper application response is, no. Given the extent to which Roper has gone in documenting the required notification of residents and/or interested parties in the immediate area of the proposed CBP, surely the "no" response is an attempt to shorten the application review process. More likely is Roper's misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the reaction of the local community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please include me, via my email address, on future developments, especially regarding details of a public hearing.

Jim Burnett

Alto, NM



Web capture_23-7-2021_142518_www.bing.com.jpeg
No attachments

Comment From: Johnny Autrey

10/10/22 @ 6:55 PM
Roper should be allowed to open his business. The other batch plant in Ruidoso has over 100 houses within a quarter mile not to mention the hospital and dozens of businesses and there haven't been any issues. Property values haven't dropped and they ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Daryl Lindsay

10/10/22 @ 3:51 PM
I believe this plant will be added value to not only Alto, but the whole Ruidoso community as well. There are a number of trucks (garbage, dirt, fuel, concrete etc.) that already travel this roadway, and in my opinion, will reduce some traffic. Also,...↓

I've known Mr. Roper for a very long time. He was raised on a ranch north of Carrizozo and will do everything he can, and within his ability, to protect the area to the best of his ability.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Budd

10/10/22 @ 3:15 PM
Please deny the Roper Cement Batch Plant appeal. To not do so would result in a dramatic, negative impact on the air quality and health in the area through fugitive dust emissions from the proposed batch plant. In spite of what may be said, the tec...↓

The use of meteorological and topographical conditions unique to Holloman AFB in an attempt to demonstrate the possibility of mitigating emissions from the proposed batch plant fails to accurately represent the wind, weather and terrain of the Alto area. It is a real case of trying to compare apples and oranges. I am reminded that while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts.

Please make the right decision and deny the appeal. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Tena Pitts

10/10/22 @ 2:59 PM
I own 5.6 acres in Ranches of Sonterra. I want to build a home there soon. I have Bronchiectasis, a lung condition that requires attention to air quality. I cannot live there if this plant is allowed to be established. I am extremely concerned about ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Douglas Thompson

10/10/22 @ 2:57 PM
I am a cancer survivor. We moved to this home 22 years ago because we were attracted by the bucolic nature of the area and its lack of industrial activity. We are located just over 1/2 mile from the proposed site, downwind from it.

I cannot object s...↓

I know for a fact that the extent of "monitoring" of such facilities by NMED consists of recording the receipt of monthly reports from plant operators without verifying the information submitted and that Roper's Carrizozo facility has never been monitored, audited or inspected by NMED according to their own records.

Therefore, I do not believe NMED Air Quality Bureau has acted in this case any more than all the others, as Secretary Kenney states, to fulfill the mission "... to PROTECT and restore the environment and to foster a healthy and prosperous New Mexico for present and future generations." (ref. https://www.nm.gov/departments-and-agencies/environment-department/ )

--Doug Thompson
Alto, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Joni Stahl

10/10/22 @ 2:31 PM
Below is why I support the approval of the Alto Concrete Batch Plant:
1. Alto is demanding the product.
2. The proposed location maximizes the environment benefits to the entire community. Reducing the average trucking miles for a load of concrete de...↓
3. Many people are rightfully concerned about water. The plant will use about 4 acre feet of water a year, a typical residential well is permitted for 3 acre feet per year. Keep in mind that concrete is a necessity. The water used to produce concrete goes directly to the utility benefit of the customer purchasing the concrete.
4. We believe the open market is the best instrument for determining what private business does and where it does it. If a business meets all the regulation on the books (and there are plenty of regs) then they should be free to compete in the open market.
5. Customers demanding concrete will receive better, more timely service at a competitive rate. When you only have one supplier in an area, they have a monopoly on the market.
6. It is good for Lincoln County.
7. Private property rights.
8. NMED is taxed with protecting the public health. Roper has met all the regulations and NMED has approved the draft permit. Meaning NMED has confirmed that this plant will not create any health hazards to the community.

Roper should be allowed to open his business. The busybodies that oppose it don't understand it. It's still a free country. Barely.
No attachments

Comment From: Vicki Moutray

10/10/22 @ 1:52 PM
I strongly object to the construction of the Roper Construction Concrete plant being approved in the vicinity of Alto, Kokopelli, Outlaw, Rainmakers, the Spencer Theater, a church camp for children, a plant nursery, several golf courses, and RV parks...↓
Most importantly, these areas are populated by a large majority of senior citizens who face natural high altitude challenges without additional unhealthy dust being emitted into the air. None of these residents could have imagined facing this type of threat to their health in their futures. My concern is for the many residents who will be effected by this unforeseen challenge in their choice of relocation from many areas of the US and Mexico and the resulting environmental air quality deterioration.
I ask that you please consider my concerns and that of many other residents and deny the appeal. The "concern for many" should weigh much heavier than a business which by nature pollutes the air and benefits a singular entity.

Thank you for your consideration and please deny this appeal.
Vicki Moutray
No attachments

Comment From: Denise Byrd

10/10/22 @ 1:25 PM
Mr. Roper has done an excellent job in presenting all the facts on his plant and we are in support of him having a business in the Alto area. We will not be able to attend the hearing, we did attend by watching his presentation to the Lincoln County...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lynn Budd

10/10/22 @ 10:15 AM
Air quality is the reason I am in Alto. I have severe asthma and other lung difficulties. I can breathe and live here in peace, or so I thought. Crystalline silica dust, which occurs during the process of making cement, is less than 5 micrometers ...↓
I would be absolutely heartbroken to have to leave my home in Alto, but I cannot survive with any quality of life in an area so harmfully impacted by a cement batch plant.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this serious problem.
No attachments

Comment From: Tony Sheehey

10/10/22 @ 9:02 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Deborah Sheehey

10/10/22 @ 9:01 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Barbara Severance

10/10/22 @ 8:55 AM
Please see uploaded file #2 which is attached
Attachments:

Comment From: Barbara Severance

10/10/22 @ 8:54 AM
Please see uploads file #1 by Barbara Severance which is attached
Attachments:

Comment From: Steve Franklin

10/10/22 @ 8:23 AM
My wife and I are very much opposed to the cement plant proposed in our area. We purchased our home 10 years ago in preparation for our retirement 3 years ago. I believe this plant will negatively impact our area, our ground water and our clean air...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Helen Owen

10/09/22 @ 2:55 PM
. The impact that an increase in fugitive dust emissions would have on your health, particularly if you have respiratory issues or other pre-existing conditions
.The impact increased fugitive dust emissions would have on your pets, horses, and all wil...↓
.The impact that increased fugitive dust will have on your property specifically the natural landscape, the abundant ingenious wildlife, or garden, orchard or cultivated landscaping you may have in your property.
.The inappropriateness of having such a plant in a residential and recreational area, largely populated by retirement aged residents, and in proximity to several golf courses, TV parks, a children's church camp, a nursery, and national recreational lands such as White Mountain wilderness Area, Lincoln National Forest, and Fort Stanton Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area
.The fallacy of assuming meteorological and topographical conditions from the Holloman AFB area accurately represent the winds, overall weather and terrain of the Alto
area.
.The increased noise level and activity would have a negative impact on wild life.
No attachments

Comment From: Julie Claeys

10/08/22 @ 3:21 PM
I am very opposed to the Roper Batch Plant mainly due to health and environmental concerns. At this elevation there is less oxygen to breath, then you add dust from the plant and breathing is more difficult, especially for those of us with respirator...↓
We have been in a drought and water is scarce. Putting this batch plant in our residential area will compromise our water table which, in turn, will impact our wildlife.
This is a residential and recreational area. An area with retired older people as well as children. The dust could have long term effects on these children's lungs and overall health.
We the residents are trying to protect our environment for ourselves, the wildlife and generations to come. Please don't ruin it by allowing this environmental hazard that will negatively impact our air quality and deplete our water table.
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Stewart

10/08/22 @ 9:40 AM
See my uploaded attachment.
Attachments:

Comment From: Michael Brown

10/07/22 @ 11:38 AM
It boggles the mind to think that this application has gotten this far. Putting this environmental time bomb in the middle of an established residential area, on a scenic byway and next to the White Mountain Wilderness Area is beyond the pale. I ha...↓

Imagine being in bed at 3AM when the bedroom is suddenly alight and you hear the sound of machinery starting up, diesel dump trucks and trailers arriving dumping their loads. Add backup warning beep, beeb, beeps as the front end loader goes to work scooping up sand, rock and cement and dumping it onto the auger sending them all on their way to the mixer. More sounds as the diesel spewing cement trucks pull up to accept their loads and head out to their destinations. Possibly more beep, beep beeps. Sound is carried through the air, just like the dust, noxious and poisonous gasses, and diesel fumes.

It's not a pretty picture but someone apparently thinks they have the right to buy some land in an established residential are, ignore the deed restrictions he accepted at closing and impose all of that and more on me and my neighbors. One person's rights end where the other peoples rights begin.

HIs Air Quality Application has been denied. He has appealed that ruling. THE DENIAL SHOULD BE UPHELD. We don't need an environmental time bomb in our backyard.

Respectfully Submitted
Mike Brown
Attachments:

Comment From: Billy Owen

10/06/22 @ 4:54 PM
Please let this serve as my very strong objection to the Concrete Batch Plant that continues to push for approval in our community of Alto, NM.

I know you have heard the objections, but let me please state my objections, which I'm sure are in line wit...↓

1. Pure and simple, this is a residential and recreational area. We have owned our home for 11.5 years and have recently retired to become full time residents in this beautiful part of our great State of New Mexico. There are church camps, multiple golf courses, RV camps and parks, National Forest lands, and the list goes on and on. If you haven't please come take a look in person and you will see that this is not an appropriate location for such a plant.
2. The dust created will dramatically change this residential area. As I'm sure you know, we have lots of wildlife in this area such as elk, deer, and turkeys, much less people's personal pets and horses. Again, this is no place for a concrete plant.
3. Many of us have moved to this area because it is "not" a commercial area. We all desire to live in atmosphere's that are free of harsh conditions that can harm our breathing. This plant will certainly cause respiratory issues.
4. The dust from the proposed plant will travel far in our windy conditions. As I'm sure you are aware, we have some significant winds will spread the plant's emissions far and wide. Why in the world would it make any sense to have such a facility in a residential/recreational area.

Lastly, the aforementioned objections don't even begin to cover the damage to our precious and limited water supply. But again, I know you are well familiar with that part of this issue.

Bottom line, a commercial plant like what is being proposed simply has no place in a residential area. PLEASE do what you can to insure that this proposed plant cannot be built in this area!
No attachments

Comment From: Ron Michelena

10/06/22 @ 4:27 PM
Secretary of the Environment, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed batch plant construction in Alto. I am a survivor of Covid 19-pneumonia, however I do require oxygen to breath. The dust created, is a kind of air pollution called part...↓
Ron Michelena D.D.S.
No attachments

Comment From: Carol Empson

10/06/22 @ 2:39 PM
I, Carol Empson, live at 115 Bull Elk Court, Alto, New Mexico 88312. Once again, I am submitting my objections to Roper Construction being issued air quality permits to build a Concrete Batch Plant on Highway 220 in Alto, New Mexico.

As has been stat...↓

From my back deck I look out at the site for the Concrete Batch Plant which is about a mile away. For twenty years I have enjoyed waking to beautiful sunrises and silence. Instead, I will be waking to noise and pollution. Coffee and lunch on my back deck will no longer be pleasant. I suffer from allergies which will most certainly be aggravated by silica dust. My partner has both heart and lung problems. Silica dust can only cause more harm.

My favorite activities which include hiking, bird watching, golfing and pickleball will be adversely affected by the extra pollution in the air created by the Concrete Batch Plant.

Please continue to refuse this permit for the Roper Concrete Batch Plant.
Sincerely,

Carol Empson
No attachments

Comment From: William & Penelope Horton

10/06/22 @ 2:21 PM
Here are letters protesting the Roper CBP permit previously sent to the NMED Air Quality Board. Please consider these in your review of the appeal of denial.
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: William & Penelope Horton

10/06/22 @ 12:09 PM
Attached is our letter detailing our opposition to the EIB reversing the NMED decision to deny the permit.
Attachments:

Comment From: Jim Burnett

10/05/22 @ 4:46 PM
As a citizen of Alto, NM who lives off of NM 220 (i.e., Airport Rd), I am writing to register my opposition to Roper Construction's appeal of the decision made by NMED, denying Roper's permit application (NMED decision dated 6/22/22). Perhaps I shou...↓

But, this isn't the reason I'm writing to you. Rather, I am writing because the stunning, natural beauty that is Ruidoso/Alto, NM is in jeopardy because a thoughtless, well-heeled individual knowingly seeks to impose his reality on hundreds of resident locals. As is the case with many/most of the local residents, we chose the Airport Rd corridor because of its unique beauty, its native trees and vegetation and its abundant wildlife. Perhaps there is no greater indicator of these attributes than the fact that Airport Rd has been designated a "Billy the Kid Scenic By Way". Just how scenic is this by way likely to remain with a concrete batch plant sitting nearly at its starting point? I am confident that we would not have considered making Alto our home with a concrete batch plant sitting very nearby and I believe this would be the case for my neighbors, as well. But, the fact is, we are all living here and we're in jeopardy of losing not only the natural beauty, but the value of our investment, as well (the local real estate community has estimated a 20% to 50% diminution of local property values, should the CBP be permitted).

I invite you to come by Airport Rd to see for yourself. It would be apparent to you that the proposed CBP simply doesn't belong here. Further, I invite you to stop by our residence (340 Santiago Circle). My wife and I are truly fortunate to have found this place. The Rio Bonito crosses our land and it attracts virtually all of the native wildlife. This summer alone, we have seen deer, elk, foxes, flocks of wild turkeys, javalinas and mountain lions crossing through our property. They are here because of the availability of clean water, in addition to native vegetation. It would be criminal to quite literally run these creatures off our land as it becomes uninhabitable for them.

We are not trying to say to Roper Construction that he cannot have his CBP in the area. What we are saying is that the Airport Rd site that he has chosen is not a proper location for his plant.

Jim Burnett

Alto, NM
No attachments

Comment From: Lynne Burnett

10/05/22 @ 2:27 PM
I oppose this concrete batch plant to be built on Scenic Highway 220, Alto, NM
Attachments:

Comment From: Michael Miller

9/30/22 @ 1:01 PM
I am writing to address the proposed concrete batch plant planned for construction on Rt 220 in Lincoln County. My family has owned property one mile from the proposed facility for 15 years. We lived in Harris County TX for 17 years and we came to Al...↓

I have copied excerpts from a piece written that describes living with concrete plants in unincorporated Harris Country. I recommend you read the whole article and discuss how to protect Ruidoso and Alto from this level of pollution and intrusion into all the gorgeous residential scenic areas of our community.

Michael and Deborah Miller: 207 Raccoon Ct. Alto, NM 88312 (614) 592-7787

"...unincorporated Harris County between Loop 610, Beltway 8, Highway 290 and the Eastex Freeway, tell him that the dust that blows from concrete batch plants covers their roofs, their cars, their barbecue pits. They can't go outside. They can't have friends over."

".....heavy diesel trucks line up as early as 2 a.m. to idle noisily on local streets, waiting to pick up as many as 150 loads every day, emitting even more pollutants like black carbon and nitrogen dioxide. These trucks, Walle says, tear up yards, drainage ditches and other infrastructure governments have to repair. Even attempts to water down the dust end up creating an ugly muddy slurry that tracks all over the community."

https://onebreathhou.org/newsroom/2020/08/concrete-batch-plants-health-impacts-permitting-texas/.

Attachments area
Attachments:

Comment From: Irene Wills

9/29/22 @ 7:24 AM
I oppose the proposed concrete batch plant in Alto, NM. Objections include, but are not limited to; noise, air pollution, property devaluation.
No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Parker

9/29/22 @ 3:58 AM
I am apposed because of the air quality for the elderly and wildlife. I am apposed because of the noise pollution will drive away the wildlife from the wilderness area. I am apposed because of the lack of water in our mountains with more people comin...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stephanie Wagner

9/29/22 @ 12:02 AM
I am against Roper's request to build a concrete plant. Alto is comprised of multiple neighborhoods and a pristine wilderness area. The quality of the air, water, and noise will severely impact the area. My concern is for the air and dust particulat...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Brown

9/16/22 @ 1:07 PM
I vehemently oppose the concrete plant being considered in our RESIDENTIAL area.
No attachments