2017-04-05_ENFORCEMENT - M2016050

Home Browse Search

5. On March 2, 2017, the Board, through a prehearing officer, co ducted a prehearing conference in Grand junction, Colorado. The preheating officer ued a draft prehearing order. Among other things, the draft prehearing order Identifie one Issue for the parties to present to the Boardi for consideration. At the hearing, the Board considered the draft prehearing order and Imrited amendments or adjustments to be pxoposed by the h�e parties. The Board adopte&the draft prearEagorder as presevte& I 6. The Application described a proposed construction materialsand and gravel) mining operation and on-site processing of mined materials, to inclu a crushing, screening, and washing. The permit boundary described In the Applicationi eluded 84.9 acres. The pmposed operation is andcipater3 to affieGt approxsrmately 75 a es, leaving approximately 9.9 acres as a buffer zone of unaffected land The proposed fining area is on Orchard) Mesa, approximately 70-90 feet higher than the Colorado River. Th Application proposed to reclaim the affected land for cropland. The Division calculatedfinancial warranty for the operation to be $241,201.40. 7. In response to an adequacy letter from the Division, the AppliI t submitted two letters from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, which indicated that the pro po d operation was not in conflict with any federal or state law, 8. At the hearin& Alan Parkerson testified on behalf of the App cant Mr. Parkerson described the proposed operation, mining plan, and reclamation plan, including that the Applicant will conduct all activities within berms around the minin area and that the area Is dry (no evidence of groundwater). Mr. Parkerson testified that a yellow -billed cuckoo has �been spotted one or two times in Mesa County and a nearby county within the pastAAteen years. Mr. Parkerson�testMedxhatibe operation will minimize Impacts on wildlife. 9. At the hearing, Alane Wooster stated that her house Is less thn 0.5 mile from the proposed site, that the Parkersons are "good neighbors," but that she h s concerns about the potential impact on wildlife. 10. The Division testified at the hearing, statingthat, based on its review of the permit and the Applicant's responses to the adequacy review letters, the Application complies with the Colorado Land Reclamation Act for the Extmcdon of Conpruction Materials, Article 32.5 of Tide 34, C.R.S. (2016) ("Act")and Rules. The Division testified that impacts on wildlife will be minimized, stating that the potential habitat nol listed habitat) of the yellow -billed cuckoo is not near the site, but rather near the Colo rad River in the valleybeilow6e sate. The D IVIslon fu deer shkedmtW other perrniare located in the Colorado River area with no indication ofimpact on local species. 11. In the Application, the Applicant stated that there may be an phait plant and ready mix plant at the site. At the hearing: the Division testified that the ashalt and ready Parkerson Construction. Enc. C Road Pit/ M-2016-1150