PERMFILE43877

• Permit No: M1994108
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Name: OBJECTION TRACKING
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

ISSUES RAISED BY OBJEr•~OR=
1_ AIR POLLUTION
Cedar Point Pit, M -108
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ti~~~
OBJECTION:
Dust and dirt seen blowing from the applicant's existing permitted
gravel operation located a few miles south of the proposed Cedar
Point Pit generated a concern for similar problems to occur at the
proposed pit site_
DIVISION RESPONSE=
Problems with fugitive dust occurring on the county road are outside
the jurisdiction of the Division_ The Division suggests that
Montezuma County Government be contacted regarding problems on the
county road_ For dust. problems within the active pit area, it is
the Division's understanding that the operator has or is in the
process of obtaining an emissions permit from the Colo_ Dept_ of
Health, Air Quality Control Division for dust sources within the
active pit area including product stockpiles, the crusher, etc_
2_ TRAFFIC SAFETY
OBJECTION=
The objection indicated that there may be traffic safety problems
on any access roads leading from ~ the proposed Cedar Point Pit_
This is based on observations of the condition of the County Road
leading from an existing Noland, Inc_ gravel pit located a few miles
to the south of the proposed Cedar Point Pit_
DIVISION RESPONSE_
Traffic safety issues on county roads are outside the jurisdiction
of the Division_ The Division suggests that Montezuma County
Government be contacted regarding traffic safety issues_
3_ HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS
OBJECTION:
Exhibit G of the application identifies the need to construct a
storage pond_ There is mention of tail water and a wash plant but
no mention of reclamation of the storage pond at the end of the
mining operation_
DIVISION RESPONSE=
The details of the applicant's gravel washing activities are being
addressed as part of the adequacy review process. The Division's
review comments requested more information on this aspect of the
proposed operation_
4_ GRAVEL OWNERSHIP
~~~ti~ti~~~~~~~~~~
OBJECTION=
The application identifies Noland, Inc_ as the owner of the surface
and of the subsurface rights of affected land. However-, Exhibit A
shows that all minerals, etc., have been reserved to others. Since
a nearby application has experienced a dispute aver ownership of
gravel between the surface owner and the mineral owner, the objector
feels that the Cedar- Point Application should be denied until the
matter can be resolved through the courts.
DIVISION RESPONSE.
The minerals owner has been identified as the State Land Board. The
applicant, also the surface owner, has secured a lease with the
State Land Board t.o cover extraction of gravel material.