PERMFILE49440

• Permit No: M1997089
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/19/1998
• Doc Name: RESPONSE TO 3/30/98 CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE FRIENDS OF SOUTH MONTEZUMA VALLEY INC STONE GRAVEL
• From: DMG
• To: MICHAEL B LONG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•
Memo to MBL 2 October 3, 1998
Response to FSMV Stone Gravel Pit, M-97-089
Given Mrs. Bell's agitated state, staff did not want to cause further agitation by informing her that FSMV's
9/9/98 complaint appeared to satisfy all 3 of the exceptions provided in the MLRB approved policy for responding
to citizen complaints within a 30 day period. Minerals Program Inspection Policy, MLRB approved 2/94, states:
2. All citizen complaints should be responded to promptly. If a citizen complaint contains allegations
of serious environmental problems associated with a mine, or potential violations of permit conditions,
rules, or statutes, an inspection should be conducted in no more than 10 working days if there is judged
to be a serious environmental threat. Otherwise, all such sites should ba inspected within 30 days of the
complaint. The only exceptions to this policy should be situations in which (al an inspection has been
conducted within the previous year, (bl the Office believes that no significant environmental concerns are
likely to exist, and Icl the Office finds the complaint to be part of a pattern of similar complaints directed
against a particular mining project. All such exceptions shall promptly be reported to the Board.
Staff attempted to reiterate for Mrs. Bell, that she had the right to a hearing before the
MLRB, for consideration of disagreement with DMG decisions. Mrs. Bell's response was
something to the effect that, the MLRB is a waste of time and an embarrassment to the
peop/e of Co/orado. Staff member replied that given his current assignment load, he was
doing his best to respond to her complaint, but if she was dissatisfied with his conduct,
she should submit such complaint to his immediate supervisor, Tom Gillis.
Date of Inspection -During the 9/30/98 phone conversation, Mrs. Bell insisted that staff
provide the date and time of the inspection. Staff could not provide a specific date and
time because the inspection had not been scheduled with the operator. Staff attempted to
communicate to Mrs. Bell that an inspection date had not been established.
In FSMV's 9/30/98 letter, paragraphs 2 & 3, FSMV indicates that during the phone
conversation, staff repeatedly denied that communication with the operator had occurred
regarding scheduling a date for the inspection. However, in the 4th paragraph FSMV
reveals evidence indicating that staff had previously spoken with the operator regarding
the issues raised in the 9/9198 complaint letter.
Prior to the 9/30/98 phone conversation with Mrs. Bell, staff had discussed the issues of
the 9/9/98 complaint letter with the operator, but had not yet scheduled a date for the
inspection. The inspection was scheduled with the operator on 10/1/98.
Patterns of Impropriety - FSMV does not provide evidence to support its claims that DMG
staff has established patterns of procrastination in responding to complaints, patterns of
reluctance to investigate potential violations, or patterns of alleged attempts to subvert the
enforcement process, because such claims are untrue and evidence supporting those
claims does not exist.
The written record verifies that DMG has promptly responded to all complaints and
objections to the Stone Gravel Pit in a thorough, professional and courteous manner. The
attached TABLE 1 summarizes DMG's response to the 14 objections and complaints,
submitted by FSMV, Mrs. Bell and/or her lawyer, Travis Stills, during the past 12 months.
FSMV and/or Mrs. Bell has submitted 6 complaints within the past 4 months.