PERMFILE57962 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii • 999 P.O. Hox 1011 Mancos, Colorado 81328 November 25, 1994 Division of Minerals Department of Natural 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 and Geology Resources Denver, Colorado 80203 Gentlemen: RECEIVED NOV 2 8 1994 Division of Minerals & Geo ~9Y ~~ a~,~ ~. I wish to protest the application filed by Noland, Inc. for a reclamation permit at the Cedar Point Mine. Noland, Inc. presently operates a gravel pit located on County Road 38 southwest of Mancos, Colorado in Montezuma County under an existing Reclamation Permit. It appears reclamation to date at the existing pit is insufficient and behind schedule. On many days, dust and dirt can be seen blowing from the pit. Heavy truck traffic on County Road 38 from the Noland Pit is damaging the county road producing heavy dust and potholes and creating a traffic hazard on the narrow road. I have contacted Mr. Noland about the road problems and find that he expects even more truck traffic on the road in 1995 to supply a State highway improvement project. Noland, Inc, provided only one limited dust suppression treatment to the road during 1994. With even more traffic in the future, residents along the road will find the situation intolerable and as a result, I plan to address these concerns to Montezuma County. For the purpose of this protest I wish to note that there are problems with the existing Noland, Inc. pit operation and therefore it would be appropriate that the Division conduct hearings on the Cedar Point application to ensure that the public has an opportunity to hear the applicant address such issues with regard to a new pit operation. Exhibit G of the Cedar Point application identifies the need to construct a storage pond. There is mention of tail water and a wash plant but no mention of discharges of water into Mud Creek or reclamation of the storage pond at the end of the mining operation. 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. While I generally support Noland, Inc.'s interpretation that the surface estate includes the sand and gravel, it is important to note that such an interpretation has been the subject of dispute in other recent applications (Keith Pit, Mare Pit, and Orion Pit). In the Mara Pit application Mr. Stephen Kinney has argued that the Mined Land Reclamation Act defines the