DMG holds informal
<br />conference hearing
<br />on gravel pit
<br />The Division of Minerals
<br />and Geology (DMG) hosted an
<br />informal conference last
<br />Thursday as part of the appli-
<br />cation process, concerning the
<br />Line Camp Gravel Pit. This is
<br />the first of three public meet-
<br />ings. Tom Gillis, Conference
<br />Officer, and Wally Erickson,
<br />Lead Review Specialist, of the
<br />DMG were on hand to conduct
<br />the hearing. 19 other individu-
<br />alsalso signed up for the meet-
<br />ing.
<br />The informal conference
<br />was for the purpose of obtain-
<br />ing alist of parties to the ap-
<br />plication, and to air any addi-
<br />tional issues, other than those
<br />that have already been raised
<br />in previous hearings or in the
<br />expired written comment pe-
<br />riod.
<br />The issues raised included
<br />the following: Are all issues
<br />characterized by DMG staff as
<br />being non-jurisdictional actu-
<br />ally jurisdictional? The ques-
<br />tion was asked by James
<br />Preston, attorney for Carol
<br />Stepe and ]ackAkin, who pro-
<br />tested that they are actually
<br />under thejurisdiction of DMG.
<br />He continued that most of his
<br />issues are related to the land
<br />site after reclamation, and to
<br />discharge water containing
<br />pollutants and toxins.
<br />Can the application be ap-
<br />provedunless it complies with
<br />regulations fordesignated min-
<br />ingoperations? Can the appli-
<br />cation be approved unless it
<br />complies with other federal
<br />and state laws? Reclamation
<br />means returning the land back
<br />to expected use for landown-
<br />ers and citizens For recreation,
<br />agriculture, and other uses.
<br />One man asked if Four
<br />States had a discharge water
<br />permit, and if they didn't, then
<br />could they be given the permit.
<br />Erickson said he believed the
<br />company did, but would need
<br />to have a storm water permit
<br />to release the discharged
<br />groundwater into the river.
<br />Since the proposed opera-
<br />tion will discharge groundwa-
<br />ter, exposed by excavation ac-
<br />tivities, and process water,
<br />from the proposed material
<br />processing, into the river,
<br />should alt downstream areas,
<br />including McPhee Reservoir,
<br />be defined as "affected lands"?
<br />Gillis said in an interview on
<br />Wednesday that the water dis-
<br />chazgedfrom the ponds at'IWin.
<br />Spruce gravel operations was,
<br />in fact, better quality than that
<br />in the river.
<br />Marilynn Boyson said she
<br />had contacted the Forest Ser-
<br />vice about the native plants
<br />around the river bottom, and
<br />expressed her concerns about
<br />the grass that will be planted.
<br />She wondered if it will grow,
<br />due to lack of moisture. She
<br />was also concerned about
<br />weeds growing in the area. She
<br />Continued on page 2
<br />
<br />c
<br />N
<br />0
<br />ye
<br />z
<br />x
<br />0
<br />0
<br />I~
<br />
<br />..
<br />H
<br />~F~
<br />~)
<br />7
<br />
<br />DMG HEARING from page 1
<br />contacted Northern Arizona University
<br />at Flagstaff about graduate students
<br />doing a thesis on maps and volumes at
<br />gravel pits. She also has talked [o Fort
<br />Lewis College about gravel pits on
<br />Haycamp Mesa for means of gravel so
<br />that it would be less detrimental to the
<br />river bottom.
<br />One concern was about nearby wet-
<br />lands being adversely affected by the
<br />proposed activities, and another con-
<br />cern was whether the application pro-
<br />vides alist of chemicals to be utilized
<br />at the proposed site.
<br />Gillis and Erickson both said that,
<br />other than these concerns, many of the
<br />issues brought up in Thursday's meet-
<br />ing are already on record, and "did not
<br />need to be rehashed". However, Attor-
<br />ney James Preston, who is represent-
<br />ingCarol Stepe and John Akin in a law-
<br />suit against the county commissioners
<br />about the gravel pit, protested that the
<br />DMG is contending that certain issues,
<br />such as the traffic, noise, property val-
<br />ues, and scenic qualities fall, outside
<br />their jurisdiction. Preston said that is
<br />not accurate.
<br />Stepe said she wants a map plotting
<br />each mine on the river, and claimed that
<br />if al] the pits on the river within one
<br />mile would put toxins out, it would be
<br />very harmful to the water and air.
<br />Asked if there were data on effects
<br />of mining in a flood plain with all the
<br />pits up the Dolores River. DMG said
<br />that this is a federal issue.
<br />Gillis said that the Division has not
<br />had any experience with, and have no[
<br />had, prior to this time, heard of any
<br />problems with groundwater due to
<br />gravel mining in the Dolores River Val-
<br />ley. He continued that, until Thursday
<br />night's meeting, "it is premature to have
<br />any data or maps, or how they were
<br />going to decide on the issue. We are still
<br />in the process of reviewing all the paz-
<br />ties concerned, and their comments."
<br />Preston said that the entire applica-
<br />tion onroads, water flow, flooding, and
<br />toxins was incorrect. Dave Wuchter
<br />said that the quality of groundwater and
<br />wells aze vital, and asked if DMG moni-
<br />tors the water: DMG monitors dry pits
<br />two times a year, and wet pits four times
<br />a year.
<br />As of the end of the original co
<br />ment period ending March 2, 2001,
<br />parties to the application included the
<br />applicant (Four States Aggregates),
<br />DMG staff, Pete and Cheri Robinson,
<br />Leslie M. Sesler and Timothy D.
<br />Hovezak, Pat and Joel Kantor, CFAR,
<br />Dale and Lynn Webb, Scott Clow, John
<br />Sutherland, David B. Wuchert, and Bob
<br />and Donna Clifton. Also signing was'
<br />James 'E. Preston, attorney for Jack
<br />Akin and Carol Stepe.
<br />The application filing date was Jan.
<br />11, 2001, with the public comment pe-
<br />riod being closed March 2. Written
<br />comments on Thursday's informal
<br />hearing aze due on March 22 (today),
<br />at 4 p.m., which is five working di~
<br />from the conference.
<br />The decision date from the DMG has
<br />been set for April 10, unless extended
<br />due to amendment or revision or appli-
<br />cant reques[.The prehearingconference
<br />has been set for Tuesday, April 17, at 2
<br />p.m. at the Dolores Town Hall, unless
<br />extended. Both meetings are tentative.
<br />The formal public hearing has ten-
<br />tatively been se[ for April 25 and 26 at
<br />[he monthly meeting of the Colorado
<br />Mined Land Reclamation Board, 1313
<br />Sherman St., Room 318, Denver. The
<br />meetings will begin at 9 a.m. both days.
<br />
|