Laserfiche WebLink
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 />