County nixes gravel mine

Katharhynn Heidelberg

Daily Press News Editor

MONTROSE — After approaching four slates of county commissioners and resolving a civil action, Nick Gray could not overcome public opposition to his proposed gravel pit Tuesday.

The current board of county commissioners cast a unanimous vote to deny Gray a special use permit for gravel mining and asphalt production on Kinikin Road, despite his consultant’s assurances that any production would be mitigated and recessed off the road.

Neighbors, however, expressed concerns about traffic and air quality while a National Park Service representative said gravel mining would adversely affect visitation at the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

Gray’s 40-acre site is located three-quarters of a mile south of Highway 50. Had commissioners granted the permit, the gravel pit would have been the fourth within one mile.

“The site lends itself to being fairly discrete,” Timothy Scanlon, Gray’s consultant, said. Scanlon also told the commissioners mining would be sporadic and wouldn’t lead to constant truck traffic on the narrow road. “There’s not going to be a flood of trucks coming out of there immediately,” he said.

Operations would depend upon jobs requiring gravel, most of which use 10 to 16 trucks per commercial project. The arrival and departure of trucks would be staggered, Scanlon said.

He also said Gray had satisfied the state permitting process and he expected the state would also grant an access permit for the Kinikin pit.

Gray’s neighbors and other community members said the proposed mining pit would benefit Gray and whatever corporation undertook operations there, but would be detrimental to the public.

“I’m concerned about the sensitive location, particularly in regards to the Highway 50 corridor and the Black Canyon,” Bob Goodhue said during public hearing, asking the commissioners to deny the permit. “The public good would not be served by this pit in this location.”

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park Management Assistant Dave Roberts also expressed concerns on behalf of the park service. He said gravel pit mining operations at the proposed location would harm the monument’s aesthetic value, which in turn could harm the local economy.

Pointing to studies, Roberts said that in 2005, 185,000 people visited the monument, spending $8.8 million locally. The money translates into jobs in Montrose County, he told the commissioners.

“The National Park Service is concerned about gravel pits and their impacts,” Roberts said, citing dust, smoke plumes and increasing truck activity.

“This new application has the potential to threaten scenic and aesthetic values. We believe it is very important the county considers the pros and cons. We would suggest approval is not in the public’s interest.”

Throughout the hearing, commissioners asked for specific numbers as to truck traffic. They also wanted to know how much of the 40 acres would be mined and how close operations would be to the ridgeline on the property.

“There is some information we need to have that we don’t,” Commission Chair Allan Belt said.

Adele Filener said Gray’s first gravel pit in the area had been allowed by special use as well, but the traffic was taking a toll on the road and impacting safety. “It’s been pretty scary to watch gravel trucks, as well as to see the tourists have near misses,” she said.

Scanlon later said truck traffic was a fact of life at all pit mines in the state and the operation of the Kinikin site would fall under the safety regulations of the mining corporation performing extraction.

“I think truck drivers get a short shrift. They have training other drivers don’t. I think they’re safer than a lot of tourists,” he said.

Filener said she understood the need for gravel was in part driven by Montrose’s booming growth and also Gray’s private property rights. “I understand both sides. It’s a fine-edged sword as I ask if this would benefit everyone or one individual. What is the value of having a fourth pit within a mile?”

Gordon Autry, whose ranch is adjacent to Gray’s property, said the county already had 51 operational gravel pits. He said Gray’s first pit was approved as a nine-acre site but had since expanded.

“This (proposed) pit is not in the public interest,” Autry said. “There is no need for it and it’s a visual distraction from the national park.”

And, he said, while Gray might own the pit, the operator “could be anyone.” Autry cited one pit, owned by the Southern Ute Tribe in Ignacio, and said because it’s a tribal business it is exempt from taxes.

“You had no idea what you permitted there. You have no idea here,” he said. “If that (new pit) is opened up, I’ll bet my life you’re never going to see the end of mining there.”

Scanlon said there would be a 50-foot buffer zone along the operation’s perimeter and the site would be reclaimed as deposits were removed. He also said the expansion of Gray’s first pit was undertaken to facilitate reclamation of mined-out areas and the county could always restrict expansion as a condition of granting the new permit.

Additionally, though there are now other pits in the area, there weren’t as many when Gray first sought the permit, Scanlon said later. A civil suit over gate access caused the county to table consideration of the permit, so the delay was not Gray’s fault, Scanlon said.

“Do you know why we’re taking this seriously?” Belt asked. “I think of my 5-year-old grandson. ...This is a generational thing. We don’t want to screw this up. It is going to impact the national park.”

Commissioner Bill Patterson reiterated there were several gravel pits in the area. “I’m not seeing the need. What will it give this county?”

Commissioner Gary Ellis said he believed in free enterprise, but also in balancing that with the good of the public. “There’s still questions I want answered.”