Follow-up

meeting scheduled for May 19; public comments sought on environmental impact

A roomful of citizens attended the Mineral County commissioners meeting on Friday in opposition of an open cut gravel pit proposed near Dry Creek.

The 52.7 acres are owned by Riverside Construction who purchased the property from Wanda Sverdsten’s estate. The proposed pit sits on a field located off Dry Creek Road exit 43, on Southside Road. The proposal states that it will remove 1,000,000 cubic yards of gravel and sand from the area. The proposal was received by the Department of Environmental Quality on March 7, 2016.

“It’s an iconic piece of property,” said Perry Jones, who owns a guide service in the area. “This stretch of I-90 is the biggest portal into the state. People who drive here see this beautiful valley. These are Montana tourists, and people who may decide to live here someday. If this open cut pit is allowed, all they’ll see is a field of gravel, and dust. It will ruin the aesthetics of the area.”

Jennifer Jessen, Jones’ girlfriend and an environmental health specialists out of Seattle, said the county should reconsider its zoning laws.

“Riverside Construction is putting in this open cut gravel pit, and they recently opened another one up Fish Creek and the people there are upset. These pits are unsightly, they affect property values, plus there are environmental concerns. They impact the wildlife, water, and air quality in the area. This is something people in the county really need to pay attention to,” she said.

Jones and Jessen both asked the commissioners to consider emergency zoning to restrict the proposed gravel pit.

Jones also brought up an environmental concern regarding the field itself. He said that 20 years ago, solid waste sewage from Superior was dumped across the field for fertilizer purposes. He also said it’s unclear as to what material might currently remain.

Jones speculated that if the dirt is disturbed, it could possibly uncover hazardous material, including arsenic which was found in the soil and water at that time. As a result, air quality in the area could be affected.

A main point of contention from several people at the meeting was the fact that they did not receive proper notification about the proposed pit.

Once the Department of Environmental Quality approves a gravel pit, they are required to notify residents within a half mile of the area to receive public comments. The law allows for a 45-day review period before DEQ makes a final approval.

Four people at the meeting claimed that they did not receive notification. County planner Tim Read looked up the residence addresses and found that a few of them were not on the list because they were not the original owners. Two of them bought their property directly from the owner and were not in the system. It was unclear as to whether the original owners received the notifications.

Other area homeowners were questionable because of the distance from the property. It was unclear to Read as to the location of the half mile mark, which determines what resident gets notified. He said he would need to investigate whether the half mile mark originates from the center of the property, or the radius.

There was a consensus in the room that the half mile mark needed to be clarified. If all the property owners were not properly notified, they want the proceedings to be halted until they are notified and start the public comment period over again.

Currently, representatives from DEQ are scheduled for a commissioners meeting on May 19 regarding this issue. Jessen, and others in the room, requested any future meeting to be postponed in order to have more time to investigate the proposed open gravel pit and its impact on the environment in the surrounding area.

She said that she spoke with a representative from DEQ, who told her that their department relies on local communities to let them know if there is anything wrong when dealing with issues like the proposed site. Jessen said that without proper notification, she questioned how can they inform DEQ of concerns.

Read made it clear that the commissioners have no control over zoning issues. They are there as a forum to discuss issues and public concerns.

Sonja and Ray Goden, who live near the proposed site, questioned the use of the Southside Road and if there was legal access to the road for the pit. They also questioned how the heavy truck loads would impact the road. Another issue, Jessen said was that Riverside’s original proposal stated there were no rodents or songbirds in the area. She said that there are songbirds and rodents in the field and that they would be affected.

Jones questioned the water use for the open pit, the impact on the Clark Fork River, and the water table for surrounding residents.

Goden said that the operation up Fishcreek requires 105 gallons of water per minute. He said that they drilled a well 400 feet deep and the Department of Natural Resources only allows 35 gallons of water per minute which is only two-thirds of what they need to operate. He questioned how the operation would get the rest of the water it needs, and asked if this operation would be using the same volume of water.

Christel Terrell recently purchased a house in the area and said that she was worried about what it will do to the property values. This sentiment was echoed by others in the room,

“We bought that property because of its beauty,” said Kathy Vandehey, “this pit will ruin the scenery. If we knew this was going to happen, we wouldn’t have bought property in the area.”

Robert Manahan, a resident in the affected area, said that he has “been in the mining industry for years and that if a mine is being considered in an area, they have to do an environmental impact study before they can move any dirt. Why doesn’t an open gravel pit have the same regulations?”

Commissioner Roman Zylawy said that gravel pits are in a different category than mines and the regulations are different.

“This project brings no jobs, and no local revenue into the area, it just leaves residents with a dust pit,” remarked Jessen.

Commissioner Duane Simons disagreed and said that the pit would not cause catastrophic damage to the area and that it would not cause an eye-sore. He said that there are gravel pits all over the county and oftentimes people don’t even know that they are there. Once all the gravel is removed from a pit, it goes through a reclamation process and “you wouldn’t even know it was there.”

Simons also said that the pit would provide local jobs, and it would bring added revenue into the area. Employees of the operation would eat at local restaurants, and shop at local businesses.

“There’s always a mentality of ‘we don’t want it here, put it someplace else’. But where else do we put it?” he said. “The gravel is a necessity for road construction. If the pit isn’t near construction sites, then the trucks are using extra fuel to haul it that extra distance. Which also has an environmental impact.”

At the close of the meeting, Read said that he would check into where the half-mile radius begins for property owner notification. Jessen said that she will be contacting DEQ.

The public meeting with DEQ is planned for May 19 at 7 p.m. Jessen said that everyone at the meeting should encourage the public to attend and make their concerns be heard.