Fremont County pauses gravel‑pit work near Lander after leaseholder complaints; board schedules further review

Fremont County officials and an engineering contractor described progress on an exploratory plan for a proposed county gravel pit near Lander on Tuesday, then paused the process after multiple leaseholders said they had not been notified and raised concerns about groundwater, road safety and recreation access.

Kyle (HVR Engineering), the project engineer, told the Fremont County Board of Commissioners the county had identified a state‑land parcel and begun topo and geotechnical work; he said the county would need DEQ guidance on mining plans, groundwater, mining depth and reclamation requirements. "We are in the exploration phase of the project," he said, outlining survey and drilling activities needed to support a DEQ permit.

Several nearby leaseholders and neighbors said they first learned of drilling when crews showed up on July 14 and drove across leased grazing ground. Annette Bridal of Armstrong Ranch said the state lease her family has used since 1948 had not received prior notice and that the county’s work directly affects her grazing, wells and daily life. "This situation reveals problems with this process," Bridal told the commissioners, asking for better notice and a forum to air concerns.

Speakers raised technical and community issues the county will need to address in a mining and reclamation plan: the depth of mining, the potential for groundwater drawdown or dewatering, irrigation and ditch impacts, dust and haul‑route safety on local roads, hours of operation, buffers and revegetation. Several landowners reported prior well‑depth increases after nearby pits were developed and asked how reclamation would restore pasture and water resources.

County staff and project consultants said those topics will be part of the DEQ submittal and the mining/reclamation plan. Mila Brown, a consultant working with the engineering team, told the board the state land permit for governmental entities follows a somewhat abbreviated DEQ process but that, because of the site's location and nearby residences, the consultants intend to incorporate additional studies and mitigation measures into the permit application. "We have had internal discussions ... about incorporating a lot of those same topics into this permit just because of the location," Brown said.

Commissioners agreed to pursue two near‑term actions: allow the geotechnical investigation to proceed to gather baseline information, and schedule a public hearing where leaseholders and neighbors can present concerns before the county files a final DEQ application. The board also acknowledged coordination errors — county staff said leaseholders should have been notified when initial exploration occurred — and apologized for the lack of prior communication.

Cost and logistics estimates were discussed: county and contractor figures cited crusher costs, haul‑distances, and comparative prices from local pits; one contractor estimated crushed product at roughly $10 per yard after royalties versus a roughly $24.75 per yard delivered cost from some commercial sources (figures presented as estimates). Speakers also discussed reclamation practice: mining would be done in phased areas (the applicant said 5–8 acres at a time within a larger 40‑acre permit) with reclamation and topsoil replacement required by state rules.

Why it matters: The site is on state trust land the county has applied to mine; the decision affects grazing lessees, local wells and county road maintenance budgets. Commissioners said they will return with geotechnical results and hold a public hearing so neighbors, leaseholders and commissioners can consider alternatives and mitigation before any final permit is filed with DEQ.