Planning commission recommends approval of Dolores County gravel‑pit expansion on BLM land

The San Miguel County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve a mining special‑use permit allowing Dolores County Road and Bridge to expand an existing gravel pit on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands near Disappointment Valley.

Planning staff presented the application for an expansion that would enlarge the current 7‑acre pit footprint to an 11.6‑acre site (4.6 acres of new disturbance), of which about 3.6 acres would be excavated. The county presentation said operations would be seasonal — roughly May through November — with intermittent use totaling up to about 180 operating days per year, typical workdays of about seven daylight hours on up to four days per week, a three‑person crew on site, and an annual hauling estimate the applicant described as “up to about 320 haul loads during the year.” The nearest residence is about 2.4 miles away, staff said.

The proposal is wholly on BLM‑managed lands and requires review and permits from multiple agencies. Planning staff noted the BLM completed an environmental assessment and approved it; the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DRMS) approved a conversion; the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has issued a stormwater permit and is still reviewing an air‑quality permit. Staff recommended a package of conditions and monitoring and asked the applicant to provide annual progress reports to the county planning department.

The applicant representatives said reclamation will be staged: topsoil will be stockpiled and later respread, revegetated with a BLM‑approved native seed mix and, if weeds appear, treated by a licensed applicator. Reclamation bonds are held by the BLM and DRMS for typical warranty periods (staff indicated three to five years) to ensure revegetation reaches the BLM’s reclamation thresholds. Water for dust control would be obtained from the Dolores Water Conservancy District via an access canal at Dove Creek, the application said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) commented that the site lies in mapped elk and mule deer severe winter range and winter concentration areas and requested no activity from Dec. 1 to April 30; staff and the applicant said operations would be limited to May–November to avoid winter impacts. CPW also asked the applicant to avoid introducing nonnative invasive species; the applicant said a licensed applicator would address noxious weeds if they appear and that BLM‑specified seed mixes will be used for reclamation.

Commissioners asked about transplanting trees and shrubs in the expansion area, on‑site fuel storage, cultural‑resource reporting, timing of vegetation removal relative to migratory‑bird windows, and how the expansion compares to other county pits. The applicant representative said equipment fuel would be carried in and out each day in crew vehicles rather than stored on site, and that BLM specialists oversee cultural‑resources surveys and would notify the county if mitigation or additional action were required. On timing, the applicant said they plan to begin in the spring but that the exact first crushing date would depend on mobilization and spring conditions; staff and CPW reiterated the preference for avoiding disturbance during the May 1–June 30 migratory‑bird window for vegetation removal when practical.

After discussion the commission voted to recommend approval “subject to the specific terms and conditions 1–12 in the packet” and to forward the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The commission set no additional county‑level permits beyond the conditions listed in the staff packet but emphasized coordination with BLM, DRMS, CDPHE and CPW and the requirement that the applicant provide on‑site contacts and annual progress reports. The planning commission recorded ayes and no nays or abstentions; the application will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at its March 19 meeting in Telluride.

The county packet and the planning commission’s motion cite specific land‑use code standards and review sections that staff used in their evaluation and in the sample motion (see Authorities section below).