For the residents along Hay Gulch Road in southwest La Plata County, one question has remained unanswered for almost a decade: How has a mine producing an average of 1 million tons of coal a year continued to operate without a local land-use permit?
Tucked away in what would otherwise be a quiet and peaceful section of Hesperus, crews at the Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua Energy (GCC) King Coal Mine II work around the clock, boring 300 feet below the piñon-topped mesas for a rich deposit of coal.
That translates to about 288 trucks a day grinding up and down 2.4 miles of the unpaved County Road 120, kicking up dirt and bringing a constant din of heavy engines. The road eventually turns to pavement for four miles, with most of the trucks eventually turning onto Colorado Highway 140 toward Gallup, New Mexico.
Paula Mathias, a homeowner on Hay Gulch Road (County Road 120), said she hears 85,000-pound semis thunder by every two to three minutes, 24 hours a day – excluding Sunday. She made it clear most residents along that stretch do not want to see the mine shut down. However, homeowners believe the mine uses a road not intended for the volume of traffic generated by King Coal II, and there is a constant sense the county has catered to GCC’s needs rather than the residents.
And why the GCC still operates without a land-use permit, which would subject the corporation to certain health and safety regulations, is still a more complicated matter.
Mining began in Hay Gulch in 1938, with King Coal I, which was owned and operated by a local family until it was purchased by GCC, a multi-million-dollar cement producer based in Mexico. GCC then expanded its operation in 2007 further west on County Road 120, opening King Coal Mine II. And with that, volume and operations multiplied – from 264,000 tons in 2001 to 970,700 tons in 2014 – on a road residents say was not designed to handle such traffic.
That is not to say King Coal II is wildcatting.
The mine is leased through the Bureau of Land Management, which permits extraction for federally held minerals. Recently, GCC asked for additional acreage for King Coal II, and it will undergo an environmental assessment as part of that process.
But around 2006, when GCC wanted to move from King Coal I to King Coal II, La Plata County Planning Director Damian Peduto said the director at that time did not believe the county had jurisdiction over the mine because the project was on federal land, and therefore did not require GCC to file for a Class II land-use permit, which would have brought the operation under compliance with local codes.
In 2010, when GCC wanted to tack on an additional 960 acres (for a total of 3,000), the county reversed its position.
“The county (in 2010) recognized the increased impacts, and approached GCC,” said Peduto, who became director in 2012. “This has been an outstanding issue of need and requirement for a land-use permit. The applicant has been submitting documents with the intent of obtaining a local land-use permit, and the juncture we’re at now is the correct way to proceed.”
Finally, on Oct. 8, the request will be heard by the La Plata County Planning Commission for the first time.
“The county blew it in 2006 when they said, ‘Go ahead. Do what you need. We don’t have any say on what you do out there,’” Mathis said. “In 2010, they realized they made a big mistake, but that was five years ago. I ask myself, ‘What liquor store or rafting company would be operating without a permit for that long?’”
Mathis said to GCC’s credit, management has forced its contracted truckers to drive slower on the road, and that has helped control dust and noise. GCC even stopped traffic on Sunday after meeting with residents, she said.
Trent Peterson, vice president of the mine, said if granted the land-use, GCC – a manufacturer of cement that goes to building infrastructure, such as roads – will lay out the funding to fully pave the road.
Other options, he said, such as building a private road or constructing a conveyer belt, are not financially feasible, and they don’t always solve the problem. Discontinuing night deliveries would “take a lot of planning, change cost structure and compress more trips in a day.”
“Paving is cheaper than dirt,” he said. “It always pays off in the long run.”
Julie McCue, who owns the first house on the east side when County Road 120 turns to dirt, acknowledged paving of the road would go a long way. But ultimately, it’s the volume of traffic that is the residents’ main concern. In just seven minutes on the phone, McCue said four trucks went by.
“Oh, here comes another one,” she said.
McCue and other residents are unsure how the environmental assessment will help and if it would require GCC to limit its daily deliveries. She said she purchased her home in 1984, when only King Coal I was in operation, and the two coexisted really well.
“It’s just so incredibly frustrating; how did we get to this point?” she said. “We’re sick to our stomachs. What do we do?”
Her neighbor, Mathis, added that many families in the other 40 homes along County Road 120 see no end in sight to the King Coal II operation. It’s a handful of homeowners against a multi-million-dollar corporation, she said.
“A lot of families were here before (King Coal II), and it’s sad to think their solitude and quality of life just got shot to hell.”
Officials for GCC estimate the mine will operate for the next 20 to 25 years.
The La Plata County Planning Commission will recommend an approval or denial of the permit to the La Plata County commissioners, who will address the matter at the next available meeting.
jromeo@durangoherald.com
