Helena Sand and Gravel is proposing to put a 111-acre gravel pit operation on 400 acres it owns between Lake Helena and Valley Drive, about half a mile south of Canyon Ferry Road, with mining and processing running throughout the night — from 4 p.m. until noon, Monday through Friday.

That information surprised Jim Wilbur and Kathy Moore. Moore lives in a home on property that abuts the gravel company’s land; Wilbur lives nearby, as do dozens of other residents to the east and north.

Moore and Wilbur knew of the gravel company’s plan to mine gravel from farmland north of Canyon Ferry Road and east of Lake Helena Drive — a plan that’s been permitted for years — but didn’t learn of this new gravel pit until recently.

And they weren’t told about it by their neighbors, by the Department of Environmental Quality — which crafted an Environmental Assessment — or by Helena Sand and Gravel.

Instead, the two heard about this new proposal through their jobs with Lewis and Clark County. Wilbur is the community outreach coordinator for the water quality protection district, and Moore is the administrator for the county health department’s environmental services division.

“I was shocked,” Moore said on Wednesday. “I’ve asked for a 30-day extension of the comment period (which ends Friday) so all the people who live around here at least can say something about it if they want to.”

Scott Olsen, vice president of Helena Sand and Gravel, understands the neighbors’ concerns, but said they’re doing everything required to get the necessary permits for the project. That included running two legal notices, which are the announcements included in the Independent Record classified ad section.

“We have followed all of the regulations, and if they didn’t read the notices, what are we supposed to do?” Olsen said on Wednesday. “… We intend to be a good neighbor. We realize the sensitivity to gravel plants anywhere, and no one wants one in their back yard.

“But everybody needs gravel, building materials and concrete. Unfortunately, you have to have a gravel pit to do those things.”

Moore and Wilbur say they understand that, but both have numerous concerns with the environmental assessment done by DEQ. They believe the state did only a cursory review and that its findings that impacts are insignificant are wrong.

Wilbur is well-versed in these environmental assessments, having done hundreds of them when he worked for DEQ when it was the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.

“To me, this doesn’t meet the standard that one would expect for an environmental assessment of a proposed permit for a significant industrial operation in an area with numerous residences and environmental issues,” Wilbur said. “This is just a checklist EA.”

Both Wilbur and Moore try to keep their county ties in the background, but their career expertise makes them wonder aloud about some of the statements in the document.

They note that legally, Helena Sand and Gravel only had to notify neighbors within 1,000 feet of the project. Setting the gravel operations in the middle of the 400-acre parcel means that zone basically extends to the company’s property line.

They say the proposal to pull 10 gallons per minute of water from four existing wells was stated so that the project doesn’t prompt additional review required by larger amounts.

The plan also calls for pulling almost 6 cfs during the high water season and about 1 cfs during the low water season from Prickly Pear Creek, which is often dry during the irrigation season. Most of the water will be sent to settling ponds, then reused.

The environmental assessment says this is “slight increase in groundwater consumption” — a statement of which Moore is openly skeptical.

“They need 50 gallons per minute for the concrete plant, and 1,950 for their crusher and asphalt plant. Multiply that by hours and days, and the total gallons per year is 711 million gallons,” she said. “So the amount they’d pump from the wells and pull from Prickly Pear Creek is about 10 percent of that. Where are they going to get the other 90 percent?”

Wilbur adds that the water quality district has already heard numerous complaints and questions in this area regarding water quantity and quality. He’s afraid this project will only add to the problems.

They’re concerned that the property is part of the Asarco Superfund Site, and the crushing process will send particulates with lead, arsenic and cadmium into the air.

Olson said they have dust control plans required by DEQ, and will pave the road into the plant to lessen the impact.

The DEQ also stated that there is already a risk of inhaling lead-impacted surface soil from dust generated by agricultural and industrial activities, and this project would only add “an incremental increase” to the threat of lead-impacted dust in the valley.

Wilbur and Moore are concerned about the proposed operating hours, which along with the 20-hours of mining and processing, include typical concrete batch plant and asphalt hot plant operations from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. Those hours could be extended in the morning and evenings due to project demands; Wilbur and Moore are worried the about the noise from the excavation and crushing of gravel, as well as light pollution from the all-night operations.

Both the DEQ and Olsen counter that those impacts would be minimal, with Olson noting the lights will be directed downward and they use noise muffling equipment.

Lewis and Clark County Commissioners, along with Moore and Wilbur, note that both Valley and Lake Helena drives already are substandard for the amount of traffic they carry. Moore and Wilbur add that the upcoming reconstruction of Canyon Ferry Drive could send the company’s heavy trucks through East Helena and past schools there.

An estimated 20,000 trucks per year would use the site, which equates to about 76 trucks per day based on a five-day workweek operation.

And Moore and Wilbur also wonder why the company wants to bring a gravel pit into a residential area, rather than using the land already permitted. The adjacent Holmberg subdivision wasn’t constructed until after signs were posted on the property saying it was the future home of gravel pit.

Olson said he wouldn’t call the proposed site a residential area, noting that it’s always had agricultural uses on it, and that this is a “more ideal location.”

“It’s further away from homes, and all the homes on the hill (in Holmberg Estates) would be looking into a gravel pit, so this site is much more appealing,” Olson said. “The other area isn’t as accessible from roads, either.”

To view the document, go to the DEQ Web site at deq.mt.gov/ea/opencut.asp

Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. Friday.

Reporter Eve Byron: 447-4076 or eve.byron@helenair.com.