2017-03-16_REPORT - M1982112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Additional Pages Miller Pit 2017 Annual Report Permit M-1982-112 General Comments: After the death of Mr. Rick Hunt, his property and this permit fell into a spell of uncertainty and a bit of disarray. The property went into receivership managed by MidFirst Bank. Mr. Hunt had a contract with Schmidt Construction Company(a.k.a. Schmidt Aggregates) to operate the pit under the permit held by Mr. Hunt. That contract expired on May 8, 2016, but was renewed for an additional year. Thus the permit is now held by Mr. Hunt's estate. Schmidt has been careful to try and keep the operation in compliance with the permit requirements. However, some requirements, such as water rights and water consumption, was maintained exclusively by Mr. Hunt and not by Schmidt. Thus, over time, some things became neglected. Efforts are now being made to correct these matters, but with no well defined party to manage the permit it has been difficult. Most of the difficulties are, to a large extent, administrative problems and not operational problems. Schmidt has been and continues to be helpful as they can in resolving the issues, but as a contractor and not the permittee Schmidt's ability to influence outcomes is legally limited. �„Q, " �'-W� It now appears Mr. Hunt's property will be auctioned in 2�17. That will likely create a new period of adjustment. Because the future owner is unknown it is impossible to know whether that party will be interested in even having a permitted mining operation on the property. Certainly, one of the major concerns for the Division is who will maintain responsibility for the reclamation that is needed? Schmidt is very sympathetic to the Division's position and as Schmidt has an obligation to do the reclamation as stated in the contract their intent is to follow through on that obligation. This applies whether the operation ceases in the near future or continues for many years to come. So long as no other contractor or permittee that is in the mining business takes over the site and the permit, Schmidt's view will be that they have an obligation. There has even been consideration of acquiring the permit. Unfortunately, there is far more to that than simply purchasing the property and doing a succession of operator. The site also needs to have a viable future as a sand source and the operation needs to be potentially profitable in the long run before acquisition would occur. The Division has been patient and helpful in finding solutions to all of these difficulties and that is greatly appreciated by all parties. It is hoped that with new ownership the situation will improve, but clearly the Division is concerned about what the future holds and maintaining legal control to insure the site is properly reclaimed sooner or later. Following are some comments on various issues and what is going on and what various uncertainties mean. Affected Land: On the report form it is stated that the affected land acreage is either 53.82 acres or 66.14 acres. The 53.82 acres is the amount of affected land directly attributable to the mining operation only. In the past, the affected land acreage was stated under a different concept. In that concept, all disturbances on the property were considered affected land. No new or unusual disturbances occurred on the unmined land except for the deposition of waste construction materials and other materials in a large area on the south side of the permit and adjacent to the mining opertion. This is not land affected directly by the mining operation, but is affected land with regard to the total permit. This material was placed there by the land owner, Rick Hunt, and not by Schmidt. In fact, Schmidt has nothing to do with this and has continually complained about Page 1 of 2