Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes -October ? I. 1998 Page 46 <br />- remamin, objector of record, and as I say, he did no[ appear at the informal conference -- or at the <br />' , ~ prchearmg conference, exewe me. <br />- Paragraph 3, Issues to be Considered. The objectors -- I, the objectors complain that a copy of <br />the amendment application was not filed with the county clerk and recorder as required. ?, the objectors <br />state that the operator is no[ m compliance with the reclamation requirements. 3, the objectors state that <br />heavy erosion exists on the mine site and may impact local wildlife habitat and natural drainage. <br />.4nd 4, Is [here any assurance that expanded midmo will not impact adJacent domestic wells, i.e. <br />the prevailing hydrologic balance. 5. Mine-induced erosion within the disturbed area, including ambient <br />dust also Impacts water quality and vegetative growth. 6, Past reclamation has not been effective and the <br />requested permit does not have adequate conditions for revegetation. especially in relation to wildlife <br />benefits. <br />Seven is somewhat of a philosophical issue here. We find it hard to accept the belief that any <br />lands within the permit application can be suitable wildlife habitat and are opposed to the proposal to <br />redesignate the land to wildlife habitat. <br />[ssues Not to be Considered. I, noise: 2, hours of operation; 3, county and zoning issues; dust <br />and noise created by the crushing operation; county public hearings; and serious impact to property and <br />living conditiop, i.e. quality of life. _ >~ <br />One thing -- as [said, all but one objector has withdrawn, and I'll leave it to Jim Dillie which of <br />these seven issues still remains after the objectors have formally withdrawn their objections. <br />DiLL1E: I[ was form letter submitted in August, L believe it was or when -- before the comment <br />period expired, signed by all those objectors. <br />COHAN: it was a single letter. <br />DILLIE: So one single letter signed by each. <br />COHAN: So with on objector remaining, all these issues are still -- <br />DILLIE: That appears so, yes. <br />COHAN: That said, because I will admit under the procedure, and a time schedules are <br />somewhat generous given that there's now only one objector left and he's not even here today, but I <br />;~" failed m my duty to reconsider that at the preheating conference and I do apologize. There it is. <br />JAVERNICK: Any objections to the comments on the preheating order? Accepted. Thank you. <br />Jim, would you go ahead and give us an invoduction to the application. <br />PAULIN: 1 move we accept the prehearing order. <br />KRAEGER-ROVEY: Second. <br />JAVERNICK: All in favor. <br />THE BOARD: Aye. <br />DILLIE: I'll pretty much follow my rationale for recommendation for approval over objections <br />attached to your copy of packet there that I presented you. <br />This is a regular 112 construction materials permit consisting of 260 acres total of which 79 1/2 <br />acres are permitted or allowed for -- to be disturbed at the site. This site consists of a considerable <br />amount of prelaw disturbance. The area has been mined since [he late 1800s. ICs a plasser operation for <br />gold in years past. They found some use now for [he sand and gravel, and it's pretty much the major <br />commodity right now, <br />The operator --current operator anyway has been operating out there just for about a year or so. <br />He succeeded operations. When he took over the operations, [here were some problems and he wanted <br />to get those problems resolved. One of the problems, of course, is the postmining land use. <br />Curtenlly it's industrial(commercial and probably wouldn't be compatible with the surrounding <br />area, which is basically residential wildlife habitat. So they decided to go ahead and change the <br />postmining land use to wildlife habitat. That was one of his requests in his amendment application. <br />in addition the second part of his amendment application was to increase the amount of <br />disturbance allowed at the site from 29 acres -- it was supposed to be a phased operation. 29 acres at a <br />time until the total 79 I/2 was disturbed. He would like to eo ahead and allow full disturbance of the 79 <br />1/2 acres and then begin reclamation -- or actually begin reclamation before then but at least be allowed <br />to disturb the entire 79 I/2 acres. <br />And thais the basis of the amendment. There were some, 1 guess, miscommunication or <br />misunderstanding about it. A couple of the objectors though[ that he was exchanging acres. 12 acres of <br />undisturbed land 12 acres of disturbed land, but that occurted during the technical revision process. It <br />