|
Minutes -October 21. 1998 Po~~e 47
<br />was no[ part of this amendment application.
<br />As noted in that letter, the rationale for recommendation Ybr approval, the surface and mineral
<br />rights are owned by the applicant. The objections received by the division on August 24, 1998. This
<br />again was just one base letter signed by aft [here people who are listed here, and as it turns out, all but
<br />one has withdrawn, although, even thoush they all said [hey were going [o withdraw.
<br />The division reviewed [he application and, of course, took into consideration the objections to the
<br />application, and so the list of issues within the jurisdiction of the division and board is -- does have the
<br />objection that was earlier stated as well as the response by the division.
<br />The lust one was the objectors complained that a copy of the amendment application was not
<br />filed with the county clerk and recorder as required. As it turns out, of course, the operator submitted
<br />proof that a copy was filed.
<br />There was~a county -- there was a county representative -- commissioner representative a[ the
<br />informal conference, and he stated that the application amendment -- amendment application was
<br />probably misfiled or at least set someplace where nobody knew where it was, but the operator did prove
<br />-- or sent proof that the application was filed with the clerk and recorder.
<br />The objectors stale that the operator is not in compliance with the reclamation regmrements.
<br />Curzently the operator is incompliance with most reclamation requirer~tts and will be in total
<br />compliance upon approval of the amendment application.
<br />As I pointed out down further, the only reclamation requirement curtently is backtilling the mined
<br />pit, and that's been done, and so there's no question about i[. He's' currently incompliance with most of
<br />the requirements.
<br />The objectors state that heavy erosion exists on the mine site that may impact local wildlife
<br />habitat and natural drainage. The only noticeable severe erosion --and I've been up there several times
<br />-- was observed in the prelaw disturbed area, which is on the east side of the permit area -- on the east
<br />side of the affected land area, and there was some erosion.
<br />However, the landowner, Mr. Free here, has had his CAT out there, and he's smoothed i[ all out.
<br />As a matter of fact, he's backfilling a large portion of the area east of the affected land area for possible
<br />t ~ ~ residential sites at a later date, but it is prelaw, and it is being remediated •- the erosion has been
<br />remediated by the landowner, and it was only minor basically. There was nothing outside the permit
<br />area.
<br />Is there any assurance that expanded mining will no[ impact domestic wells. First of all, he's not
<br />expanding the mining. He's allowed to mine and 8-acre pit. [t's a movable pit, so as he progresses in
<br />one direction, he backfills From behind.
<br />So the total amount of pit is going to remain at 8 acres of less so that's no[ been increased. The
<br />affected land area is not being increased. It's 79 l/? acres. It's been 79 I/2 acres for several years now.
<br />As for the ground water, the nearest domestic well that I know of -- and maybe Mr. Free knows of
<br />one closer -- is approximately 3,000 feet and it's across the valley. There may be something up structure
<br />or up gradient that f'm not aware of, but that's the only one that I'm aware of.
<br />The pit -- and there's not a controversy, but there's a question about whether or no[ if ground
<br />water exists here. The operator contends that it's not, and they're working it out now with water
<br />resources to determine whether it is or isn't, and that's one of the stipulations as I get into this further
<br />down. I want that resolved -- put as a stipulation in the approval so that they do get it resolved.
<br />li s my understanding most of the water that they get they get out of a ditch. They have ditch
<br />rtghts, and they pump it into the pit. They pump it out of the pit to utilize to wash the gravel, run it
<br />through their sloshing systems, run it through their crushers, et cetera.
<br />And that water primarily comes from ditch rights. I can't say whether that's 100 percent ditch
<br />water or 50 percent ditch water and some ground water, and I'm going to let water resources work that
<br />out.
<br />As a result of possibly not encountering any ground water and besides the domestic wells are
<br />either up gradient up a mountainside quite a ways away or they're across the valley considerable distance
<br />from the pit, doesn't appear that that pit will affect any ground water.
<br />Mine induced erosion within the disturbed area, including ambient dust also impacts water quality
<br />and vegetative growth. The operator is required, of course, under the emissions --dust -- fugitive
<br />emission. dust emission to water the roads Frequently and to minimize dust, and as a result of that, I've
<br />never seen a dust problem up there. So I don't know if there are times when there is a dust problem.
<br />
|