Laserfiche WebLink
Staff Recommendation • <br /> Docket #SU-81-10 <br /> November 13, 1981 <br /> Page 11 <br /> The problem with such an air quality analysis and monitoring methods is <br /> that they reflect only long term "average" conditions. The "real " effects <br /> on the quality of life of area residents are from more infrequent incidents <br /> of clouds of visible dust from the operation reaching the residential <br /> areas. These isolated incidents can have a very real effect on quality <br /> of life, especially when they occur over a period of 17-25 years. <br /> As indicated by Mark Parsons of County Health in his memo of October 9th, <br /> it is felt that ambient air quality monitoring equipment should not be <br /> required. However, it is felt that a standard on approval of the Special <br /> Use should be applied. The recommended standard, taken from state air <br /> quality regulations but apparently not able to be enforced by the state <br /> for this type of operation, is a maximum opacity rating of 20% at resi- <br /> dential property lines which is not to be exceeded for more than 30 seconds. <br /> The County Health Dept. employs two (2) people who are certified in <br /> visual determination of opacity levels. These people can be utilized <br /> as experts in order to enforce the standard imposed upon the Special Use. <br /> Maximum Disturbed Area <br /> The applicant proposes a permanent disturbed area in the Stage 1 operations <br /> area which totals 33.5 acres. This includes the 12-acre settling pond area <br /> which will be either covered by water or very wet due to its purpose. The <br /> 21-acre operations area, which includes the processing plant and stockpiles, <br /> will also not be revegetated for the life of the operations area. Staff <br /> has verified that the operations area is as small as reasonably possible. <br /> Much of the surface area of the operations area will be covered by <br /> equipment and stockpiles or hard-packed due to regular equipment travel <br /> routes. <br /> The applicant proposes that an additional 25 acres of pit area is the <br /> maximum amount of area to be distubed at any one time. This figure relates <br /> closely to the size of the proposed mining stages, with the exception of <br /> stage 3 on the alternate mining plan, which is shown as 53.5 acres split <br /> by the north haul road. In conjunction with the previous recommendation <br /> to move the north haul to a location near the east property line, staff <br /> also recommends that stage 3 be divided along the present location of the <br /> Dry Creek #2 Ditch, splitting the stage into 2 stages of approximately <br /> 25 and 28 acres with the western stage to be mined first. <br /> The method of operation proposed is to initially mine and reclaim the <br /> perimeter of each stage so that a revegetated buffer exists around the <br /> perimeter as mining is continued in the middle of the stage. The applicant <br /> does not propose to count the perimeter area which has been shaped and <br /> contoured for planting as "disturbed area" even if the area may not actually <br /> be replanted until the nearest spring or fall planting season. Staff feels <br /> that an area that has not been revegetated should be counted as disturbed <br /> area until a ground cover has been established. The area to be disturbed <br /> in the center of the stage should equal 25 acres minus the acreage of <br /> the perimeter area that has not been revegetated. <br />