[Vision2020] Banned uses in the Groundwater Protection Zone Part 1

[Phil Nisbet]

Mark

Excellent post and excellent points for debate.  I will definately attend 
and observe the next sub-committee meeting.

You noted the following:

"The commissioner appointed taskforce that drafted the ordinance (I was one 
of the members) contacted the local rock-crushing business and asked them 
directly if the proposed prohibition would effect their current or future 
operations. They said no. There is almost no exposed basalt in the overlay 
zone, the first economic requirement for a viable rock crushing outfit as 
the removal, storage and replacement of overburden is not cost -effective."

The problem is not with crushed rock, which is dominately used in the local 
area as base and fill for roads and construction, but in the sand and 
gravel, which is a completely different thing both mineralogically, 
rheologically and in terms of use.  Crushed basalt is not used in concrete, 
graded and washed sands and gravels are.  We have plenty of rock pits to 
make crushed rock to put on roads, but crushing basalt does not make 20-40 
quartz sand for drain fields or medium to fine mortar sands or a host of 
other products that go into building a single house.

In effect, its like asking the Ceder post guys in Troy if its OK to ban 
cutting Lodge Pole and if such a ban effects their operations.  Heck, they 
don't use lodge pole, so what do they care?

On the other hand, I concur that mining in some areas may indeed have an 
effect on groundwater.  But in other areas in the county, and in the 
Groundwater Protection Overlay for that matter, there will be no effect.  So 
why an outright ban?  Why not allow conditional use contingent on the owner 
providing proof that their use will not impact groundwater resources?  That 
effort could even be dovetailed into and be added to the proposed program to 
study the recharge characteristics of the northern sub-basin and serve as 
adjunct funding in the County efforts for it.

Because if we require xeriscaping, there will be more and not less sand and 
gravel used in the area.  Not many people who chose to xeriscape are buying 
crushed basalt, they purchase water washed gravels and sands.  That will 
increase the numbers of trucks loaded with Snake River gravel coming up here 
from just west of Central Ferry, not decrease them.  Do we have an 
obligation to look beyond just the environmental impact locally to include 
our impacts on the regional scale?

Phil Nisbet


>From: Mark Solomon <msolomon at moscow.com>
>To: "Phil Nisbet" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Banned uses in the Groundwater Protection Zone 
>Part 1
>Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:23:06 -0700
>
>Phil,
>
>First, you are reading from an older draft of the ordinance, not the one 
>currently being considered. Specifically, in the section you quote, #1 has 
>been significantly changed. #4, which you discuss, is the same. The current 
>draft can be found on the county's website. 
>http://www.latah.id.us/Dept/BOCC/DraftLandUseOrdinance.pdf
>
>The primary purpose of a mining prohibition is to protect the flow of 
>groundwater in the Overlay Zone. For a technical discussion of the same, 
>please refer to the geological/hydrogeological background section of the 
>research proposal submitted by Latah County to IDWR. It can be found at 
>http://www.pwcn.org
>
>For a real-life example of how mining can change groundwater flow, go to 
>the somewhat new granite pit at the intersection of Nearing Loop Rd and 
>Saddle Ridge Road. It's become a good pond site but may no longer pass as 
>much groundwater as it used to. I've heard anecdotally (no, I didn't follow 
>through with personal interviews) that at least two neighbors with wells 
>saw a noticeable drop in static water level when the pit was created.
>
>The commissioner appointed taskforce that drafted the ordinance (I was one 
>of the members) contacted the local rock-crushing business and asked them 
>directly if the proposed prohibition would effect their current or future 
>operations. They said no. There is almost no exposed basalt in the overlay 
>zone, the first economic requirement for a viable rock crushing outfit as 
>the removal, storage and replacement of overburden is not cost -effective.
>
>You raise a good point that could use clarification in the draft regarding 
>storage of rock, etc not being used in association with "mining, refining, 
>processing of mineral resources ". Thanks for the thorough read... that's 
>how good public comment works. I will bring this issue to the taskforce at 
>our next meeting 6/27, 5:30, Room2B, Latah County Courthouse. Public 
>welcome.
>
>Mark Solomon
>
>>One of the biggest failures in the current planning round in what has been 
>>termed the Groundwater Protection Zone surrounding Moscow is the false 
>>assumption that by returning a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) set of 
>>regulations, a higher environmental purpose can and will be served.  
>>Further, it is assumed that by banning uses in the rural area outside of 
>>Moscow, the area will remain as a pristine rural green belt for the 
>>community.
>>
>>Before people jump on that bandwagon, I suggest that they debate and 
>>consider the wider implications of what the regulations as proposed mean.
>>
>>5.02.07 Prohibited Uses
>>1. Feedlots, dairies requiring a commercial shipper’s license, or other 
>>types of similar year round/continuous confined animal management 
>>operations.
>>2. Sanitary or industrial landfills
>>3. Industrial wastewater treatment
>>4. Mining, refining, processing and/or storage of mineral resources 
>>including, but not limited to: asphalt hot mix plants, ore mills, rock 
>>crushers and concrete batch plants.
>>5. Processing and/or storage of toxic materials, poisonous gases and/or 
>>radioactive materials.
>>
>>
>>First I will address item 4 since it’s an industry I know well.
>>
>>There are no metals resources or ore deposits of a toxic or dangerous 
>>nature in the Groundwater Protection Zone.  Nobody is going to come to the 
>>area surrounding Moscow and build an open pit heap leach gold mining 
>>operation or a giant copper mine with possible acid mine drainage or 
>>potentials for off site leakage of process chemicals.  So any ban on 
>>mining or minerals processing is directed at calling for no mining of 
>>industrial minerals that are inert and a ban on the storage of those types 
>>of minerals.
>>
>>So what are the industrial minerals that these folks are trying to ban and 
>>why would somebody mine them here or store them here?
>>
>>Sand and Gravel, crushed basalt, clay, cement and a series of what are 
>>termed place valued minerals that go into bulk construction and industrial 
>>applications are what exist in the Groundwater Protection Zone.  So what 
>>is being banned is production and storage of construction materials that 
>>are inert and are not toxic.  And the regulations make it illegal not just 
>>to mine these products outside of the city limit; they make it illegal to 
>>store them.
>>
>>Who does this regulation impact?  I think that most people immediately 
>>think that they are trying to put a stop to giant evile mining companies, 
>>but the reality is that this regulation is actually focused on small local 
>>minerals providers, on landscaping businesses, on construction businesses 
>>and similar folks. No giant outside company is going to enter the Moscow 
>>area to mine sand and gravel or try to enter the crushed rock market.
>>
>>So, how will these impact landscapers?  They will not be authorized to 
>>store decorative stone, sand, top soil or other mineral products for just 
>>one example.  This is very interesting, since the move also exists to 
>>require xeriscaping, low water use yard development, which is heavy on the 
>>use of river rock, gravel, shaped decorative stone and cement.
>>
>>Construction requires the use of mineral products and construction related 
>>businesses store minerals on their properties as a matter of course.  
>>Storage of bags of sand or cement will now be legal in the city limits, 
>>but not once you cross the line into the rural county areas.  The average 
>>house uses 150 tons of construction minerals and the yard for that house 
>>uses even more and that does not include any other building or roads or 
>>other construction.
>>
>>The addition of a ban on Asphalt plants and cement plants are obviously 
>>aimed at paved road construction and repair.
>>
>>All of this impacts providers of these materials, but how does it impact 
>>the average citizen?
>>
>>The answer to that is pretty simple, it costs everybody in the area more 
>>to live here and materially degrades the regions environment.
>>
>>Just a simple example exists in sand and gravel used by every single 
>>resident of Moscow.  Most people do not realize that though our area has 
>>numerous sand and gravel deposits, our source for that material comes from 
>>100 miles away, trucked here from along the banks of the Salmon migration 
>>route on the Snake River.  The town’s annual consumption of 250,000 tons 
>>of sand and gravel is the highest priced such material in the State of 
>>Idaho, since it is not produced in the local area, but must be trucked 
>>long distances.  In Idaho Falls or Boise, the price of Sand and Gravel is 
>>from $6.50-7.00 per ton, but here in Moscow an average ton of sand and 
>>gravel will cost between $10-18.00.
>>
>>So the community absorbs a collective cost of over two million dollars to 
>>avoid having a plant in the local area, but by doing so, they also burn 
>>large amounts of fuel to move that material into the area and transfer the 
>>place where the materials are taken from lands which will have little 
>>impact on regional environmental quality, to ground right beside the 
>>migration route of ESA listed species.  Half a million gallons of fuel 
>>will be burned dragging that sand and gravel up here for the use of this 
>>community, by people who love to scream that they oppose fossil fuel 
>>waste.  Silt will not be dropped on dry Palouse hillsides; it will be 
>>placed next to the River habitat of ESA listed fish.
>>
>>But the community gains the wonderful advantage of being able to say, they 
>>have no mines in the Moscow area.  Out of sight and out of mind, the 
>>actual costs to the environment can be safely hidden and the NIMBY crowd 
>>can feel they have little or no impact on the planet, since the operations 
>>and the distribution of minerals they use every day are safely out of 
>>sight.  And the warm and fuzzy feeling that saying that our community has 
>>banned mines and minerals has to be worth several million dollars, doesn’t 
>>it?
>>
>>
>>I will deal with some of the other banned uses on following posts, but 
>>would love to see debate on the subject on this list.
>>
>>Phil Nisbet
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
>>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/