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

[Mark Solomon]

Phil,

The same economics of overburden versus value of 
mineral resource apply. Let me remind you of a 
previous post of yours:

"But it takes a lot of money to mine and process 
clay, so only the clay that has less than one 
foot of overburden for every foot of clay would 
be minable on their property.  Only about ten 
acres of land on the farm have overburden thin 
enough for practical mining of clay.."

I'm guessing here but even clay is likely more 
valuable as a mineral than sand and gravel. I'm 
not completely familiar with the comparative 
amounts of water needed for processing/washing, 
but I'll assume it to be somewhat less for sand 
and gravel but still a necessary process.

Any sand and gravel resources in the Overlay Zone 
are going to be remnants of paleostream channels 
formed when the basalt flows temporarily blocked 
surface water flow off the granitic uplands 
(Moscow Mountain). Common sense would indicate 
that those deposits are going to be orders of 
magnitude less in extent and depth than deposits 
found along the major river channels that drain 
entire mountain ranges or are terminal moraines 
from glaciers to our north and south. Combine the 
expense of overburden removal with the unknown 
extent of the sand and gravels and it becomes 
quite clear why there are no sand and gravel 
operations in the overlay zone.

Not to mention the potential disruption of groundwater flow.

Mark Solomon
At 9:52 AM -0700 6/23/05, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>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/