Laserfiche WebLink
s <br />can include recommendations regarding safe separation <br />distances and number and location of monitoring wells if the <br />proposed mining operation uses a technique that can adversely <br />impact groundwater quality and quantity. If the county adds <br />such a requirement, it should be noted that St. John's staff <br />rather than county staff would need to review such an <br />analysis. <br />If the county determines that more evidence is needed <br />regarding anticipated groundwater impacts of a proposed mine <br />on surrounding wells, the following type of regulation could <br />be added: <br />1. Require submission of a groundwater impact analysis from <br />a hydrologist, reviewed and accepted by the St. Johns <br />River Water Management District, and require the project <br />operator to implement the recommendations contained in <br />the accepted report. <br />4. Timeframes. Currently, mining operation timeframes are <br />generally open-ended in practice, since definitive end of <br />project timeframes have not been imposed by the county. <br />Annual mining permits are required to ensure compliance with <br />all regulations and approval conditions. Long, open-ended <br />timeframes were a concern expressed recently during <br />consideration of the Eagles Nest mine and the Rebel Ranch <br />proposal. Restricting timeframes might not decrease the <br />intensity of mining activity, but might merely speed-up the <br />activity and increase the number of truck trips per day. <br />Mining operators have told staff that, from a business <br />perspective, it is better to keep several pits active in <br />various locations so that different construction sites can be <br />serviced by the pit nearest the construction site. <br />other jurisdictions surveyed place a 3 year initial time limit <br />on mining projects with a public meeting review of any <br />requests to extend the 3 year time limit. Such arrangements <br />offer flexibility and a chance for public re -review of a <br />project. However, such arrangements could also make it more <br />difficult to develop a business plan for projects, since <br />timeframe extensions would not be certain. <br />If the county determines that more specific timeframes for <br />ending mining operations and restoring mining sites are <br />necessary, the following actions could be taken: <br />1. In regard to new mining projects, the Board could direct <br />staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to set <br />specific timeframes for mining project completion and <br />commencement of restoration. <br />2. Amend the LDRs to set specific timeframes, with <br />possibilities for extensions. <br />5. Compatibility. The county's current comprehensive plan <br />policies and LDRs do not strictly separate urban and rural <br />uses. Urban uses like residential, institutional, and public <br />facility uses are allowed in agricultural and rural designated <br />areas, and rural uses such as agriculture are allowed in <br />residentially designated areas. Such policies and regulations <br />allow a mixture of uses. While allowing such a mixture of <br />uses may be considered desirable since it allows flexibility <br />and a broad range of options for various activities and <br />interests, such a mixture can also cause land use conflicts. <br />SEPTEMBER 219 1995 9 BOOK 96 �Ar� <br />