Property owner asks Clark County to allow more surface mining in Chelatchie Bluff Mineral LandsSubscriber Exclusive

If the two parcels — one is 117 acres and the other is close to 159 acres — are added to the overlay area, it would expand to just over 650 acres.

Jose Alvarez, program manager for the Community Planning department, said Synergy’s request likely won’t move forward. While site-specific reviews are possible, he said the Growth Management Act requires the county to do a comprehensive countywide analysis and discourages site-specific reviews.

Alvarez said any action taken to amend the mining overlay would require public hearings with the planning commission and county council based on new information from the Department of Natural Resources, which the county hasn’t received, Alvarez said.

The county also remains mired in an ongoing legal battle over whether the mining overlay was implemented correctly.

In December 2021, the county amended comprehensive and zoning maps to add a mining overlay to four parcels owned by Per Holten-Andersen at the request of Granite Construction without requiring an environmental review.

Environmental advocacy group Friends of Clark County appealed that decision. The case reached the state Growth Management Hearings Board. Last March, the board ruled the county had improperly declined to require a more in-depth study of potential impacts when Granite Construction requested the zoning change.

The board also ruled that the ordinance approving the mining overlay was not in compliance with the state’s Growth Management Act. Despite this, the county council voted 3-2 to keep the mining overlay in place but would now require an environmental impact assessment.

Granite Construction then appealed the county’s ruling to the state Court of Appeals. The case is still making its way through the appellate court. A hearing date has not been set.

That ongoing court battle has left at least one county councilor unwilling to wade further into troubled waters.

“I won’t consider anything until the hearings board appeal has been decided and the issue comes before us, if it ever does,” Councilor Glen Yung said.

Yung said trying to make a decision now on whether the mining overlay can and/or should be expanded is just speculation.

“We don’t even know, at this point, if the existing overlay will continue to exist until this all fleshes out,” Yung said.

Councilor Sue Marshall, who represents District 5 where the Chelatchie Bluff Mineral Lands are located, also said she needs more information.

“I would have to look at the environmental impact statement to understand whether the site was appropriate for mining,” Marshall said.

Council Chair Gary Medvigy, who has long supported expanding the county’s mining operations as well as improving the county-owned short line railroad to haul the mined material, said the county will need to address its resources lands.

“I accept from the industry that we are running out of rock locally and we need new surface mining,” Medvigy said.

Medvigy said the Department of Natural Resources, which does the mapping and tells the county where resources will most likely be found, is running far behind. He said updated maps are important to the council’s decision-making process.

“The need is there. Everything’s connected. We want to have affordable housing and materials costs are a part of it,” he said. “If they have to barge material from elsewhere, if they have to bring concrete in from elsewhere, the people building pay more for materials.”

Those costs are then passed on to homebuyers or businesses, Medvigy said.

Chelatchie resident John Nanney has been fighting against mining in the Chelatchie area for several years. He said Synergy’s request is exactly what he worried would happen if the surface mining overlay was approved without requiring an environmental impact assessment.

“I warned that the approval of the Chelatchie Bluff Mine surface mining overlay would give notice to other miners and developers that Clark County would allow for comprehensive plan and zone changes without any study of the probable significant adverse environmental impacts,” Nanney said by email.

He said the county’s decision to retain the surface mining overlay in spite of the state board’s ruling is sending a dangerous message to other property owners and developers.

“The council is clearly saying to hell with the environment, the people of Chelatchie and those all along the rail line, or any other concerned citizen that may stand in the way of lining corporate pockets with gold,” Nanney said.