Given the opportunity I've just been granted, I have to admit I worry I may have "peaked" early in my career- because it may not get better than this! I'll start with a quick background and some thoughts on enhancement reclamation to agriculture, then spill the beans!
ER to AG (enhancement reclamation to agriculture...) The second article in the trio I'm writing for the NSSGA this year will be focused on doing enhancement reclamation back to agriculture. I knew this had to be a focus of one of the articles because not only does ER to agriculture make economic sense (where feasible, of course), but is uniquely controversial in some areas and is a hot topic. Or as my advisor would say, a "sexy" research topic. My first exposure to enhancement reclamation to ag was in the Willamette Valley, OR where conflicts have raged for decades between the farming and aggregate industries -- my first MS thesis actually specifically focused on conflicts between miners, farmers, and environmental groups and the role/potential role of ER. I figured, therefore, conflicts between these groups were the norm. From the farmers' perspectives, aggregate folks may say they can reclaim back to productive farmland, but they need to "put their money where their mouth is" and actually do it. Further to their point, many of the ag reclamation projects they'd seen included reclamation back to farm use. Not farmland. So they would be water impoundments for cattle frequently, even though in the Valley cattle ranching is highly uncommon. What is common is high value agriculture i.e., row crops. And farmer see this limited resource being mined for the aggregates underneath- the mining takes ag land out of use and isn't put back. Plus they feel the squeeze from development, urbanization, population growth, young generations not wanting to stick around and take care of the family farm.... You being to see the picture farmers in the Valley are starting at and can appreciate their plight, fears, and frustrations a little more. Now I'll switch to the agg view. And trust me, it's shorter. When high quality, at spec aggs run a depth of 120' and it gets harder and harder every year to permit mining... An operation is damn sure not going to dig shallow so they can refill back to farmland. That pit is going to be the depth mother nature allows -- and at say, 50 acres (or however many acres) there is no way to refill a pit more than 100' deep. It is not feasible. So this was the scene where I first began digging into the aggregate industry and the relationships, conflicts, and interests around it. However, if we go north to Washington state or south to California there are 180 degree different examples! In Washington the ag and agg folks get along great. They're often on one another's "team" even- but this is because when we talk "ag" up north we're talking forestry- not row crop farmland. Then in California, of course the Central Valley and coastal regions have abundant farmland and land for vineyards. But you know why these industries have been able to cohabitate more successfully? The depth of the material. Geography wins the day because average depth of an aggregate mine is on the order of 20-40', which offers the potential to backfill. So really, while enhancement reclamation options comes down to a multitude of factors, one of the absolute foundations is the size- in particular the depth- of the quarry itself. So I leave you with some ruminations of mine on that subject... First, it is fairly simple to do this where aggregates are naturally shallow. I believe that enhancement reclamation where backfill is required will become more commonplace as populations increase and finding high-value secondary uses for mine lands becomes absolutely essential. So those sites, they're the low hanging fruit. They will work themselves out as economic drivers flex their muscles and we see more and more examples of innovative, cost-effective projects that add clear community value. Second, it's the deep sights I worry about. The Willamette Valley's of the world... Where there are high population densities, even higher regulations to grapple with (on the industry side of things), and limited ER options due to the depth of pits. I mention the regulations between there are often so many that any organization can become strung up by them (e.g., a local conservation group was unable to do their proposed work due to the varying required permits, involved agencies, etc.). They limit innovation. They tie our hands when we have to progress. They allow for a one-man-monkey-wrench to step in and stop a project in its tracks. Now I'm not suggesting we scrap the system, nor am I even calling it out for being poor. It's well meaning and was created to balance citizen involvement, environmental protection, economic growth, and all those other essential societal needs... But we need some flexibility too. The option here, to choose to dig shallow if enhancement reclamation is carried out. That's my push. That's my pipe dream. That's what I imagine will keep me up until all hours of the morning perseverating about on, likely, multiple occasions throughout my career. The beans! I have been invited to visit CalPortland's operation down near San Louis Obispo to tour their site and learn more about their enhancement reclamation practices where they reclaim to both row crops and vineyards! I'm thrilled to have this opportunity, cannot wait to meet the fine folks down there, show off their operations in the next NSSGA publication, and (naturally) taste the difference between reclaimed and non-reclaimed wines ;)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Who Am I?Hello and welcome! Archives
December 2017
Categories
All
|