Residents press county on Woodward mine site testing, reclamation and wash‑plant activity
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters raised questions about the Woodward site mining and wash-plant activity, reclamation status and testing delays; county staff and state agencies (DEQ, DOGAMI) were discussed, and EPA involvement was reported by a commenter.
Several members of the public used the Sept. 17 Crook County commissioners meeting to press county staff about the Woodward mining site, the status of wash‑plant work, reclamation and delays in environmental testing.
Julie Thompson (resident, Green Valley Road, Prineville) asked whether the wash plant at the Woodward site requires a separate conditional-use permit (CUP) from the mine, and whether settling ponds on EFU‑zoned land were covered by the existing CUP. Thompson said she’s observed work at the site and worried the operator might resume washing while monitoring and testing remain incomplete.
Commission staff and others on the record explained the site is covered by a single CUP but that zoning differences on multiple tax lots create different standards across portions of the property; the county said some technical questions require a records review. Commissioners and staff noted the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are involved in oversight and that reclamation has not yet been completed on the Woodward or Stafford sites.
Thompson said the testing schedule has been delayed and that the operator (Knife River, referenced by commenters) had been required to drill additional monitoring wells, pushing testing into 2025. She reported she had contacted federal officials and received correspondence indicating the EPA regional office had been asked to review the matter. County staff said they would follow up on specific questions raised by the public and that state agencies (DEQ, DOGAMI) are the primary regulators for mining and associated environmental testing.
No formal action was taken by the board during public comment; county staff agreed to investigate the specific permit and monitoring‑well questions raised and to report back to the public when additional answers are available.

