FLOOD04945 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. .~I$)on ORIGINAL '. DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Responses to Comments Submitted to the Mined Land Reclamation Board In Objection to Approval of the Western Mobile Deepe Pit Amendment No. 002 Application File No. M-81-302 NOTE: Please refer to Page 2, Section III of the Proposed Pre-hearing Conference Order for the list of issues (1 through 6) related to this matter. For the purpose of documenting the Division's responses to Objectors' comments, those issues are listed, in the same order as the Proposed Pre-hearing Conference Order (1 through 6), and discussed in the material that follows, ISSUE 1 Whether proposed changes to the berm, which have been styled as a Technical Revision ("TR") and are not now included in the Amendment Application, properly constitute part of the Amendment and should be considered as part of the Amendment. Comment: "The application is incomplete to the extent it does not include the levee embankment (so-called berm) which the Applicant has substantially modified during the term of its current reclamation permit. The MLRB must review the berm as a significant feature which exceeds the scope of a mere technical revision, and which has important potential flood control implications integral to the amendment's other proposed hydrologic- related changes in the permit area." Comment: "..,the amendment application is deficient in that it does not include the levee embankment...", "'..,significant modifications which have taken place to the berm during the permit's term should subject the entire berm to MLRB' review as part of the current amendment application." Response: . . First, there is no significant relationship between the proppsect modification to the berm the TR-006 application and the proposed amendment to the permit which contemplated a reduction in the number of ponds in the permit area. See the Division's responses to Issue #4 below, The Division agrees that the "berm" is a significant feature and that the operator has modified the berm during the course of the mining operation, The Division also agrees that any impacts caused by "berm" modification to the overall floodplain function also 'must be evaluated. However, the mere fact that a technical analysis is'required to assess "berm" function during the lOO-year design flood event does not, in itself, make the '1"-