PERMFILE60728

• Permit No: M2003037
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 7/31/2003
• Doc Name: Objection Letter
• From: Tisdel Hockersmith Mueller & McIntosh P.C.
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Carl B. Mount
July 21, 2003
Page 8 of 10
This application has failed to propose a reclamation plan that conforms to the
foregoing definition. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the
application currently proposes 'cropland' as a post mining land use. The
claimed probable success of that proposal is not supported by the application
and is counter intuitive. The applicant proposes to leave two approximately
40' pit depressions, without drainage, lying immediately above an
impermeable shale layer, below the probable seasonal groundwater table,
without an irrigation plan, crop choice, farming business plan or farmer. By
all reasonable accounts, the probability of the success of the proposed post
mining land use in this configuration is questionable at best.
Additionally, by operation of Rule 3.1.3, the applicant is required to and
claims to intend to implement concurrent reclamation. The application must
therefore demonstrate the technical and economic feasibility of farming
reclaimed phases during adjacent active mining and manufacturing
operations, in small, approximately 25 acre 'fields' over the life of the mine.
The application completely fails to make such a demonstration.3
Reclamation -Visual Impact
Contrary to the requirements of Rule 3.1.515), the application has failed to
demonstrate that all refuse materials that have been mined will be handled
and disposed of in a manner that will control unsightliness4. The application
has proposed insufficient revegetation and irrigation plans to remedy the
inherent unsightliness (visual impact) of the proposed operations. The
overburden that will be stored as berms will not only fail as visual screening
for the operation, but will itself present as essentially unaddressed,
unsightly, weed inviting, wind and water eroding, disturbances.
tion Plan and Reclamation Costs
Rules 6.4.5 and 6.4.12 require specific detailed and informative information
and data to be submitted to enable proper public and agency evaluation of
the application. This application fails to supply the required information and
data and must be amended to correct this deficiency. In addition to the
'For similar reasons, the application also sails to satisfy the mandated grading requiremersts stated at Rule 3.1.5(1),
which states that "Grading shall be cartied on so as to create a final topography appropriate to the final land use
selected in the Rxlamation Plan.
° Rule 3.fS(5) prossides: The Operator shall set forth the measures that will be taken to meet all the following
requirements: (5) All refuse ... materials that have been mined shall be handled and disposed of in a manner that
will control unsightliness and protect the drainage system from pollution.