1997-07-10_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26-27, 1997 Page 32 files, the area requested by the operator for the berm modification has always been within the proposed affected area. Specifically, TR 006 states that the operator will "modify the sided slopes and final elevations of a portion of the berm along the southwest side". An evaluation of the files shows that "Stage One" and "Stage Four" mining areas were proposed in the original Permit application. These two areas include the area where the berm was originally constructed and clearly place the berm within the affected area. Mr. Sorenson spoke to the Board about the flood issues and stated that the drainage pattern is the same drainage pattern in the proposed plan. The grades are a few feet different in a few different areas between the two plans, but the magnitude of the flood would not be increased during a levy failure or a levy removal scenario between the two interior grading plans. There could be some increased magnitude flooding under the current approved plan in that the water in the lakes could join in with the flood water and increase innovation slightly. The proposed plan would reduce the amount of flooding. Parties here today have questioned whether or not that there may be alternative flood plain management strategies that may be superior in some way to the Deepe Farm Pit plans. The Division does not believe it's appropriate under the Statute and Regulations, to require the operator to explore those alternative strategies because the permanent levy is the structure that predates the Reclamation Permit that was issued for the Deepe Farm Pit. Also it is now within the jurisdiction of the Division or the Board to make suitability determinations of the Construction Materials Operations. If an operator or an applicant proposes a plan that meets the minimum requirements of the performance standards, the Statute does not give the Board or the Division the jurisdiction to say: "Okay, that might meet the minimum requirements, but we think there might be something somewhat better, so you have to look at those alternatives". The Board and the Division are not provided with that authority. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Sorenson why the Division was not considering the Statutory Standards concerning the hydrological disturbances and balances. Mr. Sorenson replied that the performance standards that more directly applies is 34-32.5-116(4)(b), which directly deals with earth dams and is really similar to minimization of the disturbance. Particularly in this case that requires a finding that the permanent levy will not damage adjoining property.