Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br /> DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br /> Responses to Comments Submitted to the Mined Land Reclamation Board <br /> In Objection to Approval of the ' <br /> Western Mobile Deepe Pit Amendment No. 002 Application <br /> File No. M-81-302 <br /> NOTE: Please refer to Page 2, Section III of the Proposed Pre-hearing Conference Order for <br /> the list of issues (I through 6) related to this matter. For the purpose of documenting <br /> the Division's responses to Objectors' comments, those issues are listed, in the same <br /> order as the Proposed Pre-hearing Conference Order(I through 6), and discussed in <br /> the material that follows. <br /> ISSUE 1 Whether proposed changes to the berm, which have been styled as a Technical <br /> Revision ("TR") and are not now included in the Amendment Application, <br /> properly constitute part of the Amendment and should be considered as part of the <br /> Amendment. <br /> Comment: "The application is incomplete to the extent it does not include the levee embankment <br /> (so-called berm) which the Applicant has substantially modified during the term of its <br /> current reclamation permit. The MLRB must review the berm as a significant feature <br /> which exceeds the scope of a mere technical revision, and which has important potential <br /> flood control implications integral to the amendment's other proposed hydrologic- <br /> related changes in the permit area." <br /> Comment: "...the amendment application is deficient in that it does not include the levee <br /> embankment...". <br /> "...significant modifications which have taken place to the berm during the permit's term <br /> should subject the entire berm to MLRB review as part of the current amendment <br /> application." <br /> Response: First, there is no significant relationship between the proposed modification to the berm <br /> the TR-006 application and the proposed amendment to the permit which contemplated <br /> a reduction in the number of ponds in the permit area. See the Division's responses to <br /> Issue#4 below. <br /> The Division agrees that the "berm" is a significant feature and that the operator has <br /> modified the berm during the course of the mining operation. The Division also agrees <br /> that any impacts caused by "berm" modification to the overall floodplain function also <br /> must be evaluated. However,the mere fact that a technical analysis is required to assess <br /> "berm" function during the 100-year design flood event does not, in itself, make the <br />