PERMFILE112282

• Permit No: M1997089
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 2/17/1998
• Doc Name: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR PERMIT CONSIDERATION
• From: DMG
• To: STONE GRAVEL PIT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Addendum to Rational for Approval Recommendation Page 8
Application for Stone Gravel Pit
Permit No. M-97-089
February 17, 1998
DMG informed Ms. Campbell Bell of DMG's decision to withdraw its RTB in a letter dated
1/27/98. DMG's 1/27/98 correspondence to Ms. Campbell Bell also informed her of the
correct procedure to follow should she desire to bring this matter before the Board. As of
the date of this document, DMG has not received a request to bring the matter of DMG
withdrawal of its RTB to the Board.
DMG has reviewed the BLM 2/10/98 correspondence to Ms. Bell, in which the BLM
indicates that their recent site inspection located 18 test pits within the proposed permit
area. BLM estimated that total disturbance created by all 18 test pits totaled
approximately 0.1 acre.
(43,560 sq.ft.lacre) ' (0.1 acre) = 4,356 sq.ft. total disturbed area estimated by BLM
Given the total disturbance of 4,356 square feet, estimated by the BLM, and the
approximate locations of the test pits indicated by the BLM, the applicant does not appear
to have violated the conditions of Rule 1.1113).
Given the maximum disturbance of 13,500 square feet, suggested by the objector, and the
locations of the test pits indicated by the BLM, the applicant does not appear to have
violated the conditions of Rule 1.1113). Under Rule 1.1(13), it is possible for an operator
to disturb 3,200 square feet per acre, over approximately 68 acres, and remain in
compliance without submitting a Notice of Intent.
Please note that DMG authority is limited to enforcement of the Act, Rules and
Regulations. Possible damage to sites of historical and archaeological significance by non-
mining and non-exploration activities are non-jurisdictional issues for DMG.
Objections not related to the Technical Revision but addressed previously in the
Proposed Pre-Hearing Conference Order
8. Wafer run-off issues have already been raised for presentation at the forma/ hearing.
However, it bears repeating here that the app/icant has not presented adequate hydrological
in/ormat/on. These problems inc/ude applicant's refusal to present to DMG a stormwater
management plan that he has allegedly a/ready doveloped.
Issues relating to the adequacy of Exhibit G, Water Information, are identified in the
Proposed Pre-Hearing Conference Order, item 6, and are addressed in DMG's 1 /20/98
Rationale for Approval Recommendation, item 6.
Issues relating to the adequacy of Exhibit M, Other Permits and Licenses, and specifically