PERMFILE122864

• Permit No: M1999083
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 8/23/1999
• Doc Name: ROTHER PIT FN M-99-083 ADEQUACY REVIEW OF 110 APPLICATION
• From: DMG
• To: JOHN DECHANT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

The County should submit a revised Exhibit C in which acknowledgement is made of the possibility of
overburden in addition to topsoil and an indication of the possible thickness of the overburden that will be
removed in order to reach the deposit.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (e): The Exhibit C narrative mentions only the access road as a major component
of the mining operation. The map assigned to Exhibit E as the Mine Plan Map, however, not only shows a
pit but also a "loading area road" and an accompanying berm. The Addendum to Exhibit B supplied by
the County also mentions a catch pond not noted here.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C which mentions not only the pit but all other components of
the mining operation mentioned here and there in the application.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (t): The Exhibit C narrative does not include nor does the Exhibit E-Mine Plan
Map indicate the dimensions of the catch pond reported th the Addendum to Exhibit B.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C which includes mention of and the dimensions of the catch
pond.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (g): The existing access/haul road is not the only one involved in the mining
operation according to the map accepted as the Exhibit E-Mine Plan Map. There is a "loading area road"
illustrated on the map whose dimensions have not been supplied in response to this Rule.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C which supplies the dimensions of all the roads used for the
mining operation together with any associated drainage and nmoff conveyance structures.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (i): The Exhibit C narrative indicates that there will be no effect of the operation
on surface or subsurface water, however, the Addendum to Exhibit B indicates that the proposed operation
will have a catch pond to catch drainage from active mining azea. Clearly the County anticipates some
possible effect of the mining on the quality of surface water in the area or a catch pond would not have
been proposed.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C which confums a possible effect of the operation on the
surface water in the area and indicates what measures, e.g. construction of a catch pond, it plans to take to
minimize disturbance to the surface water system.
EXHIBIT C, Rule 6.3.3 (j): The Exhibit C narrative indicates that water laws will not be affected by the
operation but the County apparently intends to intercept and retain surface water runoff with its catch
pond.
The County should contact the Office of the State Engineer in regazd to retaining stormwater nmoff onsite
if water rights are impacted by this and SEO requirements specified, the County should submit a revised
Exhibit C indicating how the County will comply with those requirements.
EXHIBIT C, Rules 6.3.3 (k) and (I): The Exhibit C narrative does not contain any response to the
requirements of these sections of Rule 6.3.3.
The County should submit a revised Exhibit C in which responses to these sections of Rule 6.3.3 are
provided.
NOTE: ABSENT A CLEAR ENDICATION OR IDENTIFICATION BY THE COUNTY, THE SCS
RECLAMATION PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE SOILS AND VEGETATION DATA HAS BEEN
ASSIGNED TO EXHIBIT D. THE COUNTY MUST INDICATE ITS AGREEMENT WITH THIS
ASSIGNMENT AND THAT THIS IS THE RECLAMATION PLAN THAT IT INTENDS TO FOLLOW
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MINING OPERATION.