My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE139661
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE139661
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:42:49 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 8:50:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005080
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
6/19/2006
Doc Name
Motions for Conditions
From
Harvey W. Cutris and Assoc
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memorandum to Harvey W. Curtis <br />June 14, 2006 <br />Page 3 <br />Alternatives Inc. requested a copy of the DMG files for Permit No. M-1980-251 (Ansley Pit). (See <br />Objectors' Exhibit 17). This file would have contained at least the April 19, 2001 inspection report, <br />noting the presence of exposed ground water at a depth of 10 to 12 feet immediately adjacent to the <br />proposed Allen Pit. This information, although relevant and in the possession of the permitting <br />contact, was not included in the December 2005 application completed by Environmental <br />Alternatives Inc. for the Allen Pit. <br />As noted in the May 24, 2006 statement under oath by Kent Rolf (see Objectors' Exhibit 23, <br />Affidavit), ground water is exposed on May 23, 2006 in the north pit on the adjacent Ansley site. In <br />his Affidavit, Mr. Rolf stated: "During my visit [on May 23, 2006] I saw a large body of water in one <br />of the excavated pits. It appears to be groundwater exposed as a result of the gravel mining process. <br />The water had been there for some time as there was moss and plantlife growing in the <br />water." According to Kent Rolf s statement on May 24, 2006 (see Objectors' Exhibit 23, Electronic <br />Correspondence), ground water in the north pit was observed at a depth of approximately ten feet <br />below the ground surface. Mr. Rolf further stated: "The depth of the north pit looks like about 20' at <br />the north end to 10' at the south end, with water all the way through." (See Objectors' <br />Exhibit 23, Electronic Correspondence). <br />The expected shallow depth to the ground water table is also supported by the soils <br />information provided by the applicant in its Exhibit I (Soils Information). It noted that Hartbuckle <br />soil series is the only series present on the site. According to the data provided in Exhibit I for this <br />soil, the "Depth to seasonal high water table" is "6 to 8 feet". <br />Conclusions: The application did not include any of this information. It is therefore <br />incomplete, and should be amended to include appropriate information in Exhibits G and E regarding <br />the anticipated exposure of ground water. The applicant must also discuss its plans to minimize these <br />impacts to the ground water system. Pursuant to MLRB Rule 1.6.6, because this change is so <br />substantial that it would constitute an amendment under Rule 1.1(6), the applicant is required to <br />publish and mail a new notice of the application, and all applicable deadlines should begin to run <br />anew. <br />In this case, the reclamation plan consists of leveling the active mining floor; redistributing <br />about six inches of surface material, topsoil, or fines; compacting the area as necessary; and <br />revegetating the bottom and side slopes using a dryland seed mix recommended by the NRCS. The <br />final land use is to be rangeland. Because the proposed pit will expose large areas of ground water, <br />this will have a significant effect on the proposed reclamation plan. MLRB Rule 1.1(6) defines an <br />amendment to include a change in the application which has a significant effect upon the proposed <br />Reclamation Plan. Therefore, the reclamation plan needs to be modified as part of the amended <br />permit application. Either the entire mined area will need to be filled to a depth at least two (2) feet <br />above the exposed high water table, or the fmal use will need to be amended to include open water <br />(and along-term augmentation plan will need to be filed and approved by the Office of the State <br />Engineer). <br />2. DMG's statement: In its May 5, 2006 (revised June 2, 2006) Rationale for <br />Recommendations for Approval Over Objections, DMG staff stated: "The Office of the State <br />Engineer responded to the notice of this permit application and has indicated that it acknowledges <br />that groundwater will not be exposed during the operation." <br />LEONARD RICE ENGINEERS. INC. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.