|
WITWER, OLDENBURG, BARRY & GROOM, LLP
<br /> Page 3
<br /> 2. The Seven-year timeline is unreasonable.
<br /> Similarly, the reclamation timetable should be dramatically reduced. At present, Coulson
<br /> proposes to complete reclamation in approximately seven years. This appears to be a timeframe
<br /> taken directly from the current USR, which requires that "[a]ll mining and reclamation shall be
<br /> completed no later than 7 years from the first material hauled from the site." Ex. D, USR Findings
<br /> and Resolution, Recorded March 21, 2018. But there is no reason for additional delay. Mining
<br /> operations last took place on the Kirtright Pit in 2008, yet 16 years later, the O'Briens are still
<br /> waiting for reclamation to be completed.A review of DRMS records indicates that in annual reports
<br /> from 1989 through 2001, Coulson consistently reported no seeding of any kind. Nonetheless, in a
<br /> 2002 inspection report,the DRMS inspector included observations that the northern portion of the
<br /> permit site had been mined, backfilled and revegetated, and appears to have accepted Coulson's
<br /> claim that"this reclamation took place approximately 7-8 years ago." See DRMS Files,March 27,
<br /> 2002,Inspection Report.Thus,it would appear that Coulson's seeding activity was minimal at best,
<br /> and thus did not comply with the original reclamation plan. See Ex. E to Original Coulson
<br /> Application,DRMS Files,dated Sept.2, 1986)(calling for s reseeding with a specific seed mixture).
<br /> In addition,as described in both the O'Brien and Giroux letters submitted herewith,unfinished and
<br /> improper reclamation efforts have long forced the O'Briens to live with mosquito-breeding-ground
<br /> mudflats instead of properly-functioning ponds and grasslands.' Moreover, it has now been more
<br /> than ten months since the DRMS Board,following a hearing,ordered Coulson to submit,"within 90
<br /> days of the effective date of[its] Order" an amendment application. DRMS Files, Nov. 27, 2023,
<br /> Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law,and Order.There is simply no just reason that Coulson should
<br /> not be required to complete backfilling Pond 1 and Pond 2 so that reseeding and revegetation efforts
<br /> can commence in the 2025 growing season. O'Brien understands that weed management may take
<br /> years, as indicated in the Plan, but backfilling and reseeding should be completed in 2025. In
<br /> addition, given Coulson's history of failing to follow through with seeding and reclamation
<br /> requirements,the O'Briens request vigorous and diligent oversight to ensure that the reseeding and
<br /> weed control plans are properly carried to completion.
<br /> 3. The Plan must provide for improved flood protection of the O'Brien property.
<br /> The Plan is also inadequate because it should provide for adequate drainage from O'Brien
<br /> land after intermittent flooding events. This point is addressed more fully in the Giroux Letter
<br /> 3 Coulson's Reclamation Permit Application Form, received by DRMS on February 28, 2024,
<br /> includes a checked box indicating that the Primary future (Post-mining) land use is
<br /> Industrial/Commercial(IC). This is inconsistent with Exhibit E to the Plan at subsection (b),
<br /> which states that this use will be "agricultural and residential." This appears to be an inadvertent
<br /> mistake, and if so, the O'Briens ask that it be remedied. Alternatively, if an extent an
<br /> Industrial/Commercial post-mining use is intended, the O'Briens object.
<br />
|