Laserfiche WebLink
Exhibit C at 5-6. <br /> Together, a proper understating of the 2023 photo (Exhibit A) along with Mr. <br /> DeJoia's on-site testing and analysis combine to provide powerful evidence that the <br /> addition of topsoil will increase the "probability of success in plant establishment <br /> and vegetation development," so that it will be "at least equal in extent of cover to <br /> the natural vegetation of the surrounding area." As a result, it is clear that the <br /> proposed Revegetation Plan that omits topsoil fails to comply with DRMS Rules <br /> DRMS Rule 3.1.10(1) & (4). Logic dictates that the plan would only comply with <br /> these Rules if the Board could honestly find that additional topsoil will not increase <br /> the probability of success. But the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary: <br /> additional topsoil will obviously provide a better chance of success. Therefore, the <br /> O'Briens respectfully request that the Board reconsider its September 17th vote, and <br /> ask that the Board issue the only Order permissible under the Rules for a proposed <br /> amendment and plan that do not comply with all DRMS rules: an Order rejecting <br /> the proposed amendment and plan. <br /> Finally, shortly before this Petition was filed, the Operator filed a request for a <br /> Technical Revision, which seeks to change the plan to state that, in the <br /> Revegetation Areas, "topsoil will also be added as needed and disked into the <br /> existing soil to create suitable growth substrate." Even if granted, however, this <br /> Technical Revision would not suffice. First, the proposed language is too vague to <br /> comply with DRMS Rules. DRMS Rule 6.4.5(2) provides that the "Reclamation <br /> Plans shall include: . . . (f) A description of each of the following: . . . (v) Topsoiling— <br /> specify anticipated minimum depth or range of depths for those areas where topsoil <br /> will be replaced." Second, the proposed change would apparently add minimal and <br /> insufficient topsoil to the O'Brien property. Under the plan voted upon by the <br /> Board, there was apparently just enough topsoil to spread out over the areas <br /> indicated in Exhibit F to the Application to a depth of approximately 6 inches and <br /> leave about 6 to 8 inches in the Topsoil Stockpile Area. See Application Ex. E at 6 & <br /> 9. But under the proposed Technical Revision, this same amount of topsoil from the <br /> Topsoil Stockpile Area would be used to cover "as needed" a much, much larger <br /> area. The Rules, however, require greater specificity and sufficient topsoil to <br /> provide the "greatest probability" of establishing the planted species to a point <br /> where it is "at least equal in extent of cover to the natural vegetation of the <br /> surrounding area." DRMS Rule 3.1.10(1) & (4). <br /> 10 <br />