Laserfiche WebLink
Finally, with respect to the O'Briens' flooding concerns, the O'Briens presented <br /> evidence at the hearing from Brian A. Smith, a licensed Professional Engineer and <br /> a Certified Floodplain Manager, who testified that he had helped to develop the <br /> effective model that the Operator's engineer, Mr. Weiland, used for his analysis. <br /> After thoroughly reviewing Mr. Weiland's reports, Mr. Smith submitted a report <br /> (O'Brien Hearing Exhibit 2) and testified consistently therewith, recommending <br /> updated floodplain modelling in light of the changed conditions since the 2013 <br /> model used by Mr. Weiland; recommending an increased drainage channel slope, <br /> since the proposed slope of 0.05% was practically unobtainable even with the best <br /> construction tolerances; and recommending an automatic flap gate or inline valve <br /> instead of the proposed slide gate on a key culvert under the road along the river. In <br /> addition, Mr. Giroux testified about how the O'Briens' domestic water well has <br /> apparently been negatively impacted by the past mining activities, and he has since <br /> indicated confidence that flooding concerns can be substantially mitigated by simply <br /> raising the elevation of the river road by a few feet in the vicinity of the culvert. <br /> Therefore, in addition to reconsidering its September 17, 2025 vote based upon the <br /> topsoil, bonding, and slope issues discussed above, the O'Briens ask that the Board <br /> also find that the reclamation plan must be amended to address Mr. Smith's <br /> recommendations regarding the O'Briens' flooding and well-water concerns. <br /> V. CONCLUSION <br /> DRMS Rules establish certain requirements for reclamation and revegetation <br /> plans. Unless a proposed plan is fully compliant, DRMS Rules do not permit the <br /> approval of the plan. As discussed above, the Operator's proposed plan is simply <br /> inconsistent with the plain text of DRMS Rules. This is most clearly the case with <br /> regard to topsoil. Since DRMS Rule 3.1.10(4), requires that the "plan shall provide <br /> for the greatest probability of success in plant establishment and vegetation <br /> development," the Board simply cannot find compliance unless the Board could <br /> reasonably conclude that additional topsoil would not provide for a better <br /> probability of success. This issue alone leaves the Board with no choice but to deny <br /> approval of the proposed reclamation plan. But as discussed above, similar issues <br /> with the inadequate current bonding, the steep side slopes (especially with respect <br /> to the critical land bridge) and the inadequate flood mitigation measures warrant <br /> denial of approval and clear guidance as to the Board's requirements for a fully- <br /> sentence with:"and ensure the long-term stability of the width of the land bridge between Ponds 2 <br /> and 3." <br /> 13 <br />