PERMFILE63706

• Permit No: M2006046
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 1/3/2007
• Doc Name: Response to 2nd Adequacy Review
• From: Banks and Gesso, LLC
• To: DRMS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Applicant's Response to Second Adequacy Letter
Grand River Park Project, DRMS File M-2006-046
January 2, 2007
Page 3
In its place, the formerly designated "clarification basin" will be revised to function
as a "regulating pond" for water management purposes (see Comment 21f
below). For reclamation cost estimating purposes, the differences in basin
function are not material, as the basic intent in both cases is to provide a
sufficient volume for short-term water storage and discharge flow-routing
capabilities. The regulating pond will require a 750,000 gallon capacity; with a
standard 1-foot freeboard and basin side slopes not to exceed 3H:1V, the
dimensions of the basin are anticipated to be approximately 200 feet by 200 feet
in plan view, by 3 feet deep.
11. In response to the applicant's request for the Division to provide feed back of
the applicants proposal "...to commit to mining the final slopes in excavated
areas adjacent to screening berms, such that subsidence may be presumed to
not be an issue in either the mining or post-mining condition.'; it would be
acceptable to the Division if the operator chooses to mine at a 3H:1 V slope to the
base of the screening berm. However, since the applicant has committed to
maintaining a mining setback distance of two times the depth of the pit, a revision
would be required to change the slope configuration adjacent to the screening
berms, should the applicant choose to do so after the permit is approved. As in
Item 9 above, the Division will determine whether the submittal will be a
Technical Revision or an Amendment when it is received.
As noted in the applicant's request for feedback concerning alternative locations
for screening berms, the intent of this dialogue is that "an appropriate degree of
flexibility in the placement of screening berms will be to the benefit of both the
operator and the neighboring property owner." Specifically, placement of the
berms in the alternative location (e.g., as a continuous slope set to the edge of
stable mine slopes, as opposed to a mining permit setback twice the depth of
excavation) would allow for a significant buffer of level ground between the
screening berms and the neighboring property. While the distance between
mining and the neighboring property will be the same in either alternative, the
conservative setback from mining for screening berms may result in a more
"crowded" aesthetic from the adjacent property, eliminating the off-site view of
open foreground.
The applicant's representative discussed this proposal in further detail with Carl
Mount of the Division on October 19, 2006. Based on this discussion, the
applicant understands the Division's concern that the operator commit to a stable
mining configuration. Also based on this discussion, we understand that it is not
the Division's intent to preclude flexibility if the stability and scope of alternatives
is clearly established by the applicant.