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 4
Please note that, in addition to the Division's determination (as stated in the
above comment) that slopes mined-to a 3:1 configuration will be stable for zero-
setback berm placement, the attached Slope Stability Analysis letter report from
Lyman Henn, Inc., generally concludes that near-vertical mine slopes will not
appreciably affect structural stability so long as a 25 foot setback is maintained.
The applicant believes the record establishes sufficient grounds for the Division
to accept a future technical revision that may reduce the berm setback from its
current distance of twice the depth of mining (e.g., 50 feet).
At this time, the applicant reiterates its commitment to the current configuration of
berms, as shown in the previous adequacy submittal on Exhibit C-2. Again, with
the acknowledgment that the Division has the right to deem a future submittal an
amendment, it is anticipated that any future request for adjustment of berm
locations will be a relatively minor technical matter, neither increasing the
acreage of the affected area (in fact potentially reducing the affected footprint)
nor significantly affecting the reclamation plan.
12. Based on further review of the soils information provided on Pre-Mining Plan
Map, zero to sixty inches of material suitable for use as topsoil is available for
reclamation. Using this range of depths, an average depth of material available
for use as topsoil could be estimated to be thirty inches. Therefore, the Division
requests that the applicant commit to replacing at least thirty inches of topsoil in
order to successfully establish a diverse, effective, and long-lasting vegetative
cover as required by Rule 3.1.10.
The Division understands that the applicant believes that fhe construction of
Interstate 70 has resulted in the removal of most of this material and that the
actual amount of material available for use as topsoil may be less than what is
indicated by the USDA SCS. Therefore, the Division requests that the applicant
demonstrate, fo the satisfaction of the Division, the actual depth of topsoil
present on the site. Adequate demonstration might include a soils investigation
consisting of either test pits or soil borings and associated test pit/boring logs
documenting the current soil profile.
Another option might include a detailed plan on how to test and insure that the
growth medium will be equal in nutrient value to the existing growth medium.
Please respond.
As noted during the applicant representative's discussion with Carl Mount of the
Division, on October 19, 2006, the use of general USDA soils information to
formulate a prescriptive standard for topsoil placement is unprecedented in our
experience under the cited Rule. Rule 3.1.10(1) ("Revegetation") requires
operators, as noted by the Division, to ensure that the site is "revegetated in such
away as to establish a diverse, effective, and long-lasting vegetative cover that