My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE63706
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
700000
>
PERMFILE63706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:09:48 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 8:09:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Applicant's Response to Second Adequacy Letter <br />Grand River Park Project, DRMS File M-2006-046 <br />January 2, 2007 <br />Page 6 <br />The applicant and land owner are jointly conversing with the U.S. Army Corps of <br />Engineers regarding the extent and impact of "Section 404" (Clean Water Act, as <br />amended) wetland regulations affecting the project site. <br />The applicant's responds to the Division's assertions above as follows: <br />(1)(a) The applicant's present proposal for mining and reclamation attempts to <br />avoid jurisdictional wetlands. This is a central design principle in the layout of the <br />proposed mining cells. "Non-jurisdictional" wetlands have not been formally <br />delineated on the plan, but generally serve as a setback/buffer area around <br />jurisdictional wetlands. <br />There is an area in the southwest corner of the site having uncertain jurisdictional <br />status. The applicant and land owner and the Corps have agreed to hold a <br />formal jurisdictional delineation in abeyance until questions regarding the <br />hydrology of the Last Chance Ditch are answered. Because the wetlands in this <br />area may or may not have an exempt "artificial" hydrology, the applicant has <br />revised plans (see Exhibit C-2) to show the planned mine in this area as outside <br />mining limits pending determination of its jurisdictional status. <br />Should the area in the southwest corner contain jurisdictional wetlands, the area <br />would be permanently removed from mining plans unless the land owner or <br />applicant receives authorization under a Section 404 Individual or Nationwide <br />Permit. <br />The applicant reserves the right to seek a 404 Permit for any lawful activity under <br />federal statutes and regulations. The included plans could at some point be <br />amended to allow for mining of jurisdictional wetland resources. However, <br />accessing jurisdictional wetlands under 404 permitting would require formal <br />amendment of the state Regular 112 Reclamation Permit to allow for an increase <br />in the mining (affected area) footprint. Detailed development of wetland <br />mitigation measures is a typical condition under Individual 404 Permits and some <br />Nationwide Permits, and, if required, the applicant commits to submitting <br />mitigation plans to the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety for concurrent <br />review. <br />(1)(b) The applicant does not include any new wetland or plan to create new <br />wetlands on its current mining and reclamation plans. Any plan to create new <br />wetlands (such as mitigation) would be subject to the Division's approval of an <br />amendment to the proposed Regular 112 Permit. <br />(2) The applicant and land owner retained a wetland consultant, O&G <br />Environmental Services, to obtain a jurisdictional delineation of the site. In the <br />process, the consultant, the land owner, and the applicant met with <br />representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the field multiple times. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.