Laserfiche WebLink
in the durability of the relief sought. <br /> E. Tetra Tech Memo, Page 2, Paragraph 1 <br /> The elevation of the ground surface is not important as of the date of this Application <br /> Amendment. What is important, however, is the 2004 data reported for Monitoring Well No. 2 <br /> in the annual reports from 2005 to 2010. Since there has been no grading on the Orr Property <br /> since 2004 it should be easy to find the elevation along the west property line which has not been <br /> impacted by the move of Bulls Seep or associated with the Fulton Ditch return flow. The <br /> elevations established in the Technical Revision No. 2 are inherently suspect since the Orr <br /> Property was directly affected, but the owner was never consulted. Technical Revision No. 2 <br /> never intended anything but to decrease surface water depths and did not consider historic <br /> groundwater elevations. <br /> Even so, the elevation of the surface of the Orr Property is not critical as long as Al keeps <br /> the average groundwater elevation at least 2.5 feet below surface. AI's pre-slurry wall <br /> monitoring logs show that ground water was never within 2.5 feet of the surface and at its closest <br /> point in December 2004 was actually 3.75 feet below the surface. Thus, using 2.5 feet as the <br /> minimum depth will assure that the Orr Property floods yearly during normal ground water <br /> fluctuations which varied as much as 4.6 feet in 2004. <br /> F. Tetra Tech Memo, Page 2, Paragraph 3 <br /> The memo does not indicate the expected flows for surface water and for the groundwater <br /> elements in this drain. If surface water is the predominant source, the memo does not indicate <br /> how the drain system will allow enough groundwater to flow from the Orr Property at 2.5 feet <br /> below the surface to the Al reservoir. <br /> G. Tetra Tech Memo, Page 2, Paragraph 5 <br /> Unless the ditch is kept in a free flowing condition with little or no vegetation, surface <br /> flooding will continue to be a problem. According to AI's 404 Permit, Al was required to <br /> preserve the functioning condition of the Bull Seep after it was relocated. Historic photos reveal <br /> that the Bull Seep had a wide and shallow channel devoid of cattails and other vegetation. <br /> Currently, the seep flows through a narrow and shallow ditch clogged with weeds and other <br /> vegetation. The proposal needs to address the long-term maintenance of Bull Seep and the <br /> Fulton Ditch return flows. <br /> H. Tetra Tech Memo, Page 3, Paragraph 5 <br /> Unless the Bull Seep above and below the Orr Property is cleared of vegetation and the <br /> banks are maintained, flooding will continue to occur. Review of historic photos show that only <br /> a small portion of the Orr Property in the immediate NW corner was a riparian area. In fact it <br /> shows that the Bull Seep north of 104th Avenue to the north line of the Henderson Site had little <br /> or no wetlands vegetation in the flow channel prior to it being moved to the east side of the <br /> property. This is the point where the Fulton Ditch Return Flows met the historic location of the <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br />