Laserfiche WebLink
At the hearing, Mr. Lennberg presented a slide, and read it as his testimony, <br /> that summarized the reclamation plan as requiring the Operator to "grade <br /> disturbed side slopes that are steeper than 2H:1V to 3H:1V."And it is certainly <br /> clear that the Operator plans to regrade areas West and South of Pond 2 to a 3:1 <br /> slope. But Mr. Lennberg also admitted that there are other slopes—which he <br /> characterized as "small in nature" and "fairly localized"—around some of the ponds <br /> that are steeper than 3:1. As to these, Mr. Lennberg suggested that these steeper <br /> slopes might not be flattened where they were "heavily vegetated," and legal <br /> counsel assisting Mr. Lennberg argued objections regarding the adequacy of <br /> existing slopes would only be relevant later on when a bond release request is under <br /> consideration. In the end, therefore, it is not clear after the hearing what the <br /> Board's expectations are with regard to all of the slopes around all of the pond. <br /> As noted, this issue is of great importance to the O'Briens, especially with <br /> respect to the land bridge. The O'Briens' engineer, Dan Giroux, testified that the <br /> overly-steep slopes near the land bridge was probably his biggest issue with the <br /> Operator's reclamation plan; that the land bridge was barely wide enough at <br /> present, and that stabilization measures such as riprap were needed to prevent <br /> wave action and other forces from making this land bridge any narrower. And in <br /> contrast to the Operator's reliance upon imprecise Lidar measurements, Mr. Giroux <br /> testified that he had visited the site many times and personally measured the key <br /> side slopes. Pointing to the areas on the West side of Pond 3 and near the land <br /> bridge, Mr. Giroux testified that he had personally measured the slopes and found <br /> them much steeper than 3:1. In addition, the Operator's engineer admitted in his <br /> testimony that he "must admit" that he did not "really take a close look at this land <br /> bridge." And finally, in his Report attached as Exhibit D, Mr. DeJoia concludes that <br /> upon his "[r]eview of the ponds and associated land bridge it appears that <br /> stabilization has not been achieved throughout most of the mined areas." Therefore, <br /> the O'Briens request that, at a minimum, the Board clarify exactly what is required <br /> with respect to maximum pond slopes, and the O'Briens request that the Board <br /> clarify that special measures are likely appropriate to ensure the long-term <br /> preservation of the critical land bridge.3 <br /> 3 As noted above,shortly before this Petition was filed, the Operator filed a request for a <br /> Technical Revision, which would,in part,provide that"[t]he land between Ponds 2 and 3 will be <br /> graded, topsoiled and re-seeded to facilitate better landowner access."The is certainly appreciated <br /> and a step in the right direction.But since it would be difficult to objectively measure either <br /> compliance or non-compliance with such a vague standard,the O'Briens would propose ending this <br /> 12 <br />