Laserfiche WebLink
-2 <br />ARCO's proposed freshwater pond. The Division suggested that, due to <br />the lack of suitable alternative sediment pond locations, Bear should <br />request an exemption from the sediment pond requirements and include <br />alternative sediment control measures in the application. A combination <br />of temporary sediment control berms and reseeding of disturbed areas <br />was discussed. These concerns must be addressed in the application and <br />a specific request must be made to allow the use of alternative sediment <br />control measures for those areas presently controlled by sediment ponds <br />bl and b2. ARCO's freshwater pond would not be expected to function <br />as a sediment pond. <br />3. Culvert locations are not indicated on map 2. 04.3(2)(a)-1 as stated <br />on the revised page 62. The text should be revised to indicate that <br />the 9" culvert drains disturbed flow from the west portal into the <br />sediment pond, not directly into the river. Also, both culvert locations <br />should be indicated on the map, as stated in the text. <br />Underground Development Waste - Rule 2.05.3(9) <br />In the Preliminary Adequacy Letter, the Division stated that it appeared <br />as though a portion of the waste pile could possibly be affected by the <br />proposed river channel relocation. The responses did not address this <br />concern. A comparison of Figure 2.05.4(2)(b)-1 (c) and map 2.05.4(2)(c) <br />would seem to indicate that the relocated river channel will indeed cut <br />through a portion of the spoils. <br />The applicant has proposed to cover the existing spoils with 6 inches of <br />topsoil and seed the area with the permanent mix. The applicant must <br />address the Division's concern regarding the possibility of the river <br />channel eroding the pile following the highway department project, and, <br />if necessary, submit plans for relocating the pile or a portion of the <br />pile. A Logical area for desposing of material would be along the base <br />of the steep slope to t1~e south of the existing pile. <br />Furthermore, the application should indicate when waste material was last <br />disposed of at the site. If the pile has been actio•e at any time since <br />Rugust 3, 1977, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the <br />refuse is actually underground development waste. In addition, the <br />applicant would be required to address the underground development waste <br />pile in conformance with the requirements of Section 2.05.3(6)(a)(ii), <br />demonstrating that the pile's design conforms with the standards of <br />Rule 9.09. An alternative to reclaiming the pile in conformance with <br />Rule 2.05.3(6) and 4.09 would be to dispose of the material in the landfill <br />as is presently being done. <br /> <br />