Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Dan Hernandez - 5 - October 27, 1989 <br />Comments on sediment pond location are noted above under the Cedar• Heights <br />Lenders Comment No. 9. As to the amendment area, the Division nol:ed in its <br />adequacy review that if an off-stream pond is chosen for the 8-acre amendment <br />area (Phase III), an additional sediment control pond (or alternate plan) <br />would need to be included in the as-yet urmined Phase IV. Inclusicn of a <br />stipulation or commitment to this effect will be addressed in the Board's <br />consideration of the amendment. <br />G. M. Nagel (October 21, 1989) <br />Concern No. 1 states that the adjacent stream channel has been damaged by silt <br />and sedimentation and a need to prevent additional damage beyond the property <br />boundary. Recommendation 2 states that silt laden waters and sludge should be <br />removed from the water impoundment area and pumped to the new silt retention <br />pond. <br />This is a valid concern. It may be better to remove the sediment deposited <br />behind the Area 1 slide and remove the fill from the channel as I have <br />mentioned earlier in Cedar Heights Lenders Comment No. 8 on riprap channel. <br />Pumping the water to the silt pond requires that it be constructed before the <br />work on Area 1 commences. If an alternate method can be used for disposing of <br />the water safely, and disposing of solid sediment, a suitable alternate plan <br />to pumping should also be considered. <br />Recommendation No. 3 states the pond should be designed for a 100-year storm <br />event. I disagree with this statement and consider the 10-year recurrence <br />interval design event as more suitable for sediment control purposes. <br />cc. Bruce Humphries <br />Steve Renner <br />0788F/scg <br />