ENFORCE23263 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 Letter: MLRD Re: Fiie No. M-77-210 4120/90 Project No. 89002 issue a letter which substantiates his findings and how the field conditions relate to finished slopes. This possibility cannot be confirmed until excavation begins. Our approach at this point would be to conform with the previous recommendations (3:1 and 2:1) unless, during excavation, it is determined that conditions allow steeper slopes and we would substaintiate that with the geotechnical's field inspection and recommendation. QUESTION NO. 3, PERMIT BOUNDARY - Heffner. RESPONSE: We recognize that the map shows a small amount of disturbance beyond the "approximate permit boundary". We have considered a number of different designs oP this sediment basin inn this tight area. This is the only place the pond could conceivably be constructed without even more surface disturbance. One of our l.nitial designs would have placed the pond in the bottom of the drainage, but that would have disturbed a great deal oPland outside the "approximate permit boundary" line. It was therefore rejected as our desire was to keep the pond, as much as possible, on disturbed land. We would also like to point out that the original description Hof the permit boundary in this area has a degree of vagueness. It was baa;ed on the pre-quarry access road centerline, a Line that has been destroyed over the last 20 years. Therefore, identifying exactly where the limit of the road corridor was in 1970 is impossible. This is the main reason wlcy the permit limit is identified on the map as the "approximate hermit boundary". However, we are confident that the line shown on the map is within about 25 feet of where it was according to the original description. We also feel that because the board ordered this pond be constructed as part of the corrective actions the small amount of land outside the "approximate permit boundary" should be allowed to be disturbed ss a part of compliance with the Board ordered action. To go through the amendment process for a thousand square feet or so seems like a ;rather pointless action in light of the problems produced by the last amendment. It might be possible to lengthen the pond and pull in they East boundary but that could result in a need to shift the road westward into the base of the visual berm. Shifting the road could mean an undermining oP the stability of the berm and a need to destroy 7 years of vegetation on the berm and a complete regrading of the berm to establish stability. It could also mean a relocating of the processing plant to the VVest a short distance, an operation that takes weeks and costs many thousands of dollars.