Laserfiche WebLink
John Doerfer - 2 - February 12, 1990 <br />recommended by the consulting geotechnical engineering firm. After <br />reviewing this with Steve Renner, MLRD Senior Reclamation <br />Specialist, I recommend that the operator comply with the original <br />slope configurations, or provide data from the aeotechni~;al <br />engineering firm that steeper slopes are stable for the material <br />encountered during basin excavation. <br />On page 4, the operator states that "Sediment load was e'>timated by <br />considering runoff from both the Visual Berm in its recl~iimed <br />condition and the Subbasins A and B ." I believe a more <br />appropriate sediment load design should take into account runoff <br />from the Visual Berm in its current unreclaimed condition. <br />On page 5, the operator states that "the depth of silt we'll be <br />measured by painted depth marks at 1 foot intervals on tfie vertical <br />rizers in both ponds." I recommend that the operator also number <br />these intervals so that the depth can be read directly once silt <br />begins to accumulate in the basins. <br />Exhibit B "Grading Plan for Sediment Basin" indicates that a <br />portion of the eastern slope of the "Upper Pond" will be developed <br />out beyond the existing permit boundary. While the Boarcl and <br />Division have earlier agreed with the operator that disturbances <br />created by the operator beyond the permit boundary might be <br />necessary to implement certain remedial actions, we should be sure <br />that these out-of-boundary disturbances are absolutely necessary. <br />If the "Upper Pond" can be created without disturbing areas beyond <br />the permit boundary, we should recommend the operator provide an <br />alternative basin design plan. <br />DIH/yJb <br />cc: Bruce Humphries <br />Steve Renner <br />4098E <br />