Laserfiche WebLink
Sandy Brown <br />October 11, 2007 <br />Page 2 <br />next to a light use road constructed to address a landowner request. Spring snowmelt <br />resulted in saturation of the slope below the drift and subsequently a slide occurred. This <br />incident was addressed by developing a remediation plan (TR-55) rather than taking <br />enforcement action. The common sense approach taken by the Division in that particular <br />case should have been applied in the current case, rather than taking an enforcement <br />action. <br />Third, the remediation plan for the first slide (TR-55) was developed jointly by <br />the Division and SCC. 1t involved reconfiguring the watershed and construction of a new <br />drainage channel (PM-4C) to route runoff to the south, through a culvert under the light <br />use road, and to a rocked down drain. Neither the Division nor SCC could have <br />anticipated the snowdrift that blocked the drainage and resulted in runoff flowing over <br />the road and down the slope. By issuing this NOV, the Division basically washed its <br />hands of any ownership of the remediation plan, rather than working with SCC to <br />develop a more effective solution. <br />In summary, we withdraw the request for formal hearing and appeal of the above- <br />referenced NOV. We respectfully request the Division consider the unusual <br />circumstances that sometimes evolve when addressing similar problems in the future, <br />rather than react by immediately taking enforcement actions that serve no useful purpose. <br />Sincerely, <br />~f-f~G~.,~_.~ <br />rian P. Dunfee wv 000 <br />Director, Environmental Services <br />bd/bpd <br />cc: Roy Karo <br />