Laserfiche WebLink
have a setback of approximately 25 feet and the lake water surface will have a setback in <br />excess of 50 feet. Item of note: the current sewage pond to be removed is located adjacent <br />to the property edge. <br />With regard to leaking chemicals or minerals or other substances, this is simply not <br />possible. There are no chemicals in the gravel operation and alluvial gravels almost never <br />have dangerous chemicals due to the washing action of the river for thousands of years. <br />None of the past mining of gravel in the river has introduced any negative chemicals in <br />the river. The potential sewage issue is addressed in response #5. <br />Concerning the removal of the lowermost 200' of the embankment armoring, see response <br />#4. COE asked us to do it and we concurred. <br />There will be no newly proposed river channeling as a result of the amendment operation. <br />We believe that the commitment to mine no deeper than 6645' elevation in the river will <br />provide a stable river channel and will prevent problems that occurred with past <br />operations. <br />As stated earlier, we believe that the upcoming revision to eliminate the dike berm <br />between the two channels will further stabilize the river and restore it to one wide natural <br />channel that will be very stable for the long term. Any remnant holes will be filled in and <br />the grade of the channel will exactly replicate its historic grade. <br />8) Letter from Jennifer and Joseph Wheeling <br />Concern #1 states that the dike berm will move to the east and that the river will <br />channelize. The dike berm will not move for now and there will be no increase in <br />channelization although we openly state that we believe that the berm should be removed <br />entirely, thereby proving a much wider stable channel. This is proposed for the upcoming <br />revision to river mining. <br />Concern #2 states that the lowest 200' of embankment is unprotected from a flood. This <br />has been covered in the response to letter #4. It is also stated in the letter that the concrete <br />block protection is inadequate. I am not aware of a more solid, more expensive and more <br />aesthetically pleasing embankment design anywhere in the State. It will handle the 100 <br />year event with a reasonable safety factor, period. <br />9) Letter from Milan McMannis <br />This letter does not object to the one time lake extraction on site but is concerned about <br />further activity. This person has the right to object to the upcoming revision to river <br />