Laserfiche WebLink
3 • • <br />these roads has been quite successful. Please recall that such construction and reclamation was <br />the case, for example, for drill roads constructed per MR #121 in Lone Pine Gulch, as well as the <br />drill roads in the past several Notices of Intent to Explore and proposed (and approved) in MR <br />#214 for the use of this existing road along with new road construction. Even though the road <br />segment was pre-existing, the subsoil windrow/berm will be similarly (and successfully) reclaimed. <br />MCC has protected the hydrologic and soil resources by utilizing existing roads where possible, <br />by utilizing proven disturbance-minimizing construction and reclamation techniques, and by <br />constructing and maintaining redundant drainage and sediment control systems, as discussed <br />above. The benefit gained by these approaches has no doubt resulted in less overall disturbance <br />than might have occurred under a different approach. For this reason, MCC urges that the <br />Division recognize that MCC has, "to the extent possible" employed the "best technology <br />available" to preserve these resources and that it has, preserved the hydrologic balance of the <br />ephemeral stream as a whole and prevented impacts within and outside the permit area. <br />For the above reasons, MCC respectfully requests that this NOV be vacated. <br />NOV CV-97-009 <br />This NOV was issued "regarding slope failure of the main hauUaccess road being constructed as <br />part of the Sylvester Gulch facilities." The regulations allegedly violated include 4.03.1(1)(a), <br />4.03.2 (1)(a), 4.03.1(2)(b), 4.03.2(2)(b), 4.03.1(3)(b), 4.03.2(3)(b), 4.03.1(4)(a)(i), <br />4.04.2(4)(a)(i); 4.05.1(1), and 4.05.18 and were surrunarized in the NOV as follows: <br />"failure to construct the Sylvester Gulch access/haul road in a sufficiently stable manner <br />to prevent damage to the Sylvester Gulch stream channel; failure to adhere to permitting <br />commitments and requirements made in accordance with the Sylvester Gulch Stream <br />Buffer Zone variance approval, and failure to conduct road construction in a sufficiently <br />stable manner to prevent damage to a surrounding property." <br />MCC wishes to clarify that the road was being constructed in compliance with the approved plan <br />and in compliance with the haul road regulations (4.03.1), and in compliance with the access road <br />regulations (4.03.2) for the same road (which MCC assumes is because it has been called an <br />access/haul road). MCC notified the Division the first business day (July 7th) after the failure was <br />observed (July 4th} per commitments in PR 07 and immediately discontinued further construction <br />activities. Monitoring began immediately and geotechnical investigations by MCC and its <br />consulting engineers began within a day. MCC, its consultant (Philip Solseng of Barr <br />Engineering), and Dr. Pendleton of the Division observed some specific locations over a 100' to <br />150' length where the channel had narrowed from the west and where the streamflow had moved <br />slightly (within approximately one-foot of the channel) to the east, as evidenced by water flowing <br />over adjacent grassy azeas. These observations provided clear evidence that these slight <br />movements in the channel and streamflow were not caused by the fill under construction, but were <br />the result of a larger foundation movement. Inclinometer data from the toe of the failure showed <br />movement at approximately 6 feet below the surface and again at 14 feet below the surface, <br />confirming the fact that a foundation failure occurred. Dr. Pendleton remarked during the <br />