Laserfiche WebLink
3) Lack of drainage the location identification, or consideration of the consequences of <br />disturbing these drainage tiles. There is also a concern that no setback agreement has been <br />reached and no geotechnical stability analysis of excavations near [his the has been done. <br />This concem is included above, under DMG technical adequacy item number 3 and number <br />9, and in Tom Schreiner's review, number 3. <br />4) Concems about damage to existing structures near the site, and the lack of an engineering <br />evaluation of the area or setback agreement with the landowners. This concem is included <br />above under DMG technical adequacy item number 10. <br />5) Concems about the groundwater and surface water flows from the north, should the drainage <br />tiles be disturbed; also a concern that the drainage agreement will not be honored. This <br />concern is included above under DMG technical adequacy items numbers 3 and 9, and in <br />Tom Schreiner's review, numbers 3 and 7. <br />6) Concems about the groundwater and surface water flows if the ponds are lined, and the <br />subsurface drainage area is reduced to a corridor through the residential area. This concern is <br />included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 3, and in Tom Schreiner's <br />review, number 8. <br />7) Concerns regazding the possible narrowing of the 100-year flood plain, and subsequent <br />flooding. This concem is included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 3 and <br />in Tom Schreiner's review, number 1, 2b, and 8. <br />8) Concerns that the stockpiling of materials near the river may change the course of the river. <br />This concem is included above under DMG technical adequacy item number 3 and in Tom <br />Schreiner's review, number 2a. <br />9) Concems that the re-seeding will not be done in a timely fashion, and that weeds will <br />encroach upon the site and surrounding areas. Please verify that only two acres at a time will <br />be in the process of preparing for re-seeding each year, and that the rest of the 34 disturbed <br />acres will either be actively worked or part of the processing facilities. <br />10) Concems that the groundwater monitoring plan is inadequate. This concem is included above <br />under DMG technical adequacy item number 3, and in Tom Schreiner's review, number 8. <br />11) Concerns that the public on-site posting only consisted of one 8'/i' x 11"page at the <br />proposed site entrance. This posting is actually standard for new sites, and is not considered a <br />problem by DMG, in accordance with Rule 1.6.2(1)(b) of the Construction Materials Rules <br />and Regulations. <br />a <br />