Laserfiche WebLink
Other concerns of the dam structure is the fact that the existing outlet is undersized, very <br />old, likely leaking, and may be impacted by seismic events is not addressed. In other <br />words, the recommended berm and buttress do not necessarily prevent problems <br />associated with other dam imperfections such as the above outlet, inadequate spillway <br />capacity, cracks in the dam crest associated with movement in the active landslide in the <br />left abutment. It would be our recommendation, that the future design proposal <br />(submitted by Minnesota Ditch and Reservoir Company in cooperation with MCC) would <br />include mitigations with these structural features (as mentioned on page 2.05-169 of the <br />permit). <br />To summarize, nothing was proposed to better stabilize the landslide area, and the <br />consultants' assumption that it had a FOS of 1 to begin with, is not accurate in our eyes. <br />Movement is occurring. Our engineering reviewer did not feel confident that just the <br />berm and buttress produces a FOS of 1.6 in the landslide area without doing anything <br />else to the area, but no detail is given in this report. <br />We recognize that the State Engineers Office has the ultimate authority on the proposed <br />dam modifications and engineering design. To that end, we agree, in concept, to the <br />proposed modifications to Monument Dam; however, it is our hope that the future refined <br />proposal will address the concerns outlined above. As outlined on page 2.05-168, <br />because Minnesota Ditch and Reservoir Company is the holder of the special use permit <br />for the dam, any proposal for modification to the structure would come through them. To <br />that end, the USFS would like to receive copies of any cooperative agreements between <br />the Reservoir Company and MCC, for our records. <br />MCC response to Jan. 28. 2005 USFS comments: <br />Comment: <br />2.02-1- 3'd paragraph <br />Sunset Trail Exploration license is currently pending with the BLM per MCC's 2002 agreement <br />with the Wilderness Society, et al. This agreement stated that MCC will not pursue exploration <br />within the Sunset Trail area until Forest Plan revision is complete or until 2007, whichever is <br />first. <br />Response: <br />The appropriate change has been made within the document. <br />Comment: <br />2.04-2- <br />Not every federal agency operates under FLMPA, which is specific to the BLM under the <br />Department of the Interior. It is the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) which requires <br />individual Forests to operate under a Land and Resource Management Plan. Please include <br />the language that states that the GMUG manages the NFS lands in the area according to the <br />GMUG Land and Resource Management Plan (1983), prepared in accordance with the NFMA. <br />Response: <br />The appropriate change has been made within the document. <br />Comment: <br />2.04-3- <br />Please add discussion of 9A management areas (Riparian area) as described in the GMUG <br />LRMP. Also acknowledge that the Forest Service has made the lands in the permit area <br />available for oil and gas leasing. <br />Response: <br />A discussion of 9A mangament area has been included in the permit. USFS and MCC has <br />agreed that inclusion of information with respect to gas leasing is not germane.