Laserfiche WebLink
land boundary. If measured, the number would probably be closer to 6,000 than 5,000. Therefore, for <br />all practical purposes, it appears that the total area actually affected beyond the affected land <br />boundary was about 6,000 square feet. That is about 0.14 acres or about 0.09% of the total affected <br />land defined in the permit. Although this included a significant intermittent stream, the area is very <br />small when compared to the total permit area. Furthermore, although a stream was involved no <br />impact on water quality or quantity occurred because there was no stream flow present when the spill <br />occurred or during the corrective action. Therefore, there was no impact on the hydrologic balance <br />because there was no hydrology to impact. The impact was simply a potential and never became an <br />actual impact. As a result there is disagreement with the inspection report's claim that the prevailing <br />hydrologic balance was affected by the spill and a contention of that being a violation. The only <br />violation appears to be the crossing of the affected land boundary because no water was ever <br />affected. The channel has been restored before any water flow has occurred. <br />The Issue of Future Spills <br />The inspection report from the June 15, 2011 inspection asks a legitimate question about <br />what will be done to prevent future spills? The concern, of course, is crossing over the affected land <br />boundary again with spillage and most importantly spill rock going into the stream channel. <br />This has been studied in considerable detail and originally it was thought that a new affected <br />land boundary and mining limit would need to be defined in the steep cliffs to the north of the spill <br />area. It did not appear that problems with spilling into the stream would be an issue as the stream <br />meanders eastward upstream from the spill and is thus too far from the future mining areas for spills <br />to reach. But crossing the affected land boundary in some of those areas was a possibility. A couple <br />of options were roughed out. But then the question arose as to how close the current mining is to the <br />mining limit established in the original permit? Thus, the real question became how much more <br />mining would be done that could produce a spill? <br />Examination of the ridgeline to the north found that the current edge of the mining is <br />generally within 25 feet of the mining limit in the permit. That is enough for taking another lift. <br />However, the mining limit was set at a point in the topographic maps where the slope changes from <br />quite steep to nearly vertical in places. After carefully examining these areas it was decided that even <br />taking a shallow lift would likely create spillage over the side. There is already some spillage in <br />places, but that is all within the original affected land boundary. More spillage would likely push <br />across that boundary. Most important of all, unlike the spill that became an issue, corrective action of <br />additional spillage elsewhere would not be accessible from the quarry side. Instead access would <br />need to be through forest and across Turkey Creek from the road that forms the permit boundary. <br />Corrective Action Completion Report Menzer Quarry M- 1976- 009 -HR 08/08/2011 Page 5 of 6 <br />