Our family also owns a 'construction company. We were is low bidder ou enly to have our dosers and trackhoes stuck in the Wet Lood areas that we are prying timing is right, will move my que ionable material. Now, as property owners who pay the terres and make the payments a. the private properly, feal we have the right to have some input as to where the dredged material should be plasse After all, we are the people trying to make a living on this land. Cows have a hard time grazing under water and top of mud. We fact that the customers an.l tax payers lurve everlooked In the letter from the Corps of Engineers, we finil no comminat at all concoming the fact that ( water in the channel is a foot lower and travels 25% faster. Is this out the goal Hirve property owners missed the point? Do you as elected officials need more imput frem Customers? Do we want to turn this job into a $300,000.00 project? As land owners contractors who have done this type of work since the flood of 1953, we do have a little com sease. We hope you'll stand by us through this very controversial project, We appreciate the time and effect expended by Utah County employees and those from the State Engineer's Office to resolve any of the past and future problems. Sorensen Angus Ranch, Inc. This letter is in response to your letter of February 17, 1995, in which you outlined ennserns regarding Stream Channel Alteration Permit Number 93-53-01SA to enlarge and dredge the Benjamin Slough Channel. In your letter, you stated that the work at Benjamin Slough was out of compliance with the GP-040 permit issued. The wwwo aspects mentioned were dredged material was discharged into wetlands and an propriate amount of material was dredged from the slough. The county has need to being out of compliance concerning material placed in wetlands and is rently in the process of removing it to upland areas. Your concern that too much al was dredged from the site is erroneous, as cross-sections of the dredged are basically consistent with areas adjacent to the project. ere not considering levying a fine for several reasons. While there certainly were owns in communication among the involved pardes, we do not feel Utah County willfully violated conditions of the permit. We believe Utah County is currently in good faith to remove the material to an upland site. Secondly, a fine would encomplish the goal of restoring the wetlands to their original condition, and could By serve to strain the situation without contributing to any real purpose. If the en should arise wherein Utah County does not remove the material from the ds, we feel it. would then be appropriate for the Corps of Engineers to de. you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or Greg Madanka at 801-638-7375. This letter concerns Stream Channel alteration Permit Number 93-53-01sa to enlarge and dredge the Benjamin Slɔugi: Channel. Last week Greg Madenka of your cffice and Draga Maciunas of our office made an inspection of the above mentiɔneċ project in the company of Paul Hawker and Gary Radcliff of the Otah Councy Engineer's Office, as well as the contractor vho did the dredging, Lynn Sorensen. As I'm sure you are aw.re, it was discovered in this meeting, that requirements of the permit vers net followed. We found this shocking and vary disturbing Lacausa of the great deal of coordination and discussion which had taken place between the involved parties prior to issuance of the permit. Even the contractor had been involved in the early Conception of this project and was avare of the requirenants. Yet when the dredging was done there was ::o supervision of project by Utah County and requirements of the prait were ignored. We have concerns with two aspects of the project. One is that dredged material vas discharged inte vetlamis along most of the length of the project. This was expressly forbidden by Condition 4 of the permit. This Lacessity was also thoroughly discussed prior even to application for the permit in meetings between Utah County, the proponents of the project, the Corps of Engineers, and Senator Hatch. In fact, Sezator liatch made à point of getting an agreement from the project proponents that there would be no discharges into wetlands. Our other area vi concern is whether the contractor dredgad the proper angunt of material from the slough. It appears from the amount of discharged material, that he may have gone beyon: what yas allowed under the permit. When asked about quality control on the project, the contractor expressed that he var more concerned bout dredging too little than he was with axceeding liits imposed by the permit. In the case of a biatant violation, it may be appropriate for you to conside: levying á fine. From the observations made above on how tùi, prɔject-va carried cut, it appears that Utah County and the contractor willfully disregarded the requirements of the pe.ait. They also avoided attempts by our agencies to provide oversight, by not. notifying us of the start of the project as un bith had requested. We feel that this constitutes a serious violation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and should be dealt with accordingly. At minimum, Utah County vill need to remove the discharge from wetlands along the slough as well as demonstrate that they have dredged in compliance with cheirerit. If you would like to discuss this situation further, pleuse contact myself or Drasa Maciunas, at the utah kejulatory office, 1403 South 600 West, Suite à, Bowitiful, Stan 8.010, telephone (801) 295-8380. Sinceraly, Brooks Carter Chief, Otab Reya!::ory Office Copies furnished: Tyde Naylor, Utah County Engineer, ütal County Public Work 2855 South State Street, Provo, Utah 84600 Bob Hairley, 0.8. Environmental Protection Agency State of Utah DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES February 16, 1995 - 18:35 West North Temple, Suite 220 Salt Lake City, UT 84118-8155 801-435-7200 831-538-7467 (FR Clyde Naylor, P.E. Utah County 2856 South State Street Provo, UT 84606 RE: Stream Channel Alteration Permit Number 93-53-01SA to enlarge and dredge 'the Benjamin Slough Channel. Dear Mr. Naylor: On Friday, February 10, 1995, Greg Mladenka of this office performed a compliance inspection of this project. Present were Paul Hawker and Gary Ratcliff of Utah County, contractor Lynn Sórenson, and Drasa Maciunas of the Corps of Engineers. The project appears to have accomplished the goal of reducing local backwater effects. Mr. Sorenson stated velocities at the county bridge, just upstream from the project area, have increased from approximately 1 fps to 1.25 ïps. Sills of rasistant material were removed in several areas, allowing improved water passage. According to Mr. Hawker, cross-sections are in accordance with design standards. Condition Number 4 on the Stream Alteration Permit states "All spoils and dredged materials must be removed to an upland site away from identified wetlands and any natural stream channel". At the time of the inspection, this condition had not been met. Any fill material remaining in wetlands or within 25 feet of the slough bank should be moved to an upland site by March 1, 1995. Otherwise, the project is in compliance. Please contact me or Greg Mladenka at 538-7375 when this work is completed or if you have any questions. |