April 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

undesirable environmental impacts. Temporary facilities would be within project boundaries or right - of -ways and would be removed when no longer needed and the sites restored upon project completion." Further on, there's an attachment here, an additional letter from the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office dated February 24 2000 in response to the Corps of Engineers. I will read the fourth paragraph. "A biologist from our Northern Indiana sub - office visited the proposed project site on February 9` 2000. The steep riverbank is well vegetated with a variety of trees and shrubs, but erosion is occurring at the structure itself which is basically a concrete box outfall. Our main concern is the method for placing the riprap. Equipment access from the steep 35' bank would be difficult and would likely require the clearing of vegetation. Such clearing would expose soil to erosion. Using equipment in the river would also present problems, including bottom disturbance and increased turbidity in the water. At the time of our site visit, there was a large area of exposed sediments offshore from the CSO. See our report on the North Shore Drive project." [That's a previous letter.] "If the rip -rap is placed during low water conditions, access could be available on this sand gravel bar." My point here is that I believe we are destroying a riverbank, a park, a beautiful section of forest all with a sudden need to repair a structure that six years ago they declared was an emergency and is still functioning today. I believe there are alternative methods besides tearing out the trees, clear cutting a section and putting in a permanent road that will destroy everything. This could be done. I've lived on this street for 35 years. All summer long that gravel bar is present. It would be no problem for construction crews to access this point from down below. Thank you. Jean Crumlish: Jean Crumlish. We own two houses on Riverside Drive, so we're really indebted to the neighborhood and very interested in this project at 1021 and 1091 Riverside Drive. I have a series of brief comments. I want to tell you that I whole - heartedly agree with what Brendan has mentioned and what Joe has mentioned and a number of other neighbors that aren't even going to waste your time by reiterating the same points, but they feel the same way by their presence here. Could you all please stand, everybody that's a resident of Riverside Drive? Thank you. I question the serious health and environmental issues that you've brought up with saying that it's the sewage water mixing with the rainfall. That's a product of what goes in the pipe not what comes out. I question why the equipment has to go down the hill and mention again what Brendan brought up. I question whether the work would even need to be done until the river dries up anyway. As of today, the outfall is underwater so I assume you will not be working on it till it is dry. That will be when the riverbed is more than visible and you can walk across the north shore. Beyond that, I'm a little resentful I guess. I realize you have to work in a spirit of cooperation with the city. Why, when we residents of the neighborhood come before you and respectfully request C of As we have to bring site plans. I, myself, brought one, and my husband, last year to remove some trees. We had to show you specifically what each tree was, its age, and its type because you were interested in that. Why can the city come in wave their arms and say we're going to have to take out some trees? I did not hear any quantifiable numbers, whatsoever. Brendan and I went down this afternoon and tried to approximate just by walking it off because we both have full time jobs neither of them are in forestry. We ball - parked what we see staked off going down the hill if it is clear -cut. Approximately 12 black locust trees 60' tall, 50 or so maples about every 25 feet we counted between ... with the stakes being 25 feet apart with six sections of stacks we counted about 25 trees in each area, so that's approximately 150 trees gone from the riverbank. So I guess I question why you don't have to come in with the same detail as we as the residents of the neighborhood have to adhere to. So I request that you either turn this down or table it. There are too many other valuable issues. March 20, 2006 HPC Minutes_Monthly .doc [Preliminary] Page 10