ML20081F884
| ML20081F884 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1983 |
| From: | Sommers D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081F873 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8311040024 | |
| Download: ML20081F884 (19) | |
Text
'
October 28, 1983-i
. STATE OF MICHIGAN) d COUNTY OF JACKSON) SS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos 50-329 OM 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWEP. COMPANY Docket Nos 50-329 OL
-(Midland Plant, Units I'and 2) 50-330 OL AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID A SOMMERS David A Somers, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the author of the. " Affidavit of David A Somers Providing Additional Information on the Physical Restrictions and Limited Effectiveness of an Evergreen Fog Sweep or Barrier Between the Midland Plant Cooling Pond Dike and Gordonville Road" and that such affidavit is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, t
l ,.
W m1LJ.
l David A Somers I
Sworn and Subscrib'ed Before Me this d y of [ , 1983.
l Y Notary
- 0. PublicOb1 H Jackson County, Michigan My Comission Expires ///F M _. /. / 9 8 [p 8311040024 831028 PDR ADOCK 05000329 g PDR afl083-0631a100
q October 28, 1983
,.1 AFFIDAVIT OF. DAVID A'. SOMMERS PROVIDING #~DITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITED
. EFFECTIVENESS OF AN EVERGREEN. FOG SWEEP OR BARRIER BETWEEN THE MIDLAND PLANT COOLING POND DIKE AND GORDONVILLE ROAD My name is David A. Sommers. I am a Section Head in the Midland Licensing Department of Consumers Power Company. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering, 1972, and a-Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering, 1973, both'from the Uni-versity of Illinois. I joined Consumers Power Company following four years of service in the nuclear Navy.on the technical staff of the Division of Naval Reactors' ,
USAEC/ Naval Sea Systems Command, Vashington, D.C. I have held various positions at C 7nsumers' Power Company since I became associated with it in'1977. In my present capacity, my responsibilities are supervising and co-ordinating the. review of safety and environmental licensing activities for the Midland Project. This specifically includes supervising the Company review of the~ DES and-FES on the issue of cooling pond fog and
. icing.. In-this capacity, I.have previously testified before the Licensing Board on the fog and icing issues involved in-Sinclair OL Contention 14.
. TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 1 l.0. SCOPE OF AFFIDAVIT'
. 2'.0 ~ PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS /PRESENT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND-USES 2.1 Gordonville Road Right-of-Way-2.2 Dow Chemical Pipeline-Easement 2.3 County Drain Easement 2.4 Consumers Power Ccmpany Drainage Ditches 2.5 .Available Space 2.6 Cooling Pond Dike 3.0 .. EFFECTIVENESS OF. ADDITIONAL' TREE PLANTINGS 3.1 Existing Conditions.
3.2 Postulated Available Space 3.3 Postulated Maximum Available Space
4.0 CONCLUSION
S Exhibit.1:. Land-Use and Property; Rights Exhibit-2: Cross-Section at Grid Line:W-3200 Exhibit 3: Cross-Section at' Grid Line E-1000
+
-Exhibit 4: Cross-Section at Grid Line E-3700 e e-,-. ,me- - - - , , . %4 ..-~.e- ,y-.-, - . ,
4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PHYSICAL-RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITED EFFECTIVENESS OF.AN
. - ~.' EVERGREEN FOG SWEEP OR BARRIER BETWEEN THE MIDLAND
' PLANT COOLING POND DIKE AND GORDONVILLE ROAD 1.0 ' SCOPE OF AFFIDAVIT During the ASLB hearings on March 9, 1983, the Licensing Board asked whether there.were any fog mitigation actions likely to be so useful and-cost effective that they
~s hould be. initiated preoperationally. Specifically, the Board. asked whether it would be useful to plant a stand of trees along Gordonville Road-(Tr. 12620). .The purpose of this affidavit is to~ augment and clarify my previous re-
.sponse to those-questions (see Tr. 12620-12622) and to
. submit additional 1information on the physical restrictions and limited effectiveness of an evergreen fog sweep or-
. ' barrier'in this_ specific application. Separate affidavits detailing _ appropriate available tree-~ species and forestry techniques, and the potential effectiveness of evergreen ,
fog sweeps:or barriers have been filed concurrently with this affidavit. See the affidavits of Clemens R. ~ Nefe and John P. Bradley.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESTRICTIONS /PRESENT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND USES The space available to plant trees between Gordon-ville Road and the south dike of the cooling pond is limited by the present property' rights _and uses of this land. As
,e,- , -.---,m. -ae.e y rw,e,e, w y .,-r~,-p-~e,- ,.
e-v-+y-,.-r
[.. ,J J +
If 4 >shown inithe attached Exhibit-1, from the centerline of the iroad_ north; theseLpropertyLright's and uses are as follows: ,
2 .' l Gordonville Road'Right-of-Way' t
- The Midland Coun';y Road Commission (MCRC) has - a standard;33 foot.right-of-way north of the_ centerline of -
Gordonville Road.. The MCRC also has an' additional 17 foot E-
. easement north'of,this right-of-way. This right-of-way and easement. extend the entire length of the cooling pond. The c
MCRC acquired the additional 17-foot easement.for the purpose I . of being -ab 1e to widen the- road in the future, if needed.
I~have spoken with Mr. Gordon Solberg, the MCRC-
' Engineering Superintendent.' Mr. Solberg informed me that,
~because trees can pose a potential traffic hazard if placed
~
l~ J .toozclose~to.the edge'.of a roadway, he would strongly dis-
~
favor the planting of trees in the MCRC right-of-way to the northjof Gordonville Road.
- c I2.2 ~ Dow' Chemical Pipeline Easement
,or
'T , The Dow Chemical Company-has a 40 foot easement north.of.-the MCRC right-of-way and easement, which is pre- i
~
sently used by:Dow:for two 24-inch diameter. underground
~'1/- ' Exhibit 1 uses grid lines that run north and< south for its horizontal' axis. These grid-lines'are part of a local coordinate system to precisely specify locations .
Eonsite. ' Figure 2.1-11of the Environmental Report pro- .
vides'an overview-of the entire-site using this local co-o ordinate' system. Exhibits 2,_3, and 4 are-cross-sectional D '
views of the area between the: dike and Gordonville Road
,, at Grid 1 Lines W3200, E1000 and E3700 respectively.
.- . , _ , - - , ., , . . . - , - - , ..,,....%..,-..-,~_.,._-----.__,__,....,_m..-._,.- -
T brine pipelines and' underground. electrical. lines. This easement. extends the. entire' length of tte pond. Any trees planted on this easement.would likely interfere with the operation and maintenance of the above-mentioned buried
. lines.
-Under the terms of the Dow easement, Consumers Power Company may have the right to request that Dow remove any or all of the brine pipelines or electrical lines if, in L
Consumers' -sole judgment,'the lines. interfere with Consumers' use of the' adjoining land. In addition, Dow's rights under the easement are subject'to such rules, regulations, orders, permits, licenses and decrees as may from time to time be established or issuedLby the United. States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, in the event that Consumers requests
- Dow to remove the lines,' Consumers must reimburse Dow for:the total expenses incurred by Dow in such removal and subsequent 2/
- relocation.~
2.3 County Drain Easement
/
The Midland County Drain Commission (MCDC) has an-80 foot easement north of the Dow pipeline easement. This MCDC easement extends west from Grid Line W1800 and wraps around the southwest corner of the pond, continuing to Bullock Creek. The MCDC operates a drain within this easement.
-2/ A discussion of these expenses may be found in section 3.2, below.
- . - , .. ._ . - _ . .- . _ - . . . . , . _ __ ____._. - - . . . . ~ _ . . .~
a 4 r- a. > + +x , , - - - s am .~
3.
L4 ,
~
- Unlikeithe Dow easement, Consumers Power' Company
~
i ch'as not reserved the rightxto. require the MCDC to' remove 3/.
theseEdrains. sAny' trees planted within the drain easement
' might;have~ to' be cut: back or removed entirely at any ' time
.to; allow for-operation'and maintenance of the drain.
-2.4 Consumers Fower Company Drainage Ditches IConsumers' Power' Company' owns and maintains two 20
.to 40-foot wide drainage; ditches north of the Dow pipeline.
Leasement'. . Oneiditch' extends east from Grid Line-E1000 to
.the..Tittabawassee River. . The other extends west from Grid
. Line:E700 an'd joins the_ county drain discussed above. These ditchesidrain surface runoff ' from . th'e area between Gordonville 1 Road'and the top'ofJthe cooling' pond. dike and/or serve as the'
- toe'drainffor the dike.
.. Noitrees can be planted.in these. drainage ditches
- withoutfimpairing their operation and/or preventing their -
maintenance. There may be no other. reasonable location _ for '
these ditches whereithey could serve'for dike exterior sur-
. < face drainage and/or as the dike toe drain. See section 3.3.
2.5 LAvailable Space
. Consumers Power Company owns and controls the 30 to s' . -781 foot variable. width portion of land north of the drainage
~ . _
. =
-3/J - However, the rights of the MCDC with respect to this~
easement are: subject to such rules,. regulations, orders, 1 permits, licenses and decrees as may from time to time ~
lua established or issued by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 7 *-9.' y ,-?- - e o g- y' , y v.,-.--- p.,:s.or ney,r,- U-w...t-.., e pe y . ,=-.e-....,,..ww,cy.,w,. e-, -y.< w-- n % r w- s t a. ,. m ,-r
. . ditches, subject to the MCDC easement discussed above. This space presently contains the dike perimeter security fence and one continuous row of planted trees.. See Exhibits 2, 3
,and 4. -Exhibits 2 and 3 show locations where the single continuous row of trees ls staggered, thus giving the-appear-ance of~two rows from-the side. These trees were planted in accordance with the Midland Township Zoning Board of Appeals Findings and Order (March 18, 1970, as revised July 7, 1977),2which specifies that "the Company shall surround the cooling pond with a security fence. . ." and "shall provide and maintain good ettergreen and deciduous trees randomly spaced on the outside of the security fence along the Company's south property-line. . ."-
The fence was placed approximately 10 to 20 feet off the southernmost portion of the toe ofuthe dike slope in order to allow room for inspection and for maintenance equipment '(such as for grass mowing) . Any trees planted inside the fence would hinder,these activities. Likewise, any trees outsidepthe fence are not and should not be planted so close to the fence that their branches can pro-vide a means of compromising the security provided by the
-fence or hinder' maintenance activities. Relocating the
. security fence to the dike slope is undesirable'since it
.would make maintenance of the dike considerably more dif-ficult due to access and equipment maneuverability problems.
-Such relocation would also be undesirable because it would leave part of the dike-slope outside the fence.
C
. . , . . . , , -, - ,n , . . . . - . ~ , , - . . . ~ ,
.. - In addition, Consumers Power Company intends to
~
construct a 138 kV-transmission line along Gordonville Road in 1987-1988 as'part'of transmission system expansion plans.
A portion of this:line has been. completed up to the-south-
~
east corner of the.iike as part of one of the startup circuits for the plant. Construction of this transmission line would preclude the growing of mature, tall trees in the immediate vicinity of the-transmission line. The minimum allowable distance between nearby tall trees and the transmission line-would be determined based on the criterion that if a tree fell over, it should not strike the line.
2.6 Cooling Pond Dike Consumers Power Company owns the remaining variable distance from the toe of the dike slope to the top of the dike. The top of the dike is approximately 180 to 200 feet from the centerline of Gordonville Road. Stability of the
. dike slope is maintained in part by riprap and in part by permanent grass caver to prevent erosion. In order to ensure dike integrity, trees cannot be allowed to grow on or near the dike, including the dike slopes. Root systems from trees planted on or near.the dike could cause soil erosion or penetrate the dike leading to soil " piping"-4/and potential
-loss of dike integrity. Good engineering practice dictates
-that a tree should not be planted closer to the toe of the
-4/ " Piping" can be defined as~the establishment of a water
-pathway through the soil -- in this' case along tree roots.
a.
, - - < n. ,- e-, - - , , . ,, ..w.. - r , .,.,-,e-. - , . , , -, , ---
E.
s .' ' ,
~
"'. ^
dike. slope'than one to:one and one-half'the tree crown diame'ter.. This-' practice provides adequate space'.-for tree root; growth 1and a margin of: safety - for dike integrity.
- . 3 . 0 _ EFFECTIVENESS OF. ADDITIONAL ~ TREE PLANTING' 3.1 Existing Conditions-
. /
Based-on existing property rights'and uses, there is~little space _leftlto plant _ trees in the area between -
Gordonville Roadfand the south' dike of the cooling rond.
-The'MCRC:right-of-way and easement, the Dow easement, the-
~
'MCDC drainland the Company-drainage ditches predetermine the~
I use-of.110 to 170 feet of this area. Additional tree plant-Lings in this area would be limited by the existing property rights and-uses. .Further, to maintain dike integrity, addi-tional trees cannot1be planted on or near the dike slope.
The only available space for additional tree plantings-is between the toe of.the dike slope and the edge -
i .
ofithe drainage ditches. However, as is discussed above,
' Consumers Power d$mpany has installed a security fence and
' intends'to construct a transmission line within this space.
Both the fence and the transmission line place limitations
, -on where' trees may be planted. In the case of the fence, room.for maintenance of the dike 1 slope and the drainage ditches is_ required.- Independent of-the above_ concerns, i.
. good engineering practice dictates that evergreens of the species recommended in the affidavit of Clemens R. Nefe i' '
,, , _ _ - - n., -, ,- . . . , ....-.-.-...-__._,-._.,..,2-~ , , , , _ _ . . . ~ , . - - . _ - , _ - _
should not be planted within 30 to 45 feet'of the dike slope (based on crown ' diameters of 20 to 30 feet for the identified spruces and pines) so as to avoid root penetration of the dike.
.Near the hotter (western) portion of the cooling-pond (Grid Lines W3300-W1000) , the available space ranges from <43 to-62 feet. Even-if'the security fence and transmis-sion line are not considered, assuming a tree crown diameter of 30 feet, the1 space available for additional tree planting ranges from 0 to 32 feet after applying the necessary tree o#fset from the dike' slope to ensure the integrity of the dike (see section 2.6). The average available space for addi-tional tree planting along this portion of the cooling pond is 8 feet.
Near the cooler (eastern) portion of the pond (Grid Lines.W1000-E4300), the available space ranges from 30 to 78
-feet. Accounting only for the tree offset necessary to ensure dike integrity, and.again assuming a tree crown diameter of 30 feet,.the available space for additional tree planting ranges from 0 to 48 feet. The average available space for additional tree planting along this portion of the cooling pond is 13 feet.
l Given the above-described available space, only one continuous. row of trees,could be planted along the entire length of the southern dike of the cooling pond without intrud-ing on the existing property rights and uses discussed above.
-Based on the affidavit of John P. Bradley, even a deeper 50
- g.
foot stand of trees approximately 40' feet tall would reduce the liquid water content of cooling pond fog by only 10-to 15 percent. Thus, we can only assume that a single continuous row of trees'would result in a negligible reduction of the liquid water content of the L fog, with a corresponding negligible increase in visibility along Gordonville Road.
~
3.2 Postulated Available Space In order to assess the relative usefulness and cost-effectiveness of providing an evergreen fog sweep or 4
barrier north of Gordonville Road, an evaluation was per-formed based on an' initial assumption that the existing
. proper t y r i gnt s and uses could be altered. Specifically, it was assumed'that Consumers Power Company might be able
.to reobtain-the north 17 feet of the MCRC right-of-way by o providing'a similar right-of-way south of the road.-5/-
Likewise, the140 foot Dow easement was assumed to be ob-tainable by providing an equivalent easement and relocating the pipelines south on.the road. Since drainage ditches are
.or required between the dike and the road to drain surface run-off and/or serve as toe drains for the dike,-6/ it was assumed i
-5/ Gordon Solberg, the MCRC Engineering Superintendent, has indicated to me a possible willingness to make this ex- i change, assuming the Company could obtain the property south of the road. If this exchange were accomplished, trees could conceivably be planted to within 33 feet of
. the centerline of the road.
6/ Whether these drainage ditches can be relocated closer to the toe of the dike is discussed in section 3.3. For the purpose of this evaluation, it is assumed that the i existing ~ dike design is maintained, including the present l location of the dike toe drains.
+
ad- -
. - 10-
- g fthat'theynremained in their.present-location.
I reiterate that the above assumptions are hypo-thetical.-< Consumers Power Company does not own the' property
- south'of-Gordonville Road and is-not apt to easily acquire it' - Given these-assumptions, a 57 foot wide strip of addi-tional space could be made'available for tree planting along-
'the-entire length'of the southern dike.
Regardless of. Consumers: Power Company's actual ability.to acquire.the sbove-mentioned. property, the costs associated with implementing this. assumed-course of. action
'arejestimated as:follows. -The cost to purchase the property south;of-Gordonville Road has been estimated from $412,000 to-.$750,000. - The costs associated with relocating and in-stalling the Dow pipelines have been-estimated at $960,000.
In the affidavit of Clemens R. Nefe, the cost of trees and planting'was; estimated'at $17,640 per 1000. feet, for a total ,
cost oft $25,014 per 1000 foot row of trees. This amount does not' include expenses related to the tree thinning expected y
fin eight to ten years. - Assuming that six 8400 foot rows of 7/ ..
trees are initially planted, the cost of planting and upkeep
- is $1,261,000. Given the large number of trees required,,
- Consumers ~ Power Company could anticipate up to a 20 percent discount on the price of the trees initially purchased. This
-7/ _ ' Planting six rows of trees eight feet apart results in
- a-tree density which. corresponds with the " sparsely
- wooded" planting' identified in the Oura article appended in'the affidavit of Mr. John P. Bradley. The six rows
- of trees will-initially fill a 15 foot depth, eventually filling the total 57 foot depth available.
t A'd4 F, wgr3 h * - 19994-yges**fgT-t-p-- mT--#Pg =g q=1rta t-+W r F g --@=4P=P'"--%q*WP'g y yy M -DWMT-' +$ W4 y "" N Cyw p' Ty f' w - M'9' = v-4
_11-discount could amount to approximately S89,000.
Therefore, the' total cost of' property, pipeline relocation and trees ranges from $2,544,000 to $2,882',000.
The relative effectiveness of this stand of trees has-been. approximated'by Mr. John P..Bradley as noted'in section 3.1 above. For a 50 foot deep stand of mature trees approximately 40 feet tall, the liquid water content of fog could be reduced by,10 to 15 percent. In this specific application, as noted in Mr. Clemens R. Nefe's affidavit, these trees will not approach 40 feet until at the end of the 40 year operating life of the plant. In addition, the tree thinning to' promote future growth, mentioned in the affidavit of_Clemens R. Nefe, will temporarily leave gaps in the stand of trees. For these reasons, the fog reduction effectiveness of this stand of trees is likely to be signifi-cantly less than the stated 10.to 15 percent for most of the operating life of the plant.
3.3 Maximpm Postulated Available Space The relative usefulness and cost of providing the maximum depth tree stand was assessed assuming the use of the Dow easement and the 17 foot MCRC easement as discussed in section 3.2 above, and also assuming that the MCDC easement was relocated south of Gordonville Road and that the company drainage ditches were moved as close to the fdike slope as practicable. As stated in section 3.2, these
i' drainage ditches are required for surface runoff and/or as dike toe drains. Prior to making a commitment to relocate the ditches, the Company would require a detailed engineering analysis to' substantiate that such a design modification would not compromise dike slope stability and as a result dike integrity. The assumption to relocate these ditches is made solely for the purpose of assessing the cost effectiveness of planting the maximum'possible depth of trees between the dike and Gordonville Road. The broader question of whether such action would adversely affect dike integrity is not addressed by this assessment.
Relocating the drainage ditches also requires relocation of the security fence. A distance of 20 feet between the toe of the dike slope and the security fence is assumed in this assessment to support dike maintenance activities. In addition, a distance of 10 feet is assumed between the security fence and the relocated drainage ditches to support ditch maintenance activities.
X As stated in section-3.2, these assumptions are hypothetical. Consumers Power Company does not own the property south of Gordonville Road and is not apt to easily acquire it. Given the above assumptions, however, an addi-tional 27 to 52 feet could be made available for planting
. trees in the western two-thirds of the land south of the dike (i.e., from Grid Line E1700 westward). This depth is
~
in addition to the 57 feet previously discussed in section
.o ___ _.
'3.2. For the eastern third of the land south of the dike, the additional. space is limited to between 11 to 27 feet
.due>to~the' extent of~the dike slope in this area.
Given the complexity and uncertainty involved in s
'these additional assumptions, the cost estimate for imple-menting these assumptions is a rough approximation. How-ever, I believe'that these estimates are conservative and represent lower values than might actually occur.
The costs associated with the maximum postulated
. . planting are estimated as follows. Section 3.2 sets forth the costs associated with the previously evaluated 57 foot depth. The purchase of additional property south of Gordonville Road for relocation of the MCDC drain is esti-mated to cost $37,000. The' cost of relocating the MCDC drain and Company drainage ditches, and filling in the old ditches is estimated at.$412,000, although this does not include the' cost of constructing a new culvert under Gordonville Road. In addition, the expense of relocating r
the security fence closer to the dike is estimated at $82,000.
Assuming that 27,100 linear feet of trees, configured in one continuous row and several partial rows, are planted in the additional area discussed in this section, the added cost for trees, including discount, planting and upkeep is estimated at $630,000. The summation of these additional
. costs is $1,161,000. Thus, the total estimate for the maximum postulated planting ranges from $3,705,000 to
$4,043,000.
-)
, : 3,
"-14--
~
The resulting total 1 depth of. trees along the dike i : would vary from 68 to 109 feet. As approximated in the
- 1 affidavit-of1 John P.-Bradley, the relative. effectiveness of L
.-this stand of trees.in reducing.the liquid water content of
- 8/
Iti should be reiterated
- . fog'would-vary from 15"to 25 percent.
that this.. assessment is only applicable'for mature trees ap-proximately 140 feet tall.- .In.our' specific' application, a
~
'_ tree height of.40 feet,would not.bezattained'until near the end of'the plant-operating' life'. Additionally, tree thinning:
would, temporarily, leave: gaps.in.the. stand of trees. For these reasons,.fogfreduction' effectiveness for this maximum-po'stulated stand of trees is likely to be.significantly less
.than the . stated c15 to 25: percent. for most of the operating d' - life of the plant.
t
. i4.0- ' CONCLUSIONS
~
The potential 1for. fogging occurrences on Gordonville D Road have been' subjectively compared;toffogging occurrences f tactuallynobserved.atfa similar road near1the Dresden Nuclear s
' Power Plant.. ' Bas e d'on these observations and on analytical g
fog models -(e.g. , the Currier and the Portman~and Weber 9/
models),~.'both theLApplicant and~the NRC Staff expert essen-IL/ This range reflects both the uncertainty in fog reduction i effect'and the varying depth of the' tree stand. 'It-should-be noted that, at the westernmost portion of this
'ndn ,
tree stand,; located'near the hotter portion of.the cool-SCJ . . ing' pond,'the depth of-the stand is approximately 84 feet.
See.the-prepared testimony'of Dr. James E. Carson regard-9/f .ing.Sinclair' Contention 14,'at pp. '3-5, following Tr. 12667.
A F- I F&g9 -
-p 9
,~ *-
tially concurred that periods of dense _ fog affecting Gordon-ville Road would be limited to between two and four occur-rences per month during the winter season (Tr. 12790-12791).
Given the low anticipated frequency of pond initiated dense fogging events which may-present a traffic hazard, the limited space presently available for additional tree planting, the subst,antial costs and uncertainty of ob-taining additional property for planting a stand of trees, the relative immaturity and height of the tree fog sweep or
' barrier until: late in operating life of the plant, and the small reduction in-liquid water _ content of the fog in'any event, it is my conclusion that an evergreen fog sweep or barrier between Gordonville Road and the dike is neither substantially useful nor sufficiently cost effective to justify preoperational implementation. Instead, the instal--
lation of_ fog warning signs, roadside delineators and re-flective road edge painting, as previously committed to in conjunction with the MCRC, are' prudent preoperational actions to mitigate the consequences of fogging.on Gordonville Road (Tr. 12526). -
~
y --a t- t,- -
2-.Mw -
r-7+g y-w +- e p- og wwwg, w - d-+a
EXHIBIT 1
-LANDiUSE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ,
EDGE OF DIKE ROAD
[
200- "F '
j - . DIKE SLOPE '
q.
- COUNTY DRAIN l EASEMENT 150- i J
Ed
/ i i
y ,
COUNTY 1 A DRAIN ' _
2
- 1
- CP CO DITCH
" CP CO DlTCH "
100-i s
u)
H 40' DOW PIPELINE EASEMENT
. x Q -
50- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
r 7
~
l 50' ROAD ROW
[q GORDONVILLE ROAD l
j 0- . . . . ; ; ; ; . ; ; ; . i . .
1 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 4 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i- e o e o e o e e o e o e o e o e e n u u e e y w e e u u n n w w 3 3 g g 3 3 m w w w w w w w l RFG 9/26/83 i
]
NOTE: THE NORTII - TO - SOUTH SCALE IIAS BEEN EXAGGERATED FOR. CLARITY.
I d
q $
q s
i EXHIBIT '2 ~
k l ROW OF 3' RED PINE 7' FENCE ROW OF 6' WASHINGTON HAWTHORN
,,~ ,,,,<<
I h- I TOE OF + 33' ROAD R/W+
T DIKE DIKE ROAD ~ 4 0* DOW R/ W ,----* - 50' ROAD R/W -
EL 632.0 , 80' COUNTY DRAIN EASEMENT
~
l _
~
GORDONVILLE s
ROAD EL 630.5
' l s
DITCH SECTION AT GRID 20' LINE W-3200 to' 5, ...
SCALE IN FEET CP CO FORESTRY CRN 9/8/83 o
Sl EXHIBIT 3 ROW OF 3' COLORADO SPRUCE
- 7. FENCE ( 10. RED OAK
' ' " ' ' ~
[ ROW OF 7' BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
[, -'h~
p <<,,,,,
I ,
l p ]*/,
- 33' ROAD R/W-+
t DIKE *--40' DOW R/W" *--- 50' ROAD R/W l ;
DIKE ROAD EL 632.0 DITCH GORDONVILLE ROAD EL 629.6' i
i 20' i SECTION AT GRID l LINE E- 1000 to' l
- j s 11s SCALE IN FEET i
CP CO FORESTRY CRN 9/2/83
1 EXHIBIT 4.
4 i
r verev a v
' 7' FENCE ROW OF 6' k ,
AMUR MAPLE g DIKE ROAD TOE OF EL 632.0 *-33' RO AD R/W-*8 DlKE ,
e -
+-- 60' ROAD R/W ---*
+-- 40' DOW R/W----* q 7
GORDONVILLE Q ROAD EL 620.6 L6TCH T
~
20' 1 SECTION AT GRID i
LINE E-3700 10' '
- -5'
- i 3 iri SCALE IN FEET I
i i CP CO FORESTRY
. CRN 9/8/83 i
b t
4 w 4 -