My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-02-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2016-02-11_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:19:12 PM
Creation date
2/16/2016 11:18:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/11/2016
Doc Name
Email Regarding County Road 92 Problems
From
W.D. Corley
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
RDZ
JRS
ACS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />COUNTY ROAD 92 <br /> The condition of County Road 92 (CR92) remains as a concern. We have written and discussed this in <br />the field many times about these concerns along with periodic photographs showing its deterioration. <br />This paper is an attempt to summarize the events that have resulted in the problems existing today. <br /> When Dorchester started the original mine in about 1981, they reconstructed CR92 utilizing wash <br />plant reject or refuse as fill material. We have testified that refuse was dumped in the area where the <br />two giant gullies are inside (south of) the locked green gates on CR92. DRMS has photographs of <br />Dorchester’s dumping of refuse outside the permit area. The DRMS inspection report dated Jan. 12, <br />2016, quotes Tony Adamic, Fremont County Road Boss, that it is very likely that Dorchester placed plant <br />reject material along the road. <br /> Four events occurred within a relative short period in 2011. A. We first noticed that the northwest <br />CR92 ditch was starting to erode. B. Large amounts of sediment were deposited at the locked green <br />gates. C. In September, 2011, the south inlet culvert to Pond 5 was found to be filled with sediment. D. <br />EFCI constructed six water bars across CR92 north of Pond 5. <br /> A. Previou to about 2011 the northwest roadside ditch was a nominal 4 feet wide, 2 feet deep V <br />ditch. It had been stable for about thirty years. Something changed in a short period of time in 2011. <br /> B. The sediment deposition at the green gates, erosion of CR92 south of the green gates, and <br />transport of sediment onto the adjacent property was first observed in 2011. <br /> C. The south inlet culvert to Pond 5 was filled with sediment. It is obvious that sediment filling of this <br />culvert greatly reduced the function of this culvert, and from the size and the maturity of the vegetation <br />in the deposited sediment as seen in Figure 1 it was a long duration problem. <br /> <br />Fig. 1. South inlet culvert into Pond 5, Sept. 6, 2011. See also DRMS inspection report of Sept. 7, 2011. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.