Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~.YCC 5/28/8'3 <br />identified in this document. All permanent gullies are in compliance <br />with the approved plan. Tlie rills above Pond M no lr_,nger have <br />functional erosion control structures in them. Originally, the rills <br />Fiad fenr_e posts with fenr_ing strung between diem and rocl;sr stic4:sr <br />etc., behind the fencing. The fencing for most part no longer has <br />these materials against it. Tlie rills did show signs of stability <br />though. The rills generally have concave rather than vertical sides, <br />vegetation is becoming established in the bottoms of the rills, <br />sloughing is not evident, etc, The approved plan allows the <br />permanent gullies to Have an average eroded depth of 36" before they <br />must be repaired. Though the gullies were in compliance with the <br />olanr I am referring this to AFO'-s CO program personnel for review. <br />4n issue came up that Dave Perry and C:Yr_C questioned the <br />interpretation of the regulations by OSM. This concerned the ditches <br />that had eroded and are discussed at the beginning of this report. <br />Dave and CYCC were unsure as tq the applicability of these <br />regulations since the ditches discussed are in spoil only and <br />sedimentation ponds receive drainage from tFiem. Enr_losed is a <br />decision from an ALJ hearing that I was involved in nn the Federal <br />counterpart of the referenced MLRD regulations. Tlie company lead the <br />same interpretation of the .regulations and presented this argument in <br />the hearing. The ALJ found that sediment control and effluent <br />parameters are distinctly seperate considerations from minimizing <br />=rosic~n to the er.tent possible. The ALJ did not even request written <br />griefs and gave the decision from the bench <br />FAr,E 3 <br />