My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE24827
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE24827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:33:27 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:48:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980006
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
10/20/1994
Doc Name
OSM REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS BRIEFS
Violation No.
TD1994020352002TV1
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.
/
36
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
CON90LIDATION COAL CO. 10 CH 99-6-R <br />teehaical report and to calculate the average elopes in all three <br />options. Schamber concluded from his study that there was ao <br />aignificaat difference in the overall average elope range for the <br />areas in the three drainage options. The witlieas disagreed with <br />the Respondent's opinion that the Ditch A-1 is 3,000 feet long. <br />It is 1400 feet from the north edge of the want Kadolph tract to <br />whore the drainage leavse the property. Ae agreed that the pre- <br />miniag stream was SDO Peet long. Ditch A-1 is not appreciably <br />deeper from tho bottom of the ditch to the top o! the slope than <br />draiaage would be using the three options auggeeted by Behvm. <br />The present ditch in more narrow in width than it would have been <br />if Caaaolidation had used any a£ the other three alternative <br />loeatioae et~ggeeted. The size of Ditch A-1 is not dietatad by . <br />the amount of water it ie designed to carry but by the fnct that <br />it was cut through a higher material hill sad resultant elopes. <br />This ditch could not carry 40 feet of water without incident <br />(Tr. 222-1T). <br />On crone examination the witneea stated that there were some <br />arses whore the ditch was Porty feat deep from the bottom o£ the <br />ditch to the top of the graded elope (Tr. 119). <br />Snek Simpson, reclamation specialist with OSM, testified oa <br />rebuttal for the Respondent. He had conducted poet-graduate work <br />in plant and soil science. The soil maps used by the Applieaat <br />sad IDl4S reflect the actual elopes of the county is general, but <br />contain a range of, for example, tae to eighteen percent (Tr. <br />430-31). <br />' CharleB Sandberg wap recalled for rebuttal. He Eeati£ied <br />that the compariy's application for thick overburden wavier moat <br />have been made is the original permit application. He also <br />stated that Consolidation appeared to have moved its swell to the <br />western aide of the permitted area oa 149. The company wan <br />restricted is its choice of spoil placement by the Eloodplaia and <br />the requirement that they establish wetlands on the site. OSI! <br />reaogaised that Consolidation would want to wove its spoil out of <br />the iloodplain. Oaa o£ its options was to put ~eome spoil back <br />into the incline. The company's tendency to move swell plug the <br />sad cut to the western side exaggerated the situation oa the <br />west. The witaeae testified that Coaaolidatioa should have taken <br />the virgin woodland sad high rack oontant into account in its <br />original application. Tha compnay should not have bean surprised <br />by these factors. He also admitted that hie estimate of Ditch A- <br />1 being 3,OOD feat long had been as .error. Even sor the ditch <br />does not closely resemble what existed oa the land pre-mining . <br />(Tr. 134-49r 55). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.