My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE27699
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE27699
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:35:14 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:42:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
6/14/1995
Doc Name
NOV C-95-017 PN C-81-010 TRAPPER MINING INC
From
DUFFORD & BROWN PC
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1995017
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 />Mr. Michael Long <br />June 14, 1995 <br />Page 2 <br />Extraordinary precipitation was the primary cause of the slide and may have been <br />the exclusive cause. The area of the slide was already highly saturated from spring snow <br />melt. Then, the area of the slide and the rest of Trapper's permit area received 3.05 inches <br />of rain during the 17 days preceding May 4. Of this amount, 1.69 inches fell during the <br />four days prior to the slide. Trapper will be prepared to substantiate these precipitation <br />figures with its records at the assessment conference. <br />It appears from Trapper's investigation to date that the slide was a localized <br />phenomenon, and not a result of any systemic problem with Trapper's approved <br />backfilling and grading plan. No slides have occurred elsewhere in Trapper's permit area <br />despite the heavy precipitation prior to May 4, as well as another six inches received since <br />that time. In addition, numerous slides have been reported around the state in the last few <br />weeks due to the extraordinary precipitation over the last two months. <br />With this background information in mind, we will address whether a violation <br />occurred and the assessment criteria. <br />No Violation Occurred <br />The NOV alleges that the violation was "failure to backfill and grade to a <br />minimum static factor of safety of 1.3, ..." The NOV then states that the results of the <br />alleged violation were slope failure and subsequent loss of topsoil. It is not clear that <br />topsoil loss occurred to any significant degree. In any event, these two effects are <br />properly stated as consequences, not independent grounds for a violation. Accordingly, <br />Trapper agrees that the violation stands or falls on whether Trapper backfilled and graded <br />the area in question to a minimum static safety factor of 13. <br />The approved method of backfilling and grading to achieve a 13 safety factor is <br />set forth in Section 3.5 of Trapper's Permit. Trapper followed that method in the slide <br />area when backfilling and grading was completed in 1993, and no one has questioned that <br />work or achievement of the 1.3 safety factor until now. Since that method was approved <br />by the Division to achieve the 1.3 safety factor, as required by Rule 4.14.2(1)(b), there is <br />no basis to believe that Trapper "failed to backfill and grade to a minimum static factor of <br />safety of 13." Nor is any such evidence suggested in the NOV. <br />VWJ-l, G/Il.9J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.