ENFORCE37543 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Susan Burgmaier November I, 1995 6-21-95 WHE backGlled arcs sealed.. section 006-NE I appears as a gully 24 to 36 inches deep and needs maintenance. 9-14-95 LPR ...il appears impacts to undisturbed areas could be minimized by continuing to direct runoff down the road ditch and down the rock lined channel on the reclaimed B pit. 9-27-95 SLB ...one other item of concern is the constructed channel which runs roughly parallel to the reclaimed highwall....the operator should look into this discrepancy, and inform the division... NOV issued 10-16-95 10-19-95 ESC ...no erosion features were noted in this backfilled area. Abatement options For twelve months we were led to believe the postmine contours and drainage channels were OK--based on the monthly DMG inspections. Suddenly they are not. We submitted the Rill and Gully report noting that erosion occured and stating we would put rip-rap in this channel. We placed the rip-rap to minimize further erosion which proved successful. Now it is not approved. Please consider vacating the violation because it is untimely and poorly executed. We agree that the existing conditions do not match the approved postmining topography and drainage plan. However, the existing configuration will not have an adverse effect on the hydrologic balance of this area. In order to abate the violation by constructing the postmining topography and permanent drainage channels per the approved reclamation plan, would result in a massive earthmoving project which would be detrimental to the reclamation work already completed. Also, comments mentioned in the October and November 1994 inspections state that the area reclaimed blends well with the surrounding undisturbed topography. For abatement we would rather submit a permit revision addressing the postmining topography based on the existing conditions. Sincerewly`,_ n ~""~~f' ~ ~aa~~.~.~a Michael G. Altavilla, P.E. Engineering Manager CC: G. Wendt. (PWCC) wfEnclosures