|
Lastly, you stated that you will have a weather report that will show what you were talking
<br />about.
<br />7. On March 18, 2011, you telefaxed me handwritten precipitation information you claim to
<br />have acquired via telephone from the National Weather Service for December 2010 and
<br />January 1-4, 2011. You state that "For the month of December for Uravan (17 miles from
<br />us)," 1.76 inches of precipitation was received including 0.12 inches on December 22nd and
<br />0.10 inches on December 23`d. You also note that "for the 18`n-24th [of December], each day
<br />had precipitation." You provide varying amounts of precipitation information for December
<br />30-31, 2010, and January 1-4, 2011, including snow totals of 7.2, 5.7, and 8.9 inches for
<br />December 31, 2010, and January 2-3, 2011, respectively. You conclude by noting that you
<br />do not know where the State could have possibly got their information.
<br />8. WFC has a weather station, including a rain gauge, attached to the office building at the
<br />mine site. This weather station serves as the source for the precipitation data that DRMS
<br />submitted in response to the TDN.
<br />9. The climatology data supplied by WFC for the period beginning December 1, 2011, and
<br />leading up to and including the December 22-23, 2010, dates specified in your appeal
<br />indicates that 0.21 inches of rain/snow were received at the mine site between December 18-
<br />23, 2010. The average high temperature during this time period was 48.6 degrees while the
<br />average low temperature was 38.8 degrees. In addition, 96 truckloads of Morgan "A" lift
<br />topsoil were hauled by WFC on December 23, 2010.
<br />10. On March 22, 2011, OSM sent via e-mail a copy of WFC's climatology data for the New
<br />Horizon Mine that was included in DRMS' January 14, 2011, inspection report to the
<br />Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) in Norwood, Colorado, for analysis. The
<br />climatology data included precipitation records for December 2010 through January 1-13,
<br />2011. OSM solicited NRCS's professional opinion as to whether prime farmland soils
<br />would be considered saturated or just wet/moist during the time frames of December 18-26,
<br />2010, January 1-5, 2011, and January 9-10, 2011, when precipitation was received at the
<br />mine. Based on this precipitation data, OSM also asked NRCS about the potential for
<br />damage to the chemical and physical properties of the soil including erosion, contamination
<br />and/or compaction as a result of topsoil salvage operations that were conducted at the mine
<br />on December 23 and 28, 2010, as well as January 4, 5, and 11, 2011.
<br />11. The Norwood NRCS office forwarded OSM's request to the NRCS' State Soil Scientist in
<br />Denver, Colorado on March 25, 2011.
<br />12. On March 29, 2011, NRCS' State Soil Scientist responded that it was not possible to
<br />accurately answer GSM's question about potential saturation of soils related to the
<br />precipitation events in question, as there are too many other variables that affect soil
<br />moisture such as:
<br />• Soil moisture status prior to the precipitation events
<br />• Soil Texture
<br />• Soil Structure
<br />4
|