Laserfiche WebLink
coal fines and other material observed in the vicinity of the <br />outlet of culvert E-12 was deposited there by the plowing of snow <br />from the haulroad that overlies culvert E-12. <br />Thus, instead of establishing a failure of sediment control, <br />the facts set out in NOV-26 establish that the material on the <br />berms was not transported or deposited by water and is not <br />uncontrolled sediment. By admission in NOV-26, the material on <br />the berm at the grizzly pad, the material on the berm east of the <br />shop/warehouse/buckethouse pad, and implicitly the material in <br />the vicinity of the outlet of culvert E-12 did not reach their <br />resting place as a result of a lack of sediment control <br />structures. <br />NOV-26 also contends that there was a failure to retain <br />"sediment" within disturbed areas. As pointed out above, there <br />is no such requirement in the provisions of the Act or Rules <br />cited in the NOV. Further, an examination of the Permit C-80-001 <br />maps that delineate the areas of the Edna Mine authorized for <br />disturbance by mining operations establishes that none of the <br />conditions cited in NOV-26 occurred outside of areas authorized <br />for disturbance by Permit No. C-SO-001. <br />To establish the validity of a notice of violation, a <br />regulatory authority must have sufficient evidence to establish <br />the essential facts of the violation. Turner Brothers Inc. y. <br />Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, <br />103 IBLA 124, 129 (1988). NOV-26 contains no credible data or <br />fact-based statement which would evidence that P&M is in <br />violation of the Act or Rules cited in NOV-26. <br />-5- <br />