Laserfiche WebLink
It is not cleaz whether Seneca had constructed PM-4C according to the approved design. Seneca <br />said they did. What is clear is that on Dan's Apri125, 2007 inspection, the channel was not <br />functioning as designed. The lower section of PM-4C was silted in contributing to Slide #3 cited <br />in CV NOV-2007-002. <br />In Seneca's letter they claim the `minimal disturbance azea', a designation they created for the <br />azea adjacent to the Neck Pit, allowed for this type of disturbance. The Division disagrees. This <br />designation was approved to allow Seneca to use existing natural drainages to convey run-off <br />from the reclaimed disturbed area in the upper part of the drainage area to the sediment pond in <br />the undisturbed valley below. The minimal disturbance designation was not intended to allow <br />excessive erosion or slides along the hillslope. <br />I do not consider NOV CV-2007-002 a serious violation, but none the less, I feel a violation did <br />occur. Seneca chose to mine in an area with challenging topography and difficult geologic <br />conditions. These difficult conditions do not provide a reprieve from the law; nor is Seneca <br />expected to `control Mother Nature'. However, Seneca is responsible for operating within the <br />constraints of their permit and of the regulations. <br />