ENFORCE25125 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MCC representatives objected to the allegation that the silt fence was totally ineffective. However, they did concur that the fence was not keyed in properly due to brush in one spot. Additionally, they reported that cattle in the area had trampled the fence causing it to sag in several places. MCC contended ditches DWP-E and DWP-W were functioning properly because no drainage was leaving the site. In the June 28, 1995 letter to the DMG, MCC admits they had not constructed engineered drainage ditches at this site. They were relying on the interface of the waste pile with the ground surface and the prepared and graded site to naturally control the surface flow. I will uphold the NOV. A properly installed silt fence is trenched into the ground and backfilled with soil material. The fence is taut and there are no gaps along the base. The fence at the Lone Pine Waste Pile was not installed and maintained properly. Ditch DWP-E and DWP-W were not maintained as evidenced by the material in the ditch. Lastly, the evidence presented by the DMG proves to me there was a failure to salvage topsoil. Some material, whether it was waste or subsoil material had been deposited on a small area where topsoil was not salvaged. MCC removed the "spillage" material by the abatement deadline. i would not have expected Mr. Savage's survey to show any contamination because the survey was conducted after the NOV had been abated, and the potential for contamination had been removed. The.proposed civil penalty was: History $0.00 Seriousness $1250.00 Fault $1000.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $2250.00 Seriousness The proposed penalty was assessed for the loss and/or contamination of topsoil, and the potential for improperly treated runoff leaving the area. Based on the information presented in the conference, the silt fence and the ditches were not constrvcted or maintained as required in the permit and the regulations. I agree with the proposed assessment that there was the potential for improperly treated runoff to leave the disturbed area given the condition of the sediment control sductures, however there was no evidence that this occurred. Material from the waste pile area did extend beyond the line of topsoil salvage. The area in question was small and this material was removed. No evidence was presented of lost topsoil or contamination, after the NOV was abated. I propose to reduce the seriousness to $500.00 for moderate seriousness. Fault The proposed penalty is assessed for knowingly not salvaging topsoil. MCC strongly objected to the penalty. Representatives from MCC said they diligently strip topsoil ahead of all mining