ENFORCE32487 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Michael Long July 18, 1995 Page 2 The Inspection Report also alleges that the silt fence at the site was not keyed into the ground, rendering the silt fence 'completely ineffectual." Mountain Coal admits that portions of the fence were sagging as it had been trampled by cattle, and that one portion of the fence was not keyed into the ground, because it passed over a piece of brush. Prior to the inspection, Mountain Coal had reinstalled all of the silt fence at the Lone Pine Gulch facilities area, including the pile site, as evidenced by the satisfactory installations observed by Mr. Waldron at all other areas at the Lone Pine Gulch facilities. The fact is, that all of the silt fence at the pile site, except the one portion, was sufficiently keyed to the ground and was oerfortnina its function perfectly. As noted above, virtually all of the water from the waste pile flows to a single small area downslope of the underdrain. As you could see, the silt fence at that critical point (down- stream of the underdrain) had not been compromised by the marauding cattle, and was completely effective. There is no evidence that flows were not contained within the site, but the opposite, sediment has accumulated in front of the silt fence. It is therefore simply false to state that the silt fence was completely ineffectual." Because the Inspection Report contains inaccurate statements of critical fads, Mountain Coal asks that you vacate this portion of the NOV. Please note that the silt fence is one element of a redundant system of sediment wntrol. Water is diverted around the waste pile to a natural low point above the waste pile's undertlrain. At that point, water flows through the silt fence. The Division approved the use of a vegetative buffer as the primary defense against sedimentation from the site. The plain fad is that even in one of the wettest springs ever, no sediment from the waste pile reached the vegetative buffer area. Contrary to the claims of the Inspection Report, then, sediment control at this site was remarkably effective. 2. Drainage Collection Channels The Inspection Report alleges that the waste pile surface area drainage collection channels DWP-E and DWP-W were not being property maintained to safely convey drainage off of the pile. This was occurting by allowing a significant amount of development waste to fill in the collection channels, thereby rendering the ditches ineffective. Inspection Report, page 1 of 3. In fad, the collection channels at the waste pile were functioning properly at the time of the inspection. Mountain Coal had not additionally constructed engineered drainage ditches at this site. Rather, Mountain Coal n:cognized that the stockpiled material interfaces with the ground surface (resulting in channels much larger than the designed ditches) and the prepared and graded site naturally controlled the water from the waste pile site so that it flowed to the area controlled by the silt fence downstream of the underdrain. Though the map in the approved drainage design for the pile depicted the ditches extending down to the silt fence, the discussions in the design state that the intent is to direct flows into the silt fenced area and that the ditches "feather out' or diminish in depth to spread flows across the silt fence. This approach to drainage control was acceptable to the Division prior to the inspection on May 10, 1995, and at the time of the abatement of this NOV. The collection channels at the site were effective on the date of the inspection because all water from the waste pile was channeled to the proper point al the site. No water from the waste pile escaped these channels.