Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McCulloh said the gully in ditch TAHRD #7 had also been noted by mine personnel as a <br />spring maintenance item. They were planning to fix it when weather conditions improved. The <br />channel through the wheat field and resultant delta cannot be attributed solely to drainage off the <br />mine road. Mr. McCullohs' estimate was that 99% of the sediment was due to the poor manner <br />in which the farmer cultivated his field. <br />A silt fence had been installed below ME-5 at Susan Bergmier's request to reduce the amount <br />of sediment from the haul road entering gulch 006. In addition to modifying the silt fence <br />Seneca Coal Co. is evaluating alternatives for reducing the sediment flow down the ditch. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $1000.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1750.00 <br />Seriousness <br />Offsite damage occurred at three locations, the drainage into the wheat field, the sediment into <br />Dry Creek from culvert G-2 and the sediment into Gulch 006. There were two other locations <br />where there was excessive erosion within the permit area. <br />Representatives from Seneca Coal Company felt the amount of sediment offsite did not warrar-t <br />a "significant" penahy. They claimed most of the sediment in the wheat field was from the <br />farmer and the sediment into Dry Creek was off of a haul road. They felt that since haul road <br />drainage is not required to flow through a sediment pond, some siltation is bound to occur. <br />Additionallly, they had made an effort to reduce the amount of sediment through the use of silt <br />fences. <br />I agree with the proposed penahy based on the information presented in the conference. There <br />were five separate locations where excessive erosion occurred. It is difficult to determine the <br />amount of sediment Seneca Coal Company contributed to the delta in the wheat field at TAHRD <br />~t7, but in the pictures there was clearly an eroded ditch channel which contributed to off site <br />damage. Of equal or more concern is the sediment in Dry Creek from culvert G-2 and the <br />sediment in Gulch 006 from ME-5. Even though road drainage is not required to pass through <br />a sediment pond, haul roads are to be maintained to minimize erosion, resultant siltation and <br />disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance. <br />Fault <br />Mr. Altavilla expressed his frustration with the timing of this inspection. It occurred just as the <br />snow had melted and Seneca Coal Company was preparing to begin their spring maintenance. <br />They did not believe they were negligent, because they could not determine the extent of their <br />drainage problems due to snow cover. At G-2 and ME-5 they had attempted to mitigate the <br />extent of damage through the use of silt fences. Weather conditions made it impossible to do <br />