Laserfiche WebLink
:4 <br />(perpendicular to transport direction) for a distance of approximately 70 feet. <br />(4) My appraisal of the pond violation is that it was not severe. In a series of 4 ponds in <br />sequence, Pond 1 was full to the outlet with sediment. Pond 2 experienced a minor flow from a <br />breech on the east side of the pond (maximum 5 gpm). This fugitive flow short-circuited Pond 3, <br />but flowed back into the series upstream of Pond 4. Thus, the water, while missing Pond 3, was <br />captured by the last pond in the sequence. There was no evidence of lazger amounts of water <br />following the short-circuit, nor was there any evidence that the water carried a particularly large <br />sediment load (no deposition in the short-circuit channel). Also, there was no erosion in the <br />short-circuit channel. <br />Fault: <br />(1) Reconstruction of the "super curve" azea of the West Ridge Road is part of TR-35, involving <br />retention of the road. This revision has been held up for 8 months because P&M has been unable <br />to track down all the parties to get ownership permission. Therefore, I feel that they are not <br />overtly negligent, although timely maintenance during run-off could conceivable have lessened <br />the damage. <br />(2) This is a complicated situation. Cleazly erosion from the final Moffat drainage ditch helped <br />cause rising of water levels leading to the short-circuit. Clogging of the trash rack also caused a <br />back-up. P&M noted in their response to the NOV that the west side of the north diversion ditch <br />is lower than the elevation of the emergency spillway. This design oversight is probably the <br />underlying cause. I don't know how we view such oversight. It wasn't intentional and it wasn't <br />really negiligent, but it might well have been preventable. <br />(3) The Edna permit document was rewritten in 1995 to allow for a range of responses to erosion <br />within the Moffat reclaimed area. Recognizing that the potential for erosion was very high in the <br />first several years after reclamation because of steep, extremely long slopes, the document <br />provided discretion to respond to erosion that may occur. Thus, the document describes what <br />appeazs to be an assumption of erosion. That is the reason that parts 3b, c, d, and a were dropped <br />from the NOV -this was erosion within the disturbed area. The permit says P&M will assess <br />that erosion in an annual survey and take the actions necessary to prevent recurrance. Building <br />on that, the erosion cited in 3a can be described just as anticipated erosion that got out of the <br />disturbed azea rather than staying in. By reading of the permit, both the Division and P&M <br />anticipated the potential erosion problems in that location and wanted to provide flexibility in <br />responding to them. Therefore, I don't feel this citation resulted from any particular "fault" of <br />the operator -just bad luck that anticipated erosion got out of the disturbed area. <br />(4) An excessive amount of sediment was brought into the pond by erosion in the Goat Trail azea <br />-- an extremely steep slope. P&M tried to mitigate the erosion on the Goat Trail but muddy <br />conditions and the steepness of the terrain prevented it. Clean-out of Pond 1 was on their <br />maintenance docket for completion about the time of the inspection. Discussions with P&M <br />have not led to any conclusions as to why Pond 2 was breeched. The operator indicated that a <br />sediment survey just prior to the inspection showed that the pond was not filled with sediment. <br />