Laserfiche WebLink
diversion ditch) and install a rock filter. A hay bale was <br /> in place to serve as alternate sediment control. Conditions <br /> were dry. <br /> 7/8/93 OSM issues TDN x-93-020-05-002 for failure to pass <br /> all surface drainage from the disturbed area through a <br /> sediment pond or drainage control. They were citing the <br /> western side of topsoil borrow area adjacent to west end of <br /> refuse disposal area south of Dutch Creek. <br /> 7/22/93 DMG TDN follow-up inspection. Problem corrected, <br /> the rock filter was installed. No violation. <br /> 8/?/93 OSM finds DMG response inappropriate. An NOV must <br /> be issued for the violation observed on July 7,1993 or a <br /> Federal violation would be issued. <br /> 8/12/93 DMG issues NOV C-93-110 to avoid issuance of a <br /> Federal NOV. <br /> Larry Routten's to Diane Delaney, dated August 12, 1993, also <br /> gives a brief discussion of the circumstances. <br /> This case is puzzling to me. My impression of the situation is <br /> that OSM was concerned about this area because of the perceived <br /> undercutting of Dutch Creek below. Any conditions that may have <br /> contributed to the instability were of heightened interest. <br /> Based on what I heard in the assessment conference there was <br /> nothing to warrant an NOV. All activities occurring at the site <br /> were approved by field MR's. While the actual work was underway, <br /> a hay bale was in place for sediment control, even though there <br /> was no run-off at the time. <br /> I also see some inconsistencies in the TDN process with this <br /> case. If OSM was so concerned with the supposed lack of drainage <br /> why didn't they issue a TDN at the time they observed the alleged <br /> violation on July 7? (They were prepared to do that during the <br /> June 14-17 inspection. ) Furthermore, I find it incongruous that <br /> OSM would issue a TDN, allowing the DMG the opportunity to <br /> reinspect the site (July 22) and then not accept the fact that <br /> the work was completed by that time. I thought if an alleged <br /> violation is gone during a follow-up inspection, OSM would <br /> terminate a TDN. Why in this instance did they find that <br /> response inappropriate? <br /> In summary, I recommend that this NOV be vacated. There was no <br /> violation at the time was issued. <br /> Recommendation <br /> I recommend that NOV's C-93-93, C-93-099, C-93-107 and C-93-110 <br /> be vacated. <br /> CC. Steve Renner <br /> Larry Routten <br /> Tony Waldron <br />