1992-03-02_ENFORCEMENT - C1981041

• Permit No: C1981041
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 3/2/1992
• Doc Name: RECEIPT
• From: MLRD
• To: POWDERHORN COAL CO
• Violation No.: CV1991020
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
N
1313 Sherman St..Room 215
Denver.CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX [phone]
Roy Romer.
Governor
Justification of Settlement Agreement Fred R.Banta.
for NOV C-91-020 Division Director
Conference Summary
NOV C-91-020 was issued for "failure to clearly mark perimeter of areas
affected by surface operations and topsoil stockpiles." The NOV applied to
the disturbed area in the vicinity of the Cameo portal , where the permit
boundary was alleged to have not been clearly marked. In addition, the NOV
applied to a soil stockpile in the vicinity of the South Fan which was not
clearly marked.
Larry Routten indicated that only one disturbed area perimeter marker was
found on the hillside behind the Cameo Portal area, with no other markers
visible from the located marker. Larry Reschke, representing Powderhorn,
acknowledged that the boundary was not readily apparent. In a letter of
September 23, 1991 , Mr. Reschke stated that he had investigated the matter,
and concluded that steel fence posts had originally been placed at permit
boundary corners or turning points, with a spacing that varied from 100 feet
to 1 ,700 feet. Mr. Reschke indicated that most of the markers were still in
place, but were only locatable with a good topographic disturbance area
boundary map. Mr. Reschke further indicated he had assumed that the boundary
was sufficiently marked, based on a 1983 Division inspection report which
noted that "perimeter markers have been placed around the disturbed area
boundary."
With respect to the stockpiles, Mr. Reschke concurred that they had not been
marked, but contended that the material was a poor quality growth medium and
that the topsoil marker requirement did not apply. Mr. Reschke referenced a
1983 Division revision approval which confirmed that the material in question
was of poor quality. The approval contained a stipulation which indicated
that the material would need to be appropriately amended for use as topsoil ,
or suitable replacement material would need to be identified.
The proposed civil penalty was:
History: S 0.00
Seriousness: 250.00
Fault: 500.00
Good Faith 0.00
Total T-7M—.M
Fact of Violation
I find that a violation did occur. With respect to the perimeter markers, the
acknowledged fact is that in some locations, including the cited location,