Laserfiche WebLink
markers were not visible from one post to the next, and in many instances, the <br /> markers were difficult to locate without the use of a topographic map. Rule <br /> 4.02.3 requires that disturbance areas be clearly marked before the beginning <br /> of surface coal mining activities. Rule 4.02.4 requires that signs and <br /> markers be maintained during the conduct of all activities to which they <br /> pertain. I conclude that in the cited location, markers had not been <br /> installed or maintained so as to clearly delineate the disturbance area <br /> boundary. <br /> With respect to the topsoil marker issue, I also conclude that a violation did <br /> occur. The 1983 technical revision stipulation indicates that the operator <br /> could amend the soil in question for use in final reclamation, or <br /> alternatively, could identify and secure an alternative source of plant growth <br /> material. No evidence was presented to indicate that an alternative source of <br /> plant growth material had been secured. The stockpiled soil material is <br /> approved for use in reclamation if properly amended and should have been <br /> marked as required by Rule 4.02.7. <br /> History <br /> The proposed history assessment of $0.00 was contested by neither party. <br /> Seriousness <br /> I concur with the proposed assessment of $250.00 for seriousness. No damage <br /> has occurred and the potential for damage is low. <br /> Fault <br /> I propose to reduce this component to $250.00. While some negligence is <br /> indicated, there are mitigating factors. With respect to the perimeter <br /> markers, a certain number of markers had been installed, and this fact had <br /> been noted by the Division in a 1983 inspection report. The operator contends <br /> that, as a result, he felt that the disturbance perimeter was adequately <br /> marked. It is understandable that the operator may have felt that the matter <br /> was resolved, but it is evident that, in some areas, the permimeter was not <br /> "clearly marked," and it is the permittee who is ultimately responsible for <br /> ensuring compliance. <br /> With respect to the topsoil marker, the 1983 revision and associated <br /> stipulation documented the poor quality of the soil in question, but left <br /> somewhat open the question of whether the soil stockpiled on site would be <br /> used as topsoil in reclamation. It is understandable that some confusion may <br /> have resulted from the stipulation as written, but the violation could have <br /> been avoided had the operator secured an alternative source of topsoil or <br /> committed to amending the stockpiled soil and designating it as "topsoil" for <br /> reclamation use. <br />