ENFORCE26846 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was not reviewed until October, 1994. In March, 1994 the Division approved a TR allowing a significant reduction in the monitoring plan. He felt it was important to note that the Division approved the monitoring reduction without the benefit of having reviewed the 1993 AHR. The revised phm deleted most of the sites he had discontinued monitoring during 1993. There were five sites the Division did not approve for deletion because they are adjudicated water rights. From his point of view, seriousness should be based on the monitoring that was lost in relation to the amended hydrologic monitoring plan, not the monitoring plan that was required in 1993. As such, he presented a table which identified how much data was lost in comparison to the plan approved by the TR. However, the NOV was issued as a failure to conduct monitoring as required in 1993, nit as compared to a revised plan. The omissions occurred over the period of a year. The extent includes seventy-seven sites for the plan in effect during 1993. For seriousness I am considering whether or not required data was collected as requved by the approved plan. It was not. The operator had 231 data omissions from seventy-seven different sites over the period of a year. I consider this to be significant. I consider this the low end of significant, because of the information presented by Mr. Koehler which indicates mining impacts were being assessed and the fact that the Division approved a revision for a reduced plan. The Division's ability to fully assess mining impacts was obstructed by the missing data. I agree with the proposed penalty. Fault Mr. Koehler felt the fault component was too high, and it should be assessed as negligence. He was negligent in not revising the permit and not fulfilling the permit requirements. !n May, 1993 he began monitoring, but the monitoring program was too bwdensome and he was running short of time. He monitored those sites he felt were most critical to assess mining impacts. He intended to catch up in June. Due to limited resowces though, the monitoring was determined to be a low priority and he did only those sites he felt were necessary. He never did catch up. COVCC had an approved hydrologic monitoring plan. As stated previously, the Division and COVCC had met in August, 1992 to discuss some possible reductions in the plan. It was mutually agreed that a reduced monitoring would be appropriate, but no specific requirements were determined. COVCC was to submit a plan. COVCC did not submit a revision, but they did reduce their monitoring. Mr. Koehler said monitoring was conducted to evaluate mining impacts based on the "mine's spatial and temporal relationship to the monitoring network, from COVCC's familiarity with previously collected data, from COVCC's familiarity with the nature of documented and anticipated impacts to water resowces within the permit area, and from informal discussions with the Division regazding the readily appazent unnecessary nature of a large segment of the monitoring program." COVCC prematwely, unilaterally modified the monitoring program, without going through the 3