Laserfiche WebLink
c <br />_z_ <br />It appears that this Division approved a ditch location, probably within 100 feet <br />of the right-of-way, and as such implied approval to reclaim said ditch, also <br />within the 100-foot distance. Additionally, Map 8 shows the permit boundary to be <br />located along the highway, which seems to constitute this Division's approval of <br />"the proposed permit area" (Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)), "...within 100 feet, measured <br />horizontally, of the outside right-of-way line..." (Rule 2.07.6(2)(d>(iv)). Based <br />on the above, it seems very plausible that the operator had no reason to believe <br />that the cited ditch reclamation would be in violation of any regulation or law. <br />It should be noted that Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv) states, in part, that "the Division <br />or Board shall only allow such relocation or closure or mining within 100 feet of <br />the public road is the Board or Division: (A) Requires the applicant to obtain <br />necessary approvals..." <br />It seems that the operator cannot be held at fault if the Board or Division <br />approved the permit boundary along the road without requiring this specific <br />documentation from the operator. Rule 2.07.6(2)(d>(iv)(A) seems to assign <br />considerable responsibility to the Division in this case. <br />50.00 <br />Total Penalty Assessed = $0.00 <br />DAB/bjw <br />4086E <br />