My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE36684
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE36684
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:45:56 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 3:11:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/31/1993
Doc Name
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Violation No.
CV1993072
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
/T <br />r <br />SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION <br />NOV C-93-072 <br />Notice of Violation C-93-072 was issued to Colowyo Coal Company <br />for "Failure to selectively place stockpiled topsoil and to <br />protect it from water erosion." The NOV was issued on May 7, <br />1993 by Steve Wathen. (He is no longer with the Division.) <br />Larry Routten, representing the Division, explained that the Nov <br />applied to the "windrowed" topsoil piles south of the excess <br />spoil fill and more specifically to the drainage cutouts in the <br />rows. In constructing the cutouts, some topsoil was deposited on <br />the adjacent undisturbed areas below. The topsoil deposition <br />resulted from a combination of the dozer pushing it down and <br />runoff carrying soil through the cuts. Some rilling occurred in <br />the area below. The amount of topsoil lost was relatively <br />minor. Pictures were presented. <br />Colowyo, represented by Jim Kieger and Juan Garcia, did not argue <br />with the fact that some topsoil had been deposited below the <br />topsoil piles. They explained that permitting delays with a <br />Permit Revision, submitted in May, 1991, were creating scheduling <br />problems for the mine. Because it took much longer than <br />anticipated for PR approval, five months of ambitious topsoil <br />salvaging had to be completed in three months During the <br />summer of 1992, 435,000 cubic yards of topsoil were removed. <br />They did not complete all their final seeding and protection of <br />the piles because of adverse weather cor~c~itions. This spring <br />they were able to salvage the topsoil that was below the piles <br />and very little topsoil was lost. In an effort to reduce the <br />amount of runoff going through the "cutouts", the operator <br />constructed a diversion ditch above the windrowed topsoil piles. <br />It was mutually agreed that the proposed civil penalty waS <br />confusing and difficult to understand, therefor each component <br />was assessed based upon the information presented by the Division <br />and the operator in the conference. The proposed penalty was: <br />History $50.00 <br />Seriousness $250.00 <br />Fault $750.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1050.00 <br />History <br />Colowyo did not dispute the history component. <br />Seriousness <br />Very little topsoil was lost, especially in comparison to the <br />total volume of topsoil salvaged. Some erosion occurred below <br />the cutouts in undisturbed land. Extent of damage was small. <br />Duration was from the time the topsoil was deposited on the area <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.