My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
_ENFORCEMENT - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2020 12:42:43 PM
Creation date
10/4/2012 11:22:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP) CV-89-033
Violation No.
C-89-033
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br /> NOV C-89-033 <br /> NOV C-89-033 was written for "failure to salvage topsoil from areas affected <br /> by sur ace coal mining operations. Specifically, the lower Portion of the <br /> conveyor access road on Map II-B-7 where soil and vegetation are partially <br /> buried by the road fill material ." Mr. Crick showed slides of the area in <br /> question. He explained that it is approximately 100 feet long, 10 feet wide, <br /> and about 6 inches of topsoil was to be removed. A total of approximately <br /> 18.5 cubic yards of topsoil was lost. The alleged violation is unabatable <br /> since the road was constructed in 1988. <br /> Representatives of Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. contested the fact of the <br /> violation. Citing rules 4.03.3( 3) (e) and (f), Ms. Delaney claimed they were <br /> minimizing disturbance during road construction. Rule 4.03.3(3)(e) states <br /> that topsoil is to be removed where excavation would require replacement of <br /> material and redistribution of topsoil or proper vegetation. The area in <br /> questions was not excavated; the topsoil was covered by fill material . The <br /> topsoil beneath the fill would not be lost and she felt the aspen trees would <br /> serve as an effective erosion control . Some sloughage of fill material is to <br /> be expected and she argued that the fill material had sloughed over the <br /> topsoil . <br /> I believe a violation did occur. The area beneath a road fill is considered <br /> part of the affected area and topsoil is to be removed pursuant to <br /> Rule 4.06.1 . Failure to remove the topsoil beneath a fill prior to <br /> disturbance makes it very difficult to maintain the integrity of the resource <br /> during reclamation. Aspen trees are not very effective as erosion control . <br /> Grasses and other herbaceous growth are much better suited for that purpose. <br /> Topsoil was removed from other fill sections of the road and it appears that <br /> this section was overlooked. <br /> The proposed civil penalty was: <br /> History $ 400.00 <br /> Seriousness 250.00 <br /> Fault 250.00 <br /> Good Faith 0.00 <br /> TOTAL _T_9M_.66 <br /> History <br /> There have been three NOV's and one CO during the past twelve months. <br /> Seriousness <br /> I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.