Laserfiche WebLink
It is clear that the damage was within the permit area. However, a large gully had been created <br />in an undisturbed, or reclaimed area. It was not an area approved for disturbance by mine <br />drainage and repairs wilt be necessary. The duration of damage is unknown, it is not clear how <br />long the gully had existed. The extent is low/moderate as indicated by the proposed penalty. <br />A large gully was created by uncontrolled drainage. I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Fault <br />The representatives questioned the statement in the proposed penalty stating that routine <br />maintenance and monitoring should have been implemented to mitigate this problem. They said <br />they were in the process of conducting their annual rill and gully plan. The gully would not <br />have been detected any earlier due to snow cover. <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. Whether or not the gully could have been detected earlier is <br />questionable in my mind. The concentration of runoff on the ramp road and corresponding <br />breached berm could have been an indication of a problem spot. l agree with the proposed <br />penalty. <br />Good Faith <br />I am not recommending a good faith reduction. The NOV had not been abated at the time of the <br />conference. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $500.00 <br />Fault $500.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $1000.00 <br />