ENFORCE31998

• Permit No: C1980001
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 9/22/1993
• Doc Name: Draft MINUTES to Sept Board MEETING
• Violation No.: CV1993026
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DRAFT
Minutes, September 22-23, 1993
Subject To Board Approval 38
Mr. Erickson explained that the operator felt that the road
could be used for their purposes by building a turn-around, so
that the water trucks could get in and out, and that the road
would be considered an access road under the permit. Mr. Paul
said that the operator's opinion was that the drainage
observed during the inspection was within the permitted road
area, did not reach Trout Creek and Chat the violation should
not have been issued.
Staff again clarified that the issue before the Board did not
relate to whether vegetation stopped the flow of water, but
the fact that the water/drainage was not treated prior Co
leaving the site. Staff said the regulations prohibit the
type of activity undertaken by the operator, i.e., using
vegetation on undisturbed areas as a sediment control system.
Staff said that under Rule 4.05.2(1), the operator is required
to accomplish treatment from the disturbed area. Staff said
the area that the operator said was a road, had been
determined by the Division to be a facilities area and
requires sediment control. Staff clarified that whether the
area is considered a road does not impact the fact that the
violation occurred. Staff said the area falls under the
definitions of Rule 1.04(36), regarding disturbed areas.
Staff said that because the area in question appears to be a
functional portion of the mine, is not used for access, does
not have a road passing through it and does not seem to
function as a surface right-of-way, as is the definition of a
road, it is a disturbed area requiring the sediment controls
as outlined in Rule 4.05.2(1). Staff asked the Board to
uphold the violation.
Mr. Paul lead a detailed discussion of this issue, through
questions to the individuals present who represented the
operator. Mr. Beverlin stated that the road was permitted as
a light-use road to access water for dust suppression, but
that the operator was deficient in not amending the plan to
indicate or specify the water loadout.
In response to an inquiry from the Board, Staff said that the
operator's permit was revised to include the pad after the NOV
was issued. Staff said that during the inspection, the
surface of the pad was not a rock surface, as reported by the
operator, but was mostly dirt. Staff further stated that the
rock filter (for sediment control), discussed by the operator
was on the edge of the pad and that it was covered with dirt.