Laserfiche WebLink
1Viinutes, September 22-23, 1993 <br />DRAFT <br />Subject To Board Approval <br />39 <br />Hoa Member Stewart said that she viewed the area in question <br />as not a road, but as an intentionally broaden area of the <br />road which serves a function and would not exist otherwise. <br />She said she considered the area as a pad or functional <br />working area where an activity occurs and, therefore, should <br />be viewed as a disturbed area. Board Member Jouflas stated <br />that he agreed with the comments made by Ms. Stewart. <br />Board Member Danni stated that he felt the area in question <br />could be considered a road. He briefly discussed the issue of <br />mobile equipment. Board Member Kraeger-ROVey said that she <br />also felt that the area in question could be considered a <br />road. <br />The Board asked the Division and the operator to comment on <br />the Board's interpretation of this matter. <br />Ms. Linden said that although the pump and pad had tires <br />attached, it was not moved on a day-to-day basis, but stayed <br />in one place. <br />Staff said that the focus of this hearing was that there was <br />no sediment control system in place on the structure at the <br />time of the inspection. Staff said the issue relevant to this <br />matter did not relate to whether the structure was a road. <br />Board Member Stewart clarified that the operator had stated <br />that if the structure was determined not to be a road, they <br />would not object to the NOV. She said the operator's opinion <br />was that the NOV would be applicable to a disturbed area, but <br />not to.a road. <br />Mr. Beverlin's comment was that the operator would not have <br />permitted the structure as a light-use road, for the specific <br />purpose of withdrawing water, if it was not initially intended <br />to be a road. <br />Mr. Paul stated that Mr. Crowner had provided testimony that <br />the road was in place when the operator installed the pump and <br />that it had been used for other purposes. He said the fact <br />that the area of the road in question happens to be the end of <br />the road and the closet point to the Creek should not reflect <br />upon the legal issue. <br />Board Member Stewart discussed a concern with the proximity of <br />the activity to the stream, as it relates to sedimentation. <br />She said that if the road began to wear, different directional <br />runoffs could occur. Ms. Stewart said it would be prudent for <br />an operator to install sediment controls when the activity <br />