Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Sion and therefore there is no indication of whether the condi- <br />tion was in fact unstable or that erosion was uncontrolled. This <br />argument is without merit. The Act and the Rules require that <br />the operator ensure that access roads are constructed and main- <br />tained so as to control or prevent erosion and siltation, pollu- <br />tion of water, and damage to public or private property. The <br />conditions of the site observed during the inspection establish <br />that the runout drainages were unstable, and that active erosion <br />was excessive and uncontrolled. The sideslopes of the drainage <br />were near vertical and were slumping, and the bottom and sides <br />lacked vegetation. The overall conditions observed on that day <br />establish that the operator failed to construct and maintain the <br />road to control or prevent erosion. <br />P&M also alleges that the existence of gullies does not in <br />and of itself establish that erosion is uncontrolled. However, <br />the policy directive cited by P&M in support of this assertion <br />concerns surface stabilization requirements under 30 C.F.R. 816, <br />(similar to Rule 4.14.6 promulgated under the Colorado Act).. <br />This directive does not specifically concern access roads. The <br />federal rule relates to when an operator must regrade or stabi- <br />lize rills and gullies which have formed in areas that have been <br />regraded and topsoiled. On the other hand, the rule cited in the <br />NOV specifically concerns access roads and requires that an oper- <br />ator construct and maintain roads to control or prevent erosion <br />-3- <br />