Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and siltation, pollution of water, and damage to property. Thus, <br />the policy directive has no application to the matter at hand. <br />To the extent that such policy directive has application, <br />it is nonetheless inapposite. The directive provides that a gul- <br />ly is not itself evidence that erosion is presently occurring. <br />The directive goes on to state that where an erosional channel <br />appears stabilized, based upon a technical evaluation of active <br />versus inactive channel characteristics, the permittee is not <br />required to take any corrective action, but must monitor the site <br />for any change in status. <br />In the present case, Ms. Burgmaier not only found during <br />the inspection the existence of gullies, but also saw active ero- <br />sion that was excessive and uncontrolled. Thus, unlike the con- <br />dition described in the policy directive, here the erosional <br />channel was not stable. Accordingly, the Division properly <br />issued the NOV under § 34-33-120(2)(q) and Rule 4.03.2(1). <br />The Division respectfully requests that the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board affirm NOV C-93-024 and deny the relief sought <br />by the Applicant. <br />GALE A. NORTON <br />Attorney General <br />TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH <br />Solicitor General <br />PATRICIA S. BANGERT <br />Deputy Attorney General <br />-4- <br />