Laserfiche WebLink
24 <br /> road, it is a disturbed area requiring the sediment controls <br /> as outlined in Rule 4. 05 .2 (1) . Staff asked the Board to <br /> uphold the violation. <br /> Mr. Beverlin stated that the road was permitted as a light-use <br /> road to access water for dust suppression, but that the <br /> operator was deficient in not amending the plan to indicate or <br /> specify the water loadout. <br /> Staff said that the operator' s permit was revised to include <br /> the pad after the NOV was issued. Staff said that during the <br /> inspection, the surface of the pad was not a rock surface, as <br /> reported by the operator, but was mostly dirt. <br /> Board 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 /> Board Member Jouflas stated that he agreed with the comments <br /> made by Ms. Stewart. <br /> Board Member Danni stated that he felt the area in question <br /> could be considered a road and 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 /> 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. Paul stated that the road was in place when the operator <br /> installed the pump and that it had been used for other <br /> purposes. He said the fact that the area of the road in <br /> question happens to be the end of the road and the closet <br /> point to the Creek should not reflect 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 it would be prudent for an operator to install <br /> sediment controls when the activity involves the transporting, <br /> loading or switching of water. <br /> The Board briefly deliberated on the issue among themselves. <br /> The first Vote taken, regarding this matter resulted in a Tie <br /> Vote. <br />