Laserfiche WebLink
Based on the information presented in the conference, I will <br /> uphold the violation. I agree there was not reasonable <br /> specificity cited in the violation. I will reduce the portion of <br /> the operation to which the NOV applies to only those for which <br /> there was evidence of erosion along a road. The first photograph <br /> shows erosion along a combination road and equipment pad. The <br /> drainage goes into a sediment pond and therefore I am not <br /> including that location. It is not clear to me that the last <br /> picture is evidence of erosion. The channel appears to be stable <br /> and therefore I am not including it either. The NOV will apply <br /> to the road erosion shown in the remaining two photos. <br /> Both of these were locations above the snow line where MCR did <br /> not plow the roads. However, they agreed with the Division's <br /> recommendation not to plow the roads. Since this was the first <br /> year with no road maintenance, I would have expected the operator <br /> to carefully monitor the road drainage to see if problems were <br /> developing. I do not buy the argument that because the Division <br /> requested them not to plow the roads they were relieved of the <br /> responsibility for correcting any problems that occurred. <br /> In response to the BTCA argument, my feeling is that if the roads <br /> cannot be maintained to the current standards for erosion control <br /> then they should be reclaimed. However, for the two locations <br /> cited in this violation, the cause of the problem was the lack of <br /> ditch maintenance. In the long run I believe there were fewer <br /> overall problems by not plowing the roads. <br /> The proposed civil penalty was: <br /> History $50.00 <br /> Seriousness $1000.00 <br /> Fault $750.00 <br /> Good Faith $0.00 <br /> Total $1800.00 <br /> Seriousness <br /> The extent of the area cited has been reduced to two locations. <br /> The gullies created by the road drainage were a result of spring <br /> runoff. Duration and extent are considered to be moderate. I <br /> propose to reduce this to $500.00. <br /> Fault <br /> As discussed above both areas being cited in this violation were <br /> above the snowline where MCR did not plow the roads. By agreeing <br /> to this plan, however MCR was not relieved of their responsibly <br /> to monitor the roads and take corrective actions if need be. I <br /> propose to reduce this to $500.00 for moderate negligence. <br /> Good Faith <br /> MCR cleared the roads to both locations the day after the <br /> 2 <br />