Laserfiche WebLink
,,,ichael Long <br />- .... December 17, 1997 • • <br />Page 2 <br />"seriousness" component of the penalty was assessed in the high "sign cant" <br />~. range carrying a fine of 51,250 and fault was assessed at low "negligence" <br />carrying a fine of $250. While the assessment was based on the fact that slope <br />failures could potentially create sign cant environmental impacts by blocking <br />the stream, this particular slope failure did not significantly impede (ff it impeded <br />at all) stream flow and MCC believes the "seriousness" component should be <br />based on the actual impacts of the violation rather than an what might have <br />happened. Hence, MCC proposes to accept this NOV and pay the penalty <br />provided the "seriousness" assessment is adjusted down to low "significant" with <br />a fine of $1,000. <br />The last NOV, captioned CV-97-110, was issued after Mr. Boulay discovered <br />that work was continuing in the area of the toe of a cutslope above the materials <br />storage bench in violation of a previous verbal directive he had given MCC to <br />cease all work on the cutslope until a formal minor revision was approved. The <br />'seriousness' component of the penalty was assessed as high "significant' <br />carrying a fine of $1,250 and the fault component was assessed as mid-range <br />'intentional" carrying a fine of $1,250. This NOV, in particular, is of concern to <br />MCC which adamantly denies that the subject activity caused significant damage <br />and further denies that it deliberately violated Mr. Boulay's directive. Rather, <br />MCC maintains that the work that occurred after the directive was in the nature <br />of Geanup activity at the toe of the cutslope for the purpose of maintaining a <br />drainage channel and to promote slope stability on the idle project pending <br />approval of the minor revision. MCC understood Mr. Boulay's verbal directive to <br />say that there should be no further exoansion of the cutslope until a minor <br />revision was approved but believed that cleanup activity (removal of previously <br />cut soil) was necessary and not incensistent with the directive. At worst, the <br />apparent intentional violation was no more than a miscommunication arising <br />from a field conversation for which MCC accepts its share of the responsibility <br />but for which MCC maintains it is being too harshly punished. Thus, MCC <br />proposes to accept this NOV and pay the penalty provided the "seriousness' <br />component is adjusted to midrange `lowlmaderate' carrying a fine of $500 and <br />the 'fault' component is adjusted to mid-range negligence' carrying a fine of <br />$500. <br />Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. Should you have any <br />questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br />Very truly yours, <br />,a. <br />~~~, <br />R. Kirk Mueller <br />