Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 6, 1991 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />and reflects no problems with respect to compliance with <br />substantive performance standards. The only compliance problem <br />noted was the administrative/record keeping problem regarding haul <br />road designation, for which NOV 91-013 was issued. Evidence <br />gathered by the MLRD in its subsequent investigation, documented by <br />the MLRD Report and video presentation, confirmed SMC's compliance <br />with the performance standards set forth in the permit and <br />applicable regulations. it is clear that the NOV was issued by the <br />MLRD solely for a violation of administrative requirements. <br />Accordingly, the required abatement, i.e. the application for and <br />approval of a technical revision to correct the problem was <br />entirely appropriate given the evidence at hand at the time of the <br />inspection, and subsequently confirmed by the MLRD's further <br />investigation. The MLRD's approval of the technical revision <br />subsequently filed by SMC in response to the NOV reflected that the <br />existing haul road met or exceeded all of the applicable <br />performance standards for haul roads, thereby further confirming <br />the MLRD's judgment that the NOV and the required abatement <br />procedures properly focused on administrative requirements. The <br />Objectors have presented no evidence that the road fails to meet <br />haul road standards. Further, they have not identified any <br />regulations or performance standards which they believe have been <br />violated other than the administrative requirements identified in <br />the NOV. Accordingly, the Objectors offer no basis for this Board <br />to modify the terms of abatement for the NOV. <br />