Upload File

administrative civil liability order no. r1 2012 0034

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034
31
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NORTH COAST REGION Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended February 12, 2014 In the Matter of California Department of Transportation Confusion Hill Bypass Project Complaint No. R1‐2009‐0095 WDID No. 1B05153WNME Mendocino County 1. Executive Summary This matter comes before the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) from an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint R1‐2009‐0095 dated August 13, 2009 (Complaint) issued to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), who contracted with MCM Construction, Inc. (MCM) (hereafter collectively Dischargers). (See Administrative Record (“AR”) exhibit C, Index attached to this Order as Attachment A.) The Complaint alleged violations of water quality permits for the Confusion Hill Bypass Project and proposed an administrative civil liability (ACL) in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Eleven Thousand Dollars ($1,511,000) pursuant to Water Code section 13385. A hearing took place on June 23, 2011, in accordance with the Hearing Notice and Procedure (AR, exhibit E) and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 648‐648.8. The Regional Water Board heard relevant evidence and testimony to decide whether to issue an ACL order assessing the proposed liability, a higher or lower amount, or to reject the proposed liability. To help ensure the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding, the functions of those who acted in a prosecutorial role by presenting evidence for consideration by the Regional Water Board (Prosecution Team) were separated from those who advise to the Regional Water Board (Advisory Team). Members of the Prosecution Team were subject to the prohibition on ex parte communications with the members of the Regional Water Board or the Advisory Team, just like other Parties. The Project, located in Mendocino County on Highway 101 approximately 18.5 miles south of Garberville and eight miles north of Leggett, involved relocating the highway from the east side of the South Fork Eel River (River) to the west side. (AR, exhibit H, tab 102.) This required construction of two new bridges and a new section of highway between the new bridges. The completed Project provides a reliable transportation route by permanently relocating the highway from an area subject to chronic landslides and closures. The Project was subject to water quality certification pursuant to Clean Water Act, section 401 (401 Certification), which was issued February 16, 2006 and amended on April 18,

Upload: others

Post on 25-Nov-2021

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CALIFORNIAREGIONALWATERQUALITYCONTROLBOARDNORTHCOASTREGION

AdministrativeCivilLiabilityOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014

IntheMatterof

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationConfusionHillBypassProjectComplaintNo.R1‐2009‐0095WDIDNo.1B05153WNME

MendocinoCounty

1. ExecutiveSummary

ThismattercomesbeforetheNorthCoastRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RegionalWaterBoard)fromanAdministrativeCivilLiabilityComplaintR1‐2009‐0095datedAugust13,2009(Complaint)issuedtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans),whocontractedwithMCMConstruction,Inc.(MCM)(hereaftercollectivelyDischargers).(SeeAdministrativeRecord(“AR”)exhibitC,IndexattachedtothisOrderasAttachmentA.)TheComplaintallegedviolationsofwaterqualitypermitsfortheConfusionHillBypassProjectandproposedanadministrativecivilliability(ACL)intheamountofOneMillionFiveHundredElevenThousandDollars($1,511,000)pursuanttoWaterCodesection13385.AhearingtookplaceonJune23,2011,inaccordancewiththeHearingNoticeandProcedure(AR,exhibitE)andCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,title23,sections648‐648.8.TheRegionalWaterBoardheardrelevantevidenceandtestimonytodecidewhethertoissueanACLorderassessingtheproposedliability,ahigherorloweramount,ortorejecttheproposedliability.Tohelpensurethefairnessandimpartialityoftheproceeding,thefunctionsofthosewhoactedinaprosecutorialrolebypresentingevidenceforconsiderationbytheRegionalWaterBoard(ProsecutionTeam)wereseparatedfromthosewhoadvisetotheRegionalWaterBoard(AdvisoryTeam).MembersoftheProsecutionTeamweresubjecttotheprohibitiononexpartecommunicationswiththemembersoftheRegionalWaterBoardortheAdvisoryTeam,justlikeotherParties.TheProject,locatedinMendocinoCountyonHighway101approximately18.5milessouthofGarbervilleandeightmilesnorthofLeggett,involvedrelocatingthehighwayfromtheeastsideoftheSouthForkEelRiver(River)tothewestside.(AR,exhibitH,tab102.)Thisrequiredconstructionoftwonewbridgesandanewsectionofhighwaybetweenthenewbridges.ThecompletedProjectprovidesareliabletransportationroutebypermanentlyrelocatingthehighwayfromanareasubjecttochroniclandslidesandclosures.TheProjectwassubjecttowaterqualitycertificationpursuanttoCleanWaterAct,section401(401Certification),whichwasissuedFebruary16,2006andamendedonApril18,

Page 2: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐2‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 2006.(AR,exhibitA.)Inaddition,theProjectwassubjecttotheCaltransstatewidestormwaterpermit(StormWaterPermit),issuedbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(StateWaterBoard),whichregulatesallstormwaterdischargesfromCaltrans’ownedmunicipalseparatestormsewersystems,maintenancefacilitiesandconstructionactivities.(AR,exhibitB.)TheComplaintasissuedsought$1,511,000civilliability,whichincludedstaffcostsof$70,182.(AR,exhibitC.)Duringreviewoftheevidence,ProsecutionTeamreducedtheproposedpenaltyby$222,500,butrequestedadditionalcontinuingstaffcostsof$235,500foradministrativecivilliabilitytotaling$1,524,000.(AR,exhibitF1at29.)ThisOrdersummarizesRegionalWaterBoard’sdecisionandimposespenaltiesforviolationsbasedupontheevidence,relevantfactorsandconclusionspresentedherein.TheRegionalWaterBoardordersthefollowing:

Caltransshallpayapenaltyof$405,000andstaffcostsof$70,182,foratotalliabilityof$475,182.AdetailedexplanationofthepenaltycostsisprovidedlaterinthisOrder.

Ofthetotalliability,$70,182(staffcosts)mustberemittedaspaymenttotheStateCleanupandAbatementAccountinaccordancewithWaterCodesection13399.35.

TheremainingliabilitymayeitherberemittedtotheCleanupandAbatementAccount,orusedforanenvironmentalprojectwhichmeetscriteriacontainedinthe2002EnforcementPolicy.

TheorganizationofthisOrderisasfollows:Section2discussesseveralissuesincludingtheevidentiaryrulings,multiplepermitterms,relevantfactorsanalysisandstaffcosts.Section3presentsadetaileddiscussionofpenalties(groupedintoninecategories).2. Issues2.1 EvidentiaryRulingsInpreparationforthehearing,Partiesexchangedevidence,submittedlegalargument,rebuttal,evidentiaryobjectionsandresponses.TheevidenceprovidedbytheProsecutionTeamtosupportallegedviolationsincludedemailandmemorandumfromtheCaltransStormWaterCoordinator,dailyengineeringreports,biologicalmonitoringreports(includingphotodocumentation),noticesofdischarge,andRegionalWaterBoardstaffinspectionobservations.(AR,exhibitsC&M.)Dischargersrequestedthatmuchofthisevidencebeexcludedasinadmissiblehearsayandforlackoffoundation.(AR,exhibitsG&H.)Intwoevidentiaryrulingspriortothehearing,theseobjectionswereoverruled.Thebiologicalmonitoringreportswerefoundsufficientlyreliableastheywerepreparedbyqualifiedprofessionalshiredspecificallytodocumentenvironmentalcomplianceandwerepreparedconcurrentlywiththeactivitiesdocumentedtherein.Evidenceintherecordsupportedtheapplicationofbothofficialrecordsandbusinessrecordsexceptionstothehearsayrule.(EvidentiaryRulingonHearsayObjectionstoBiologicalMonitoringReports,

Page 3: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐3‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 April27,2011.)DischargersalsoobjectedtoexhibitscontainingcorrespondencebetweenCaltransandMCMonthesubjectofwaterqualitycomplianceasinadmissiblehearsay.TheHearingOfficerfoundthatstatementsbyCaltransemployeesfellwithinthepartyadmissionexemptionofthehearsayruleanddeclarationsbyMCMfellwithinthedeclarantliabilityexceptiontothehearsayrule.(EvidentiaryRulingonObjectionstoCaltransandMCMCorrespondenceonWaterQualityCompliance,June3,2011.)ThesetworulingsareincorporatedbyreferenceintothisOrderandattachedasAttachmentBandC.(SeealsoAR,exhibitP.)Asexplainedintheserulings,certainbasicrequirementsmustbemettoconstitutesubstantialevidenceuponwhichtheRegionalWaterBoardcanrely.Documentsandotherexhibitsmusthavesomefoundationalsupporttobeproperlyadmitted;however,trial‐likefoundationisnotrequired.TheProsecutionTeamoriginallysubmittedphotographsthatwerenotlabeledorotherwiseidentified.Absentadditional,corroboratingevidence,randomphotographscouldlackfoundationsufficientfortheRegionalWaterBoardtorestafindingon.Examinationoftheentirerecordshowsthesephotosincontextwiththebiologicalmonitoringreportsthatmostoftenincludedcaptionsandexplanatorytext.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindsthatgenerallythephotographswithaccompanyingdocumentssubmittedbytheProsecutionTeamhavesufficientfoundationforthesamereasonthattheywerefoundsufficientlyreliableinthehearsayrulings.Thebiologicalmonitoringreportsweregeneratedbyprofessionalshiredtoperformenvironmentalcompliancemonitoringpursuanttoaspecificcontractandworkorder.ReportsandcommunicationsfromCaltransandMCMalsohavesufficientfoundation.ThesedocumentswereproducedbythePartiesthemselves,oftenduringornearthetimewheneventsoccurred.Anyremainingobjectionstoevidenceforlackoffoundationareoverruled.Allevidencewascloselyexaminedtodeterminewhethersuchevidencesupportedthefindingofaviolation.Incaseswhereitwasquestionablewhethertheelementsofanallegedviolationweremetbecausetheevidencewasvagueand/orambiguous,apenaltywasnotassessed.2.2ViolationofMultiplePermitTermsandConditionsTheComplaintallegedviolationsofboththe401CertificationaswellastheStormWaterPermit.ProsecutionTeamprovidedevidenceshowingthattheDischargersviolatedmultipletermsandconditionsrequiredfortheProject.Manyoftheallegedviolationsstemfromoneeventchargedundertwoormorepermitconditions.Itmaybeappropriateinsomecasestochargeseparateviolationsunderdifferentpermittermsforasingleevent;however,inthisOrderliabilityisassessedforeachviolationeventperdayratherthaneachtermorconditionviolated.

Page 4: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐4‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 2.3RelevantFactorsIndeterminingtheamountofanycivilliability,pursuanttoCaliforniaWaterCodesection13385,subdivision(e),theRegionalWaterBoardshalltakeintoaccountthenature,circumstances,extent,andgravityoftheviolation(s);whetherthedischargeissusceptibletocleanup,thedegreeoftoxicityofthedischarge,and,withrespecttotheviolator,theabilitytopay,anypriorhistoryofviolations,thedegreeofculpability,economicbenefitorsavings,ifany,resultingfromtheviolation,andothermattersthatjusticemayrequire.Ataminimum,liabilityshallbeassessedatalevelthatrecoverstheeconomicbenefits,ifany,derivedfromtheactsthatconstitutetheviolation.Relevantfactorswereconsideredintheassessmentofliabilityforeachallegedviolationinthesubcategoriesbelow,andaresummarizedmoregenerallyhere.TheProjectwasconstructedintheSouthForkoftheEelRiver,whichislistedasimpairedforsedimentpursuanttosection303(d)oftheCleanWaterAct.TheRiverisanimportantsalmonandsteelheadspawningandrearingarea.Excessivesedimentisamongthefactorsknowntocontributetothedocumenteddeclineofthesespecies.Inadditiontosalmonids,theRiverprovideshabitatforanabundanceofspecies,includingjuvenilefishandfrogs.BothjuvenilefishandfrogswerefoundinIsolatedPoolB,thelocationwhereseveralunauthorizeddischargesoccurred.Dischargersfailedtocomplywiththerequirementsofboththe401CertificationandStormWaterPermitonanumberofoccasionsforvariousactivities.Asaresult,unpermitteddischargesoccurredwithinbiologicallysensitiveareasoftheRiver.Onmanyoccasionsthedischargeswerenotadequatelymonitoredandthereforeimpactstobeneficialusesaredifficulttoassess.ViolationsfordischargestothelivechanneloftheRiver,andforfailuretomonitorandreportareassignedmaximumliabilitypereventforthesereasons.Becausecementitiousdischargescanbeseriouslyharmful,thoseviolationeventsareassignedmaximumliability.Incontrast,otherdischarges(i.e.slag)werenotdeterminedtobeparticularlyharmfulsoliabilityissignificantlyreduced.CaltransisapublicentitywhichrepresentsthebestinterestsofthepeopleofCalifornia.Thoseinterestsincludecompliancewithregulatoryrequirementsandpermits,includingthosewhichpreserveandprotectthebeneficialusesofstatewaters.CaltranshasimplementedmanyprojectsstatewideandintheNorthCoastRegion.BetweenMarch2004andJanuary2006alone,Caltransappliedforandreceived31waterqualitycertificationsintheNorthCoastRegion(RegionalBoarddatabase).CaltranshasbeenregulatedunderitsownstatewideStormWaterPermitsince1999andisfullyawareofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs),monitoring,andmanagementtechniquesnecessarytoassurepermitcomplianceandbeneficialuseprotection.(AR,exhibitB.)Therecordforthiscasecontainsevidencethatisbothencouragingandtroubling.TheRegionalWaterBoardappreciatesCaltranstakingitspermittingobligationsseriouslyasevidencedbynumerouscomplaintsandreminderstoitscontractorsofwhattherulesare.Documentsalsoshowamixofcomplianceandnon‐compliancebythecontractorsforwhichCaltransisresponsible.Manydischargesassociatedwithrubbish,debris,andleaksfromequipmentwerecleanedup.Thesecleanupactivitieshavebeentakenintoaccount

Page 5: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐5‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 anddiscussedinassociationwiththeapplicablecategorybelow.Dischargesassociatedwithdewatering,cementitiouswastes,andturbiditydischargeswereeithernotcleanedupornotsusceptibletocleanupandtherefore,reductionincivilliabilitiesforthesedischargecategoriesisnotapplicable.WhiletheRegionalWaterBoarddoesnothavepreciseinformationtocalculateeconomicsavingsresultingfromavoidingpermitrequirements,timelyimplementationofadequateBMPsandmonitoringbothcomewithconsiderablecost.TheConfusionHillBypassProjectcostover$70million.(AR,exhibitCat19.)ThecivilliabilityassessedinthisOrderissmallincomparisontothecostoftheProject.Caltranshasnotindicatedaninabilitytopayorcontinueinbusinessrelatedtothisadministrativecivilliability.CaltranshasahistoryofwaterqualityviolationsreflectedinthisProjectandothers.FortheConfusionHillProject,theRegionalWaterBoardissueditsfirstNoticeofViolationonOctober30,2006(AR,exhibitA‐4),andasecondonNovember27,2006(AR,exhibitA‐5).ManyviolationscametotheRegionalWaterBoardstaff’sattentionthroughthirdpartyreportsandphotographsratherthanreporteddirectlytotheRegionalWaterBoardbyCaltrans.Thisisproblematicbecausewaterqualityprogramsandpermitsrelyheavilyonself‐monitoringandreportingrequirements.TheConfusionHillBypassProjectwassuccessfullycompletedin2009.TheRegionalWaterBoardrecognizesthattheProjectwascompletedusinglessconcrete,fewerRivercrossingsandlessaccessroadsthanoriginallyprojected;(AR,exhibitH‐1at2‐4)theoretically,thisresultedinlessoverallimpactstowaterqualityassociatedwiththeProject.Uponcompletion,theProjectwasawardedprojectoftheyearin2009fromtheCaliforniaTransportationAssociation.(Id.)ThemagnitudeoftheProjectandthedifficultiesassociatedwithitsconstructionweretakenintoaccountwhenreducingliabilitiesforleakyequipmentandgarbageviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardrecognizesthatacertainamountofleaksandtrashcanbeexpectedforaprojectofthissize.TheseconsiderationsareincorporatedintoallaspectsofthisOrder,includingthedecisiontonotfindviolationsformultiplepermitterms,andtonotassessliabilitywhentherecordshowsthatcleanuptimelyoccurred.2.4StaffCostsStaffcostsmaybeoneofthe“otherrelevantfactorsthatjusticemayrequire”underWaterCodesection13385,subdivision(e).(See2002EnforcementPolicyat40;seealsoCal.CodeRegs.,tit.23,§2910[repealedandreplacedby2010EnforcementPolicy].)TheProsecutionTeamestimateditsinitialstaffcostsforthisenforcementactionat$70,182.Duringreviewoftheevidence,ProsecutionTeamreducedthetotalpenaltysoughtby$222,500,butrequestedcontinuingstaffcostsof$235,500foradministrativecivilliabilitytotaling$1,524,000.TheComplaintdidnotincludenoticetoDischargersthatstaffcostswouldcontinuetoaccrue.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardwillonlyrequirepaymentfornoticedstaffcostsof$70,182.

Page 6: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐6‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 3. DiscussionofPenalties

Thefollowingsub‐sectionsprovideamoredetailedexplanationofthepenaltiesdeterminedbytheRegionalWaterBoard.3.1 OrganizationTheComplaintincluded296allegedviolationsofthe401CertificationandStormWaterPermit.TheProsecutionTeamgroupedviolationsintothefollowingninecategories:A. ConstructionDewateringB. LeakyEquipmentC. SlagDischargesD. TurbidDischargestotheRiverE. InsufficientTurbidityMeasurementsF. CementitiousDischargesG. RubbishandDebrisDischargesH. IndividualEventsI. StormWaterPermitViolationswerelistedineachcategorychronologicallybydate.Caltranssubmitteda“DefenseMatrix”thatfollowedthesamesequencing.(AR,exhibitG‐2.)Duetothelargenumberofallegedviolations,theAdvisoryTeamrequestedthatProsecutionTeamspecifyauniqueidentifierforeachallegedviolationtoprovideapointofreferenceforthePartiesandtheRegionalWaterBoard.(AR,exhibitI.)Inresponse,theProsecutionTeamassignednumbersinsequencetoeachallegedviolationinaccordancewiththedateofoccurrence(violations1through296),butnotchronologicallywithineachcategory.(AR,exhibitN.)Asaresult,thenumbersdonottrackconsecutivelywithineachsection.Also,becausetheProsecutionTeamoftenallegedviolationsformultiplepermitterms,violationnumbersmaybegroupedintwosorthreesforagivenevent.ToprovidecontextandtomaintainconsistencywiththeComplaintandtheorganizationalstructurethatfollowed,thisOrderwilladdresseachallegedviolationbycategory,usingtheidentificationnumberasprovidedintheviolationmatrix.

Page 7: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐7‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 3.2DischargeViolationsbyCategoryCategoryAConstructionDewatering

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$340,000for34allegedviolationsforconstructiondewateringactivities.Dewateringisacommonactivityonconstructionsitesinvolvingremovalordraininggroundwaterorsurfacewater,inthiscasefromariverbed,bypumping.Dewateringisconductedbeforeorduringexcavationtolowerthewatertableforplacementoffoundationsandstructuralsupports.Dewateringactivitiesinvariablyrequireapointofdisposalforthewaterbeingremoved.Thesedischargesarenotjustpurewater,butusuallycontainotherconstituentssuchassediment.MCMdisposedofdewateringwastestoatleasttwolocationsonthegravelbaroftheRiver:(1)onthebaritself,and(2)inatemporarysedimentationbasinthathadbeenconstructedandusedwithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannelreferredtoasIsolatedPoolB(AR,exhibitC,finding8).Thesedischargesoccurredwithoutproperpermittingforseveralmonths,andafterCaltransstaffidentifiedthispracticeasacompliancedeficiencyonAugust22,2006(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).AlthoughCaltrans'ConstructionStormWaterCoordinatorWaltDragaloskiinspectedthesiteinmid‐August,2006toevaluatepermitcompliance,evidenceintherecordshowsthatintentionaldischargestoIsolatedPoolBandthegravelbarpersistedunpermittedintoOctober.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48.)Condition12ofthe401Certificationspecifiedthatanydisposalofdewateringwastestowatersofthestatewouldrequireadditionalpermitting.1Inaddition,Condition9prohibitedanydischargeofwastetowatersofthestatenotauthorizedbythepermit.Condition17requiredthatallactivitiesbeconductedasdescribedinthepermitandtheapplicationforthepermit.Condition7requiredadequatesedimentandturbidityBMPs.(AR,exhibitA.)Absentanadditionalpermitauthorizingdischargesofthisnature,constructiondewateringeventsviolatedConditions7,9,12,and17ofthe401Certification.TheviolationsallegedbyProsecutionTeamoccurin“twos”and“threes”basedonProsecutionTeamproposingviolationsofallapplicable401Certificationconditionsforonedischargeevent.However,theRegionalWaterBoardhasassessedcivilliabilityineachinstancefortheevent,ratherthanoverlappingconditions.Inlightofthedisregardforpermitconditions,andevidenceofharmtobeneficialusesassociatedwithIsolatedPoolB,themaximumpenaltyforeacheventshallbeimposed.ConstructiondewateringdischargesintoIsolatedPoolBandontothegravelbarwarrantthemaximumpenaltyof$10,000becausetheevidencedescribesanddepictsintentionalunpermitteddischargesofwastedirectlytowatersofthestate.

1 Condition12provided:“Ifconstructiondewateringisfoundtobenecessary,theapplicantwillusea

methodofwaterdisposalotherthandisposaltosurfacewaters(suchaslanddisposal)ortheapplicantshallapplyforcoverageundertheGeneralConstructionDewateringPermitandreceivenotificationofcoveragetodischargetosurfacewaters.”ApermitobtainedinaccordancewithCondition12wouldhaverequiredamongothercriteria,anapplicationtodischarge,alistofalternativesavailableotherthandischargingtosurfacewater,andcompliancewithBasinPlanreceivingwaterlimits,suchasnoincreaseofturbiditybeyond20%abovebackground(OrderNo.93‐61).

Page 8: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐8‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 Asdescribedinmoredetailbelowforeachviolationevent,evidenceintherecordshowsthatconstructiondewateringwastesweredischargedtoIsolatedPoolBandthegravelbaroftheEelRiver.ThebiologicalmonitoringreportdatedSeptember9,2006describesIsolatedPoolBasoneoftwo“naturalgravelbar/bedrock‐formedpoolsattheBZ[blastzone]onthegravelbar”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13).PhotographicevidencefurtherdepictsIsolatedPoolBasanunlineddepressionlocatedwithinthegravelsoftheRiverincloseproximitytotheflowingchannel(AR,exhibitJ‐4at6,60,11&55).“TheIsolatedPoolBonthegravelbaroftheBlastZonewasfilledinbyrockdebrisandgravelsfromthefalseworkfootingpreparationandextractionofbargravelsfromthecofferdamsholesinthebaritselfandtwojuvenileyellow‐leggedfrogswereeitherkilledordisplacedinthisprocess.Therewereatleast2frogsthatresidedthereduringtransectspriorthisseasonandasrecentlyas27Sept.ofthislastweek.Thepoolwascompletelyfilledinbytheeveningof28Sept.2006(personalobservation).PriortoitsuseasanunlinedsettlingbasinitcontainedanisolatedschoolofjuvenileSacramentopikeminnow(ca.25)andupto6metamorphosingyellow–leggedfrogjuveniles.Morerecently,asithasbeendegradedoverlast3‐5weeks,itusuallycontainedaremaining2‐3frogsonadailybasis.IbelieveIreportedfindingadeadjuvenilepikeminnowthereinapreviousreportwhenitwasusedasasettlementbasin”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab28).

CaltransarguedthatuseofIsolatedPoolBrepresentsadischargetoa“sedimentbasin”onthegravelbar,andnottowatersofthestateinviolationofcondition12(AR,exhibitG‐2).Pursuanttothe401Certificationapplication,asedimentationbasinatleast100feetfromtheRivercouldhavebeenauthorizedforconstructiondetwateringdischarges.(AR,exhibitH‐2,tab101at9.)ARegionalWaterBoardstaffpersontestifiedthatitprobablywouldnotmatterifthesedimentbasinwas70feetawayfromthestreamratherthan100feetawayasproposedintheapplication.(AR,exhibitH‐2,tab108at54.)MCMsuggeststhatbecausedischargeswouldhavebeenauthorized100feetaway,theunauthorizeddischarge70feetorclosershouldbeexcused.Thedischargewithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannelcannotbeexcused.First,regardlessofwhetheraRegionalWaterBoardemployeetestifiedthatadischargeclosertotheRivermighthavebeenallowed,Dischargersshouldhavesoughtpermissiontodischargewasteandfailedtodoso.WhileCondition17doesprovidethatactivitiesbeconductedasdescribedinthepermitandapplication,Condition12explicitlyrequiresadditionalpermittingbeforeanydisposalofdewateringwastes.Inthiscase,Condition12isthemorespecificandstringentandshallcontrol.ItispossiblethattheproposedsitewouldnothavebeenappropriateoradditionalBMPswouldhavebeennecessaryafteranevaluationofthecircumstances.Also,therecordshowsthattheunauthorizeddischargesoccurredsometimesascloseas15feetfromtheactivechannel.Second,itappearsthatatleastonelocationwhereunauthorizeddischargesoccurredsupportedbeneficialusesandwouldnothavebeenapprovedforanywastedisposal.Third,theStormWaterPermitrequiredtheapplicationofBMPNS‐2,whichprovides,"[a]dewateringplanisattachedtothisSWPPP.Dewateringwillbeperformedduringthepileconstructionportionofthisproject.Detwateredmaterialwillbepumpedintotanksinordertoallowsedimentto

Page 9: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐9‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 settle.Thematerialwillbefilteredandreturnedtotheriverorhauledtoadisposalsite.AlldewateringactivitieswillconformtoBMPNS‐2"(AR,exhibitB‐3).Condition9provided:“Nodebris,soil,silt,sand,bark,slash,sawdust,rubbish,cementorconcretewashings,oilorpetroleumproducts,orotherorganicorearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.”(AR,exhibitA.)UndertheWaterCode,“watersofthestate”means“anysurfacewaterorgroundwater,includingsalinewaters,withintheboundariesofthestate.”(Wat.Code,§13050,subd.(e).)IsolatedPoolBwaslocatedbelowmeanhighwateroftheriverandthereforeawaterofthestate,notasedimentationbasin(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48at250).Also,thecharacteristicsofIsolatedPoolBaredifferentfromthe‘gravelbar’becausethepoolcontainedwaterpriortodisposalofwastesandsupportedaquaticlife(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13at95).Inaddition,thegravelbaralsoconstituteswatersofthestatebecausetheseareasarepartoftheactivechannelduringvaryingtimesoftheyeardependentuponseasonalfluctuations,andthereforeanyunpermittedconstructiondewateringdischargestothegravelbarviolatedthe401Certification.OnAugust21,2006,MCMdischargedturbidwaterthroughapipeintoIsolatedPoolB(violation2,3,4)asshownthroughphotodocumentationpresentedinthebiologicalmonitoringreports(AR,exhibitJ‐4at2).Mr.DragaloskidocumentedthepresenceofIsolatedPoolBasatemporarysedimentationbasinthathadbeenconstructedandusedwithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannel(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputetheseviolationsbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.FromAugust29throughAugust31,2006,violations17‐19,22‐24,and28‐30resultedfromdewateringoverathreedayperiodintoIsolatedPoolBduringconstructionofthefootingsforthetemporarytrestle(AR,exhibitM‐Tab59).ProlongeddewateringathighratesandresultingdischargeintoIsolatedPoolBoverfilledIsolatedPoolBandtheresultanthydrostaticpressurethroughthegravelbarcausedturbidityintheactivechannelonAugust29thand30th(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs11and64).ThefillingofIsolatedPoolBisdepictedinphotodocumentationpresentedinthebiologicalmonitoringreports(AR,exhibitJ4at6).WastedischargesoccurringbetweenAugust29thandAugust31stassociatedwithdewateringactivitiesresultedinthetemporaryfillingoftheIsolatedPoolBwithlooserocks,gravelandwater(AR,exhibitM‐Tab64).AnyremovalthatmayhavebeenconductedtorestorenaturalconditionsinIsolatedPoolBisnotdocumentedintherecord.CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputetheseviolationsbutobjectedtocertainfinesundermultiplepermitterms.(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforeachdaythatthisdischargeactivitytookplace.DewateringactivitiesconductedforconstructionofthefootingsforthetemporarytrestlecontinuedonAugust31stafterIsolatedPoolBwasfilledwithdebriswastedischarges.Dewateringwastewaspumpeddirectlyontothegravelbaradjacenttothecofferdamsresultinginviolation31‐33(AR,exhibitM‐Tab63).Thesectionofthegravelbarusedwasapproximately15feetfromtheactivechannel,maybecloser.(Id.)Caltransobjectedtoviolation31‐33,statingthattheevidencedoesnotspecifyadateofviolation,amountof

Page 10: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐10‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 waterpumped,orlengthoftimewaterwaspumped(AR,exhibitG‐2).Thebiologicalmonitor’sreport(AR,exhibitM‐Tab63)stateshowever,thatthedischargeofwastefromdewateringactivitiescontinuedonthegravelbarimmediatelyfollowingthedescriptionofdewateringeventsonAugust29ththroughAugust31st,givingaspecificdescriptionoftheproximitytotheactivechannel.Therefore,itisreasonabletoassessthisviolationonoraboutAugust31,2006.Failuretocitethedurationandvolumeofthewastedischargedoesnotapplyinthisinstanceasthisviolationdoesnotdependuponthosefactors,butrathertheintentionaldischargeofdewateringwastetowatersofthestatewithoutapermit.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation37‐39stemsfromaCaltransdailyengineeringreportdatedSeptember5,2006,documentingdewateringactivitiesassociatedwiththeB5cofferdam(AR,exhibitM‐Tab11at82).TherecordshowsthatMCMdischargeddewateringwastesduringplacementofsealcoarseconcreteforthefootingatB5ontherockimmediatelyoutsidethecofferdam.Again,nopermitwasobtainedasrequiredunderCondition12ofthe401Certification.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation55‐57stemsfromdocumentationinaSeptember11,2006,Caltransassistantresidentengineer’sdailyreport(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15).ProsecutionTeamallegedviolationsforconstructiondewateringtoIsolatedPoolBinconsistentwiththe401Certificationapplicationandwithoutproperpermits.BaseduponpriorandcontinuingdewateringactivitiesbytheDischargers,thesewasteswerelikelydischargedtowatersofthestate.However,therecorddoesnotindicatethelocationtowhichwastefrompumpingoutofthecorrugatedmetalpipewasdirected.ProsecutionTeamfailedtoestablishthisfactintherecord.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoarddoesnotimposeliabilityforconstructiondewateringonthisday.

OnOctober3,2006,wastewasdischargedfromdewateringassociatedwithdredgeactivitiesonthegravelbarwithin50feetoftheactivechanneljustoutsidethesteelplatecofferdam(AR,exhibitM‐Tab29),resultinginviolation84‐86.ThiswastedischargeviolationwasidentifiedbyCaltransstaff,RichThompson,whorequiredtheMCMtoceaseandmodifythisactivity.Mr.Thompsondocumentedtheviolationonthedayofoccurrenceontheassistantstructurerepresentative’sdailyreport.(Id.)MorethansixweeksintotheProjectactivities,CaltranscontinuedtocorrectMCMandnotedanapparentdisregardforproperconstructiondewateringBMPs.(Id.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.ThreedayslaterduringanOctober6,2006,RegionalWaterBoardcomplianceinspection,staffobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedintoIsolatedPoolB,resultinginviolation93‐95.Staffdocumentedtheunauthorizeddischargeinaphoto(AR,exhibitsM‐Tab48andJ‐4at60).StafffollowedtheinspectionwithawrittenNoticeofViolationonOctober30,2006(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation96‐98reliesuponobservationsofthebiologicalmonitordocumentedforOctober7,2006,inaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportwhichstates,“[d]ewateringofthefootingsonthegravelbarcausedsomeconcern…siltywaterwasnotbeingdepositedinthe

Page 11: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐11‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 approvedarea70‐feetawayfromtheriver[IsolatedPoolB]”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32).WhileProsecutionTeamstaffmayhavecorrectlyassumedthatdewateringwastesweredepositedtoanareawithinwatersofthestate,documentationofthisactivityisnotestablishedintheevidenceprovided.Therefore,civilliabilitieswillnotbeimposedforthisevent.

DuringaroutineinspectiononNovember14,2006,theassistantresidentengineerobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedfromthedrillingoperationdrainingontotherockwithinthe100yearfloodplain(AR,exhibitM‐Tab57),resultinginviolation147.CaltransstafftoldMCMstaffthatthisactivitywasinviolationofthepermits.(Id.)AdditionalnotesfromasecondassistantresidentengineerfromNovember14indicatethatasofmid‐November,nospecificplanwasinplacetocontrolwater[removed]fromexcavations(AR,exhibitM‐Tab58).Caltrans’photocontainsahandwrittennotestating;“PumpingH2Odirectlyintogravelbardocumentstheactivity”(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC).InadditiontoviolatingCondition9,12and17,thisviolationeventoccurredaftertheOctober31stdeadlineforperformingworkinwatersoftheUnitedStatesasspecifiedin401CertificationCondition16.ThisshowsdisregardforpermitrequirementsandproperBMPsassociatedwithconstructiondewatering.

CaltransarguedthattheevidencedoesnotmeettheburdenofproofbecausethereferencetopermitsinthedailyengineeringreportisambiguousandtheevidenceappearstoreferenceanactivityoccurringonNovember13th(AR,exhibitG‐2).TheevidenceappearstodocumentthedischargeofdewateringwastesontothegravelbaronbothNovember13and14,2006.TheProsecutionTeamhadalreadyconcededaviolationforNovember13thandonlychargesfordewateringviolationsonthesecondday.Thisisareasonableapproach.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.

OntheMarch7,2007,dailyinspection,CaltransassistantresidentengineerobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedunderanOregonOakTree(AR,exhibitM‐Tab75),resultinginviolation152.ThebrownishwaterflowedoverlandtotheEelRiverside‐channeldiscoloringthewaters.(Id.)CaltransarguedthatthecitedevidenceindicatesasmalldischargeofnativewatersshouldbepermissibleaccordingtodiscussionwithRegionalWaterBoardstaff(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,allegeddiscussionswithRegionalWaterBoardstaffandthecontextwerenotprovided.NoevidenceintherecordindicatesorsuggeststhatRegionalWaterBoardstaffauthorizeddischargesofturbidwatertotheRiverinanyamount.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor34violationsassociatedwith12constructiondetwateringeventstotalingaliabilityof$340,000.However,uponreviewoftheevidence,allegedviolationsforeventsoccurringonSeptember11,andOctober7,2006(violations55and96)arechargedbaseduponevidenceintherecordthatiseitherunclearordoesnotadequatelysupporttheviolations.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfinds10violationeventsestablishedintherecordforatotalpenaltyof$100,000.

Page 12: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐12‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 CategoryBLeakyEquipment

ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor28leakyequipmentviolationsat$150,000.Asexplainedbelow,theevidenceshowsthattherewerenumerousminorleaksandspillsbutmostofthesewerecleanedupquickly.Monitorswerevigilantinidentifyingproblemsandimplementingcontrols,whichiswhatisneededandrequiredforeffectivepermitimplementation.Someoftheeventschargedasviolationsdonotwarrantimposingfinesassmalldischargescanbeexpectedandwerecleanedup.Therewereseveralchronicproblemsthatthecontractoreitherignoredorwastooslowtocorrect.Itisappropriatetoassessliabilitywhentheevidenceshowsdeliberateand/orchronicnoncompliancewiththerulesdesignedtopreventandminimizethesetypesofdischarges.Manyoftheallegedviolationsappearinmultiplesstemmingfromoneeventchargedundertwoormorepermitconditions,oftenCertificationConditions9and13.Condition9ofthewaterqualitycertificationprovided:“Nodebris,soil,silt,sand,bark,slash,sawdust,rubbish,cementorconcretewashings,oilorpetroleumproducts,orotherorganicorearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.”Condition13provided:“Fueling,lubrication,maintenance,storageandstagingofvehiclesandequipmentshallbeoutsideofwatersoftheUnitedStatesandshallnotresultinadischargeorathreateneddischargetowatersoftheUnitedStates.Atnotimeshallapplicantuseanyvehicleorequipment,whichleaksanysubstancethatmayimpactwaterquality.”(AR,exhibitA.)LeakyequipmentisalsoaddressedundertheStormWaterPermit.BMPNS‐10providesthatleaksberepairedimmediatelyorremovetheproblemvehiclefromtheproject.(AR,exhibitB‐3;F‐3tabB.)Itmaybeappropriatetochargeseparateviolationsunderdifferentpermittermsforasingleeventinsomecases;however,hereweagreewithCaltransthat“double‐dipping”withmultiplecatch‐allpermitconditionsisnotappropriate.Violations6and7addressaleakingbackhoeontheriverbaronAugust22,2006.Thissameeventistaggedforstormwaterfineviolation294.ACaltransemaildatedAugust25notedthatadischargeofoilwentdirectlyontheriverbar,whichisanenvironmentallysensitivearea,andtherewerenoBMPsinplacetopreventthedischargedoilfromreachingtheriverbar.UndertheSWPPP,thedischargeshouldhavebeenreportedtotheREandcleanedupimmediately.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8.)CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms.(AR,exhibitsG‐2;T‐2;H‐2tab100.)Violations8and9arebasedononephotographtakenAugust29,2006showingstainedgravelplacedinbuckets.Itseemsinappropriatetoassessafinewhentheonlyevidencecitedshowsthatthespillwascleanedup.Violations53and54arebasedononephotographtakenSeptember9,2006captioned“Photoofoilfromleakyequipment.”(AR,exhibitJ‐4at15.)Violations66and67aresolelysupportedbyaphototakenonSeptember26,2006,captioned“dirtroadwithmanyoilstains.”(AR,exhibitJ‐4at35.)Whilethesephotographstechnicallycoulddocumentsometypeofdischarge,wedonotfindsufficientevidencetosupportaviolationwarrantingtheliabilityproposed.Thesephotos,however,

Page 13: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐13‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 arerelevanttoshowacontinuingpatternthatbecomesmoreproblematicastheprojectwenton.TheURSDecember2006FinalReportnotedthat“[s]omeequipmentseemedtosufferfromchronicleaks.Thosewerephoto‐documentedandpresentedtoCaltransinspectors(Figure42[showingoilleaksontrestlefromcrane].)Mostleakswerecleaneduppromptlywhenpointedoutbythemonitors.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at6‐24.)Violations70and71addressoilleaksontheuncontainedtrestledeckonSeptember27,supportedbyphotosdatedSeptember27,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at45.)Violations86and87stemfromtheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober2‐7,2006,whichnotedthat“oilanddieselstainsonthegravelbarwereidentifiedforcleanup.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32at191.)Again,thereisnotsufficientevidencesupportingtheliabilityproposedforthesetypesofevents.Violations88and89stemfromaninspectionreportbyRegionalWaterBoardstaffaftervisitingthesiteonOctober6,2006.ThatinspectionresultedinaNoticeofViolation(NOV)datedOctober30,2006.(AR,exhibitA‐4.)OnOctober6,2006,staffobservedabackhoeonthegravelbarwithexcessivefluidleaks.Eventhoughabsorbentragswerestuffedintocrevicestocontroltheleakage,theequipmentwasnotinadequateconditiontobeusedatthatlocation.Severalphotographsfromthatdayshowequipmentonplastictarps.TheNOVrequestedthatCaltransimplementadequateBMPsimmediatelyandsubmitareportbyNovember15describingactionstakentoaddressallareasofnon‐compliance.(Id.at3.)TherecordshowsthatCaltransdidtakeseveralactionsinanefforttoremedytheviolations(AR,exhibitM‐Tab59)althoughitisnotentirelyclearwhetherthefinalresultwasacceptable.Violations107‐110stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober9‐14,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab34.)OnOctober11,themonitorfoundanIRcompressorleakingexcessivelyanddiapersandplasticsheetswereemployed.ThemonitoralsonotedaleakfromtheManitowoccrane.Plasticsheetingcatchingoilandhydraulicleakshadsplitonseveraloccasions.OnOctober12,themonitornotedthatoilanddieselstainsonthegravelbarwereidentifiedforcleanup.TheseactionsaresupportedbyphotographstakenOctober12,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at67‐69.)Again,evidenceshowingminorleaksidentifiedforclean‐updonotsupporttheimpositionoftheproposedpenalties.Incontrast,violations129and130stemfromadisturbingweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober23‐28,2006.OnOctober27,themonitornoted:“Oilleakscontinuetooccurwithoutadequatecleanuporpreventionwithkiddypoolsanddiapers.Mostoftheheavyequipmentusedonthisprojectisoldandleakconstantly.Overnightoilspotsareoftennotprevented,andoftenjustcoveredupwithsoilbyapatheticworkersthenextmorning,ifatall.TheManatowoc[sic]craneonthefalsebridge,theLINKmanliftonthegravelbar,theCAT350aretheworstoffenders.ThishasbeenbroughttotheattentionofMCMonmanyoccasions,withnosatisfactoryresolution.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab46at240‐241.)LeakswerealsodocumentedbyphotostakenonOctober27.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at104‐106.)Violations134and135stemfromadditionalphotosofleakyequipmenttakenonOctober30,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at109‐113.)Violations139and140arebasedonaphotograph

Page 14: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐14‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 takenOctober31,2006,showingequipmentleakingoilontotheground.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at124.)Violations142and143stemfromareportofasitevisitconductedbyaCaltransemployeereviewingstormwaterBMPsonNovember3.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Henotedthat“[t]hecraneisbeingusedonthetrestlehasleakingfluids.Thishasbeennotedmanytimesearlier.Thecontractorhasattachedapieceofplasticunderthecrane,buttheplasticcatchesbothoilleaksandstormwater.Thereisevidenceonthetrestledeckthatoilthat[sic]hasleakedofftheplastic.Iobservedcommingledoilwithwaterontheplasticduringmysitevisit.Irecommendthatthecraneberepairedimmediatelyordiscontinueitsuse.”(Id.at286.)AssummarizedintheDecemberbiologicalmonitoringreport,theManitowoccrane,themanliftonthegravelbar,andtheCAT350were“mainoffenders”foroilandhydraulicleaks,andweredifficulttocorrect.Recommendationssuchasplacingsheetsofplasticunderthevehiclesdidnotworkproperly.Oilleaksimprovedovertimebutremainedproblematicthroughoutthemonitoringperiod.ThecontractorwastoldtoremovetheManitowoccranefromthetrestledeckatnighttoavoidleaksintotheriveratthebeginningofNovember.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at441.)Therecordisnotclearwhethertheproblemwiththecranewasremedied.Evenwhenassessingliabilityperviolationeventratherthanperpermitcondition,itcanstillbeproblematictolevya$10,000fineforeachdropofoilthatincidentallyspills.Itisunrealistictoexpectaprojectofthismagnitudetonothaveminorleaksanddischarges,anduseofadministrativeenforcementforthesetypesofviolationsmaynotbeappropriate,especiallywhenthephotographicevidenceshowscleanupsinprogress.However,therewereseveralchronicproblemsthatthecontractoreitherignoredorwastooslowtocorrect.Aneffectivestormwaterprogramrequireson‐the‐groundresponsivenessandimplementation.Itisappropriatetoassessliabilitywhentheevidenceshowsdeliberateand/orchronicnoncompliancewiththerulesdesignedtopreventandminimizethesetypesofdischarges.TherecordshowsanunauthorizeddischargeoccurringontheriverbarwithoutanyBMPsonAugust22,2006.Inaddition,sufficientevidencesupportsfindingviolationsforleakyequipmentonOctober6,October27,andNovember3,2006.ViolationofCondition13isnotdependentupontheshowingofanactualdischarge.Therecordshowsachronicproblemwithcertainequipmentandasomewhatrecalcitrantcontractor.Therecordshowsunwillingnessbythecontractortoaddresstheproblemswiththecraneontheuncontainedtrestledeck,discussedunderfurthertheStormWaterPermitaswell.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsfourviolationsforatotalof$25,000liabilityforleakyequipment.CategoryCSlagDischarges

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$50,000for15slagdischargeviolationsfromweldingandsteelcutting.AgaintheProsecutionteamallegedviolationsinpairsforoneeventviolatingCertificationconditions9and12.Forviolations90and91,ProsecutionTeamcitedtheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober2‐7,inwhichthemonitoridentifiedmoltenslagdischarges.“Moltenslagwasobserveddrippingintotheriverat2:20pm,usingnobuckettocatchtheexcess.Thisactivitywasterminated,butnotbefore

Page 15: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐15‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 noticeableamountsofslag,smallsheetsofrustymetal,weldingrods,andotherdebrishadaccumulatedintheriverchannel.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32at191.)Thatsameday,RegionalBoardstaffinspectedthesiteandissuedaNoticeofViolationidentifyingslagdischargesnothavingproperBMPs,andstronglanguagetofiximmediately.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48at251[“Weldingslagwasobservedtobefallingdirectlyintothewaterandtheadjacentgravelbar”].)TheproblemcontinuedonOctober26,andmonitors“havetotellthemdayafterday”tonotdothat.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab45.)WeldingcontinuedtofallwithoutmitigationbyOctober28.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab46at242.)CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputemostoftheslagdischargeviolationsbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermittermsandtheamountofproposedliability.(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100.)Slagdischargespresentalowimpacttowaterquality;however,therecordshowsdisregardbythecontractorafterbeingrepeatedlyremindedtoimplementBMPsforthisactivity.Forthisreason,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsthata$5,000penaltyisappropriatefortheviolationthatoccurredonOctober6,2006,andevidenceofthecontinuingviolationscitedabove.CategoryDTurbidDischargestotheRiver

TheProsecutionTeamalleged20violationsforturbiddischargestotheRiver,resultinginaproposedpenaltyof$150,000.Violation150isdiscussedinCategoryHIndividualEventsbelowduetotheuniquecircumstancesinvolvedwiththatevent.Turbidityisameasureofwaterclarityandhowmuchthematerialsuspendedinwaterdecreasesthepassageoflightthroughthewater.Suspendedmaterialscanincludesoilparticles(clay,silt,andsand),algae,plankton,microbes,andothersubstances.Higherturbiditycanincreasewatertemperaturesbecausesuspendedparticlesabsorbheat.This,inturn,reducestheconcentrationofdissolvedoxygen(DO)becausewarmwaterholdslessDOthancoldwater.Suspendedmaterialscancauseadversebiologicaleffects,suchascloggingfishgills,reducingresistancetodiseaseinfish,loweringgrowthrates,andaffectingeggandlarvaldevelopment.Assuspendedparticlessettle,theycanblanketthestreambottom,especiallyinslowerwaters,andsmotherfisheggsandbenthicmacroinvertebrates(http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm).Condition7ofthe401Certificationprovided:“AdequateBMPsforsedimentandturbiditycontrolshallbeimplementedandinplacepriorto,during,andafterconstructioninordertoensurethatnosiltorsedimententerssurfacewaters.”(AR,exhibitA[emphasisadded].)InorderforaBMPtobeadequate,nosiltorsedimentmustentersurfacewater.Condition9prohibitedthedischargeofunauthorizedwastetowatersofthestate.Condition17requiredthatactivities,BMPsandassociatedmitigationbeconductedasdescribedinthePermitandapplication.(AR,exhibitA.)TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotdoubleortriplethepenaltypursuanttomultiplepermitconditions.CategoryDviolationsapplytounpermittedturbiddischargestosurfacewaterincreasingsurfacewaterturbidityforwhichBMPswereinadequateandthereforethemaximumliabilityof$10,000isappliedtoeachdischargeevent.OnSeptember9,2006,violation51wasidentifiedbythebiologicalmonitor,CarlPage(AR,exhibitM‐Tab19).Mr.Pageestimatedthat2.5gallonsoffinerockdebrisdischargeddirectlyintotheflowingchanneloftheriver.Further,Mr.Pageindicatedthatthissameactivityoccurredlaterthatsamedayandagaintwodayslater.(Id.)Caltransstaffidentified

Page 16: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐16‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 thisactivityasaconcernbaseduponthephotosofdrillingdebrisintheriveraroundafooting(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15).Caltransarguedthatthecitedevidencedoesnotcorrespondwiththephotospresented(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,therecordshowsthattheengineeringdiarywasgeneratedinresponsetoactivitieswhichwereplainlydocumentedinthebiologicalmonitorreportforSeptember9through15(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs15and19).Nevertheless,asingleviolationforthisseriesofthreeeventswascharged.Baseduponthediscussionintheengineeringdiary(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15),dischargesfromthisactivitywereapparentlypreventableasthecontractorusedabaffletokeepdrillingdebriscontainedandCaltrans’follow‐upinvestigationonSeptember11,2006oftheincidentrevealednofurtherdischarges.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.OnSeptember22,2006,violation64wasidentifiedbythebiologicalmonitor,BradfordNorman(AR,exhibitM‐Tab25).CrossingofthewettedchannelwithoutimplementingappropriateBMPsresultedindischargeofsedimentcausingaplumeapproximately400feetlongwhichlastedabout50minutes(AR,exhibitM‐Tb25andTab62).Theequipmentcrossingwasplannedseveraldaysinadvance.DespiteamplenoticeandtimetoprepareforimplementationofappropriateBMPs(AR,exhibitM‐Tab23),fourlargepiecesofequipmentcrossedthechannelwithinaspanoftwominuteswithoutadequatecleaning(AR,exhibitM‐Tab25).Itisunclearwhetherthefailuretocleantheequipment,thespeedofthecrossings,orsomecombinationofthesefactorsresultedinthedischarge.None‐the‐less,BMPsusedforthisactivitywerenotadequatetocomplywithCondition7.Caltranscorrectlyassertedthatheavyequipmentcrossingswereapermittedactivity.The401CertificationcontemplatesandpermitsrivercrossingsprovidedthatBMPsforsedimentandturbiditycontrolareimplementedasnon‐compensatorymitigation(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,therecordshowsacleardisregardforproperproceduresidentifiedfortheprotectionofwaterqualityandthattheseactionsresultedinthedischargeofsedimenttothestreaminviolationofpermittedactivities(AR,exhibitM‐Tab24).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.OnSeptember29,2006,violations73and75wereidentifiedbytheCaltransassistantresidentengineer(AR,exhibitM‐Tab26).Duringtheplacementofconcreteforbridgefootingsbelowtheflowingchannel,thecontractordidnotprovideadequatesealforconcretecontainment.Asaresult,concreteescapedthecorrugatedmetalpipe,causinga150footlongplumeintheriver.(Id.)Aseconddischargeofturbidityoccurredwhilethecontractorstoodonthesandbagsoutsidethecorrugatedmetalpipetryingtoreattachaconcretetremie,whichhadapparentlycomeapartduringthepour.Itisunclearwhetherthesecondplumewastheresultofconcretedischargesorthedisturbanceofriverbottomdeposits.Caltransarguedthattheplumesmayhavebeencomposedofmaterialsotherthanconcrete(AR,exhibitG‐2).Whilethismaybetrue,nomonitoringdatawascollectedtoofferconclusiveevidenceofthatfact.Regardless,theviolationscitedareforaturbiddischargeandtherefore,donotrelyuponthepresenceorabsenceofconcreteinthedocumentedplumes.BMPswereinadequatetopreventthesedischarges.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforeachoftheseevents.Aftercarefulreviewoftheevidence,theRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordforfoureventsinvolvingtheunauthorizedturbiddischargetotheriver,foratotalpenaltyof$40,000.

Page 17: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐17‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 CategoryEInsufficientTurbidityMeasurements

TheProsecutionTeamalleged17turbiditymeasurementviolationsforaproposedliabilityof$170,000.Condition19ofthe401Certificationrequiredthat“…[f]ieldturbiditymeasurementsshallbecollectedwheneverprojectactivitycausesturbidityintheSouthForkEelRivertobeincreasedabovebackgroundconcentrationsinordertodemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.”Condition19furtherrequiredthat“[t]hefrequencyofturbiditymonitoringshallbeaminimumofeveryhourduringperiodsofincreasedturbidityandshallcontinueuntilturbiditymeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations….”(AR,exhibitA.)Self‐monitoringandreportingisakeycomponentusedbytheRegionalWaterBoardtoprotecthumanhealthandtheenvironment.Thepurposeofself‐monitoringistoensurethattheregulatedentity,inthiscaseCaltrans,implementspermitprovisionsandabidesbypermitlimitationsprotectingwaterqualityinaccordancewithapplicablestatutesandregulations.Anappropriateself‐monitoringprogramallowsthepermitteetoevaluatetheeffectivenessofenvironmentalmanagementpracticesalreadyinplace,detectandcorrectpotentialviolationsinatimelymanner.Self‐monitoringrequiredbythe401Certificationplacestheresponsibilitytoperformsystematic,documented,andobjectiveself‐reviewoffacilityoperationsandpracticesrelatedtomeetingenvironmentalcomplianceonCaltransanditscontractor,MCM.Asinthissituation,allself‐monitoringprogramsrelyupontheintegrityandcapabilityofthepermitteetoimplementanadequateprogram.Caltransdevelopedavisualscaleusedinconjunctionwithdigitalphotographstodocumentturbidity(AR,exhibitM‐Tab60).“Thisscaleconsistedoffourpossiblevalues,0,1,2,or3indicatingthedegreeofsedimentplumingintheSouthForkmainstem.”(Id.)Whilenecessaryandapplicable,visualmonitoringisonlythefirststeprequiredunderCondition19ofthe401Certification.Onceaturbidityplumehasbeenobserved,Condition19requiresthecollectionofturbiditymeasurementstodemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations,whicharepresentedintheBasinPlanasnumericcriteria.Itisnotpossibletocomplywithanumericstandardusingqualitativedatasuchasavisualscale.Asexplainedbelow,theevidenceshowsthatDischargersdidnottaketheresponsibilityofself‐monitoringseriously.Monitoringequipmentwasfrequentlynotavailable,inastateofdisrepairornotusedatall.Failuretohaveavailableandmaintainpropermonitoringequipmentischronicthroughouttheperiodofrecord.Thisfailuretoallocatetimeandresourcesensuringqualityreceivingwatermonitoringindicatesanapatheticattitudetowardstheverycoreofregulatorycomplianceandevaluation.Themaximumcivilliabilityof$10,000eachisappliedfor10insufficientmonitoringviolations.Civilliabilityof$5,000isappliedtothreeinsufficientmonitoringviolations(violations16,27,and34)becausetheturbidityplumeswerevisuallyrecorded,ofshortduration,andlessthan20feetinlength.Atotalcivilliabilityof$115,000isappliedfor13insufficientmonitoringviolations.OnAugust29andAugust30,2006,aturbidplume15ft.longandfourfeetwidelastingfortwohourswascreatedfromunpermitteddewateringactivities(AR,exhibitM‐Tab14).AlthoughtheCaltranssubmissiontotheRegionalWaterBoardindicatedthatmonitoring

Page 18: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐18‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 100feetdownstreamoftheplumesindicatednoincreaseoverbackgroundturbidity,nodocumentationofsamplecollectionorresultsfromsaidmonitoringwascontainedinthebiologicalmonitoringreportforthatperiod.(Id.)Turbiditymonitoringisrequiredtoassesscompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitationsatthepointofdischarge(ie.withintheheartoftheplume),not100feetdownstream.Evenifsampleshadbeencollected,theresultsofwhichwerenotreported,samplingdownstreamoftheplumeratherthanwithintheimpactedareaviolatedCondition19self‐monitoringrequirementsresultinginviolations16and27(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs22,23,and62).Liabilityisassessedforthesetwoevents.OnSeptember1,2006,Caltranssubmittedanoticeofdischarge,attachmentK(notice)forthedischargeofsedimentdisturbedonthechannelfloorduringtheplacementofgravelfilledbagsaroundtheoutsideofasteelpipe(AR,exhibitM‐Tab10).Thenoticeindicatedthattheplumewas20‐feetinlengthlastingapproximatelytwominutesandthatthebiologistconfirmedbackgroundturbiditylevelswerenotincreasedasmeasuredfromapoint100‐feetdownstream.(Id.)Thisstatementisinconsistentwiththebiologicalmonitor’ssummaryreport,whichshowsonlyanobservationof1onthevisualscale(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Ineitherinstance,visualmonitoringaloneandormonitoringoutsideoftheplumetoassesreceivingwatercompliancebothresultinaviolation(violation34)ofself‐monitoringrequirements.Evidentiaryreviewofviolation36appearstorefertothesameincidentcitedunderviolation34.Therefore,liabilityisassessedforonlyoneoftheseviolations.OnSeptember6,2006,violation40occurredwhenCaltransandMCMfailedtomonitoraplumeresultingfromthreevehiclescrossingthesouthsideoftheRiver(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13,andTab62).TheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforSeptember5‐8,2006andCaltrans’turbiditymemobothreportaplumeonaqualitativescaleof3lastingforatleast12minutesandextendingthroughahabitatzonepreviouslynotedtocontainfish,frogsandsnakes;(Id.)yetnoquantitativeturbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassessreturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.(Id.)Liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember9,2006,aturbidityplumewasobservedresultingfromdrillingdebrisaroundtrestlefoundation4Lt,butturbiditymonitoringwasnotconducted,resultinginviolation52(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15,Tab19,andTab62;seealsoCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargeviolation51).TheevidenceindicatesthatmaterialwasdischargedtotheRivercausingavisualturbidityplumeasphotodocumentedbythebiologicalmonitor(AR,exhibitsC‐AppendixA;J‐4at13‐14).Violation52isassessedliabilitybecauseaplumewasobserved,givenavisualratingof2,andnotfollowed‐upwithquantitativeturbiditymeasurements(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).OnSeptember22,2006,turbiddischargesresultedfromplannedcrossingsofthewettedchannel.(SeeCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargeviolation64.)AppendixAtotheURSreportshows14fieldturbiditymeasurementdata:elevenmeasurementsweremadeusingaHORIBAturbidimeter(resultsreportedinNTU’s)andthreemeasurementsweremadeusingaLaMotteSechhiCUP(resultsreportedinJTU’s).ThesemeasurementsweretakenonSeptember22ndbetween08:56and9:04AMintheSouthForkMainstem(AR,exhibitM‐

Page 19: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐19‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 Tab62).TheHORIBAturbiditymeasurementdataareallflaggedwithanasterisk"*",whichindicatesinaccuratereadings.Avisualratingof3wasassignedtotheplumewhichlastedfor50minutes,yetonlyoneofthe14attemptedmeasurementswascollectedduringthecrossingandnonewerecollectedaftertodocumentareturntobackgroundconditionsinthereceivingwater.(Id.)Thisshowsdisregardfortheimportanceofself‐monitoringasakeycomponenttoimplementprotectionofbeneficialuses.Caltransadmittedtoviolation65occurringinitsinitialCaltransDefenseMatrixsubmittedwithitsCaseinChief(AR,exhibitG‐2).Liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember28,2006,violation72occurred,forinadequatemonitoringofa100footlongplumelastingapproximatelyfourhoursresultinginNTUreadingsbetween3‐5(Tab60andTab62).Chronologically,thisisabetterattemptbytheDischargerstomonitorimpactstowaterqualityfromturbiddischarges.However,Condition19ofthe401Certificationrequiredthatmonitoringcontinue,“untilturbiditymeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.”(AR,exhibitA.)Monitoringoftheplumeisdocumentedbetween15:10and15:15,showingthatthisfour‐hourlongplumewasmonitoredforaspanofonlyfiveminutes.Further,acomparisonofthefinalmeasurementof3NTUtoabackgroundconditionof0NTUdoesnotshowareturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations(IAR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Therefore,liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember29,2006,allegedviolations74and76occurredwhentwodistinctturbidityplumeswereobservedintheriver.Noturbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassessthesecondplume;however,turbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassesstheturbidityresultingfromthecementitiousdischargeassociatedwiththefirstplume(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thefirstplumeresultedwhenconcreteescapedfromthecorrugatedmetalpipeleavinga150footlongplumelastingforoveranhourintheriver.Thesecondplumeoccurredwhiletryingtoreattachthetremieandthecontractorworkedaroundthecorrugatedmetalpipebystandingonthesandbags(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs26,37and59;seealsoCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargesviolation73andCategoryF‐CementitiousDischargesviolation78).AppendixAoftheURSreportcontainsthedatacollectedbyabiologicalmonitorintheplumeandabovetheplume,howeverperhapsduetothenatureandsourceoftheturbidity,theHoribaturbidimeterproducedunreliabledatawhichisreportedas"999*"and"5*"(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).ThebiologicalmonitorcollectedsecondarysamplesusingtheLaMotteSechhiCUP.SechhiCUPturbiditymeasurementswerecollectedandreportedabove,withinandpostplume.(Id.)CaltransadmittedtothesefactsinitsinitialDefenseMatrix(AR,exhibitG‐2).TheRegionalWaterBoardfindsthatinthisinstance,theDischargersmadereasonableeffortstocollectturbiditysamplesandnoliabilitywillbeassessedforviolation74.Becausenomeasurementsweretakenforthesecondplume,liabilitiesareassessedforthisevent.OnOctober2,2006,anequipmentcrossingcauseda100‐footlongplumelastingforaperiodofthreeminutes.URSReportAppendixAshowstwodataat3:24and3:25PM,theturbiditymeasurementsof0NTUbeforethecrossingincreasedto2NTUduringtheequipmentcrossing(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thesetwodataareinsufficienttocomplywithself‐monitoringrequirementsofCondition19,whichrequiredaminimumofhourlyfield

Page 20: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐20‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 turbiditymeasurementsuntilthemeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.Violation82isassessedliabilityforfailuretomonitortheplumeuntilmeasurementsshowareturntobackgroundconditions.OnOctober16,2006,twoweekspriortotheendoftheallowablein‐streamconstructionseason,anewpatternofmonitoringresultedinatotalofsixtyeightHoribaturbidimeterandsixtysevenSechhiCUPsampleresults.Thesemeasurementswereallcollectedwithina45minuteperiod(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Asingleeightfootlongplumelasting15minuteswithvisualratingof1isreportedforthesameperiodofrecord.(Id.)Likewise,13Horibaturbidimeter,threeSecchidiskandthreeSechhiCUPturbiditysampleresultsarereportedforOctober20,2006duringa62minutetimeframe.(Id.)Despitethemanyturbiditysamplescollected,violation115isassessedbecausetheDischargersfailedtomonitorpostplumeconditionstodocumentareturntobackgroundconditions.OnOctober18,2006,thebiologicalmonitordocumenteda20footlong,6footwideplumelastingfor20minutesasaresultofcofferdamconstruction(Tab42,pg.218).Aturbidityplumewasobserved,butnoupstreambackgroundturbiditymeasurementsweretaken.Nonetheless,SechhiCUPsampleswerecollectedwithintheplumeaswellas51minuteslater.ThesesamplesshowedJTUof1withintheplumeand0JTUalmostonehourlater(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thiseventrepresentsatechnicalviolation(violation119)ofturbiditymonitoringrequirements,butwillnotbeassessedliabilitiesbecausetheDischargersmonitoredin‐plumeandpostplumeconditionsshowingareturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.(Id.)October20,2006,ProsecutionTeamallegedthatviolation122occurredforinsufficientturbiditymeasurements.TurbiditymeasurementsappeartocorrelatetosimultaneousmeasurementsforpH,conductivity,salinity,anddissolvedoxygen.(Id.)Novisualobservationofaplumewasreportedduringtheflurryofmonitoringactivityonthisdate.(Id.)Rather,thedatasuggestelevatedpHintheRiver,consistentwithcementitiousdischarges.Nonetheless,therecorddoesnotsupportaviolationforinsufficientturbiditymeasurements.ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor14insufficientturbiditymonitoringviolationstotalingaliabilityof$140,000.However,uponreviewoftheevidence,fouroftheviolations,foreventsoccurringonSeptember1,October14,18,and20,2006(violations36,74,119,and122)werechargedbaseduponevidenceintherecordthatiseitherunclearordoesnotadequatelysupporttheviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordfor10violationsofinsufficientturbiditymeasurements,foratotalpenaltyof$112,000.

CategoryFCementitiousDischarges

TheProsecutionTeamalleged11violationsforimproperdisposalofcementwaste,resultinginaproposedliabilityof$110,000.Concreteandcementitiouswastewatersarecaustictobothhumanhealthandaquaticenvironments,andareconsideredtobecorrosivewithapHtypicallyaround12.TheBasinPlancriteriaforpHintheEelRiverisarangefrom6.5to8.5pHunits.Contactwithwet(unhardened)concrete,orothercementitious

Page 21: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐21‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 materialscancauseskinirritationandseverechemicalburnsorseriouseyedamage.TheeffectsofhighpHonaquaticorganismsmayinclude:death,damagetogills,eyes,andskin;andaninabilitytodisposeofmetabolicwastes.Forthesereasons,theRegionalWaterBoardgenerallydoesnotpermitanyconcretewastedischargestolandunlessitisfullycontained,suchasinalinedBasin.(Seee.g.AR,exhibitM‐Tab4.)Condition9ofthe401Certificationprohibitstheunauthorizeddischargeofcementorconcretewashings.Condition10requiresthat“[a]llmaterialsusedforcleaningconcretefromtoolsandequipment,andanywastesgeneratedbythisactivity,shallbeadequatelycontainedtopreventcontactwithsoilandsurfacewaterandshallbedisposedofproperly.”Condition17requiresthatallactivitiesbeconductedinaccordancewiththePermitandapplication.(AR,exhibitA.)Inane‐mailcommunicationdatedJanuary6,2006,RegionalWaterBoardstaffclarifiedtherequirementsrelatedtoconcretemanagementanddisposal(AR,exhibitM‐Tab4):

Wearenotpermittinganywaste[concrete]dischargestoland(onlylinedbasins),groundwaterorsurfacewaterforthisproject.Allthe401s…issuedtoCDOTcontainaconditionthatincorporatesthefollowinglanguage.

Nocementorconcretewashings,orearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.

The401forConfusionHillwillcontainthesameversionoftheaboverequirementthatisinallthe401sI'veissuedtoCDOTinthepast.Otherthancompletecontainmentofallconcretewasteandwashwaterinlinedbasinsofthetypesshownonthesubmittedplans,CDOThasnotproposedanyotheracceptablemethodfordisposal,reuse,etc.,ofthewastewater.Therefore,theonlyauthorizeddischargeofconcreteistheconcretethatwillbecomethebridges.”(Id.)

Caltransresponded,“Thanksfortheclarification.Weunderstandtheconditionand…[a]llconcretewasteandwashwaterwillbecontained.”(Id.)Notwithstanding,therecordshowsatleastsixseparateeventsofimproperdisposalofcementwaste,asdiscussedinmoredetailbelow.BecausetheintentoftheRegionalWaterBoardtoprohibitconcretewastedisposalatthesitewasclear,eacheventassociatedwithunpermittedconcretedisposalatthesiteisassignedthefullliabilityof$10,000allowableunderthestatue.Activitiesassociatedwithviolation10‐11and49‐50occurredonAugust29andSeptember8,2006respectively.TheCaltransletterofDecember13,2006,statesthatonAugust29,“duringplacinga[sic]concreteinacorrugatedsteelpipewithintheriver,thewaterlevelroseandtopreventitfromoverflowingintotheriver,thewaterwaspumpedtothedewateringbasin”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab73at469‐479).Similarly,theactingstructurerepresentative’sdailyreportdatedSeptember7,2006statesthat,“thenextdaythewaterwastestedforpH,treatedwithmuriaticacidthenpumpedintothesettlementbasin.Iestimateabout25galwaspumpedfromtheLtCSPandperhaps50galpumpedfromtheRt

Page 22: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐22‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 CSPbasedontheconc[rete]placed"(AR,exhibitM‐Tab12).Thereisnoevidencetoindicatethataproperlycontaineddewateringbasinwasconstructedproximatetothetrestlefootingsforconcretemanagementatthesite.Rathertheevidenceindicatesthatthe‘dewateringbasin’usedonAugust29thandSeptember8thwasinfactIsolatedPoolB,watersoftheUnitedStates,oranotherunlineddewateringlocation.Photodocumentationshowsthepipefromtheconcretewithinthecorrugatedmetalpipedischargingtotheunlinedbasin,collaboratingtheforgoingevidence(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at11‐12).Therefore,theRegionalWaterBoardfindssufficientbasistoassessliabilitiesforthesetwoevents(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).AlsoonAugust29,2006,violation12‐14occurredfromimproperdisposalofwasteandmaterialsusedforcleaningconcretetoolsandequipment.ThiseventisdocumentedbystatementscontainedintheDecember13correspondence:“Afterplacingtheconcretesealcourse,thecontractorcleanedthehopper,tremieandshovelsinafootingexcavationintheriverbar.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab73at474.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violations58‐59arebaseduponphotographicevidence(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at16)inthefinalURSreportlabeled“cementwastepourtoedgeofIsolatedPoolB.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab70at371.)MCMsuggestedthatthephotoshowsnaturalsedimentsofthetypeprevalentintheriver;however,thephotocaptiondocumentedbythebiologicalmonitorclearlystatesthatthewastewascement,therebycorroboratingthephotograph.ThephotoshowsadischargeofcementitiouswastedirectlyonthegravelbaroftheRiverwithinwatersoftheUnitedStates.(Id.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violations77and78arebasedonawrittendescriptionofanunauthorizeddischargeofcementonSeptember29,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab29.)CaltransengineeringdiaryreportNo.46.395describesthedischargeofcementtotheRiverfromconcretefootingsealpourindicatingthat“Sandbagswerethenplacedontheoutsideperimeteronly,nosandbagswereplacedontheinsideoftheCMP.CONTRbeganplacingsealcoarseconcrete@1701hrs.…CONTRbeganbyplacingthesealcoarseinthe#3FTG.Duringtheplacement,itwasapparentthatthecontractordidnothaveagoodsealaroundtheCMP.ConcreteescapedfromtheCMPleavingaplumeintheriverapprox.150'‐0inlength.”(Id.)Thewrittendescriptionofthisviolationisfurthersupportedbyphotodocumentationoftheevent(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at49‐51).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationeventbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitT‐2;H‐2tab100).Thisallegedviolationeventoverlapswithviolations73and75discussedandassessedliabilityinCategoryD,therefore,noliabilityisassessedinthiscategory.TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotincreasetheliabilitypursuanttomultiplepermittermsforasingleevent.Evidenceintherecordshowsatleastfiveseparateeventsofimproperdisposalofcementwaste,foratotalpenaltyof$50,000.CategoryGRubbishandDebrisDischarges

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$10,000forninedaysofrubbishanddebrisdischarges.SincethesubmittalofitsCaseinChief,ProsecutionTeamisnolongerallegingviolationsonthreeofthosedays.

Page 23: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐23‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 TheRegionalWaterBoardhassimilarconcernswiththeproposedliabilityfortherubbishanddebrisissuesasitdoesforleakyequipment.ProsecutionTeambroughtchargesundercondition9ofthe401Certification.Whiletechnicallytrashintherivercouldcountasadischarge,itmustbeviewedincontext.Itisnotreasonabletoexpectthateachpieceoftrashcouldtriggerapenalty,particularlywhenevidenceshowsthatthetrashwaspickedup.Condition11ofthepermitshowsareasonableapproachforaddressingtrashandprojectmaterials.Itprovided:“Whenoperationsarecomplete,anyexcessmaterialordebrisshallberemovedfromtheworkareaanddisposedofproperly.Norubbishshallbedepositedwithin150feetofthehighwatermarkofanystream.”(AR,exhibitA.)Violation61and63stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitorreport(September18‐22)notingthedischargeoftrashblowingoffthetrestledeck,andnoclosedwastereceptaclestocontainthetrash(AR,exhibitM‐Tab24and25).Materialscitedincludedsawdust,cigarettebutts,plasticandpaperpackagingandemptywaterbottles,weldingwire,loosenails,rustscabfromrecycledI‐beams,weldingrods,oilyragsandgloves,cutwoodpieces,andweldingslag.Violation61issupportedbytwophotosdatedSeptember18,2006showingablockofwoodandothertrashinthewater.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at17‐18.)Violation63issupportedbyseveralphotosdatedSeptember22,2006showingpiecesoftrashintheriver.(Id.at22‐24.)Violation68and69stemfromthenextweeklybiologicalmonitorreport(September26‐30)notingsomeimprovementwiththetrashissuesidentifiedtheweekbefore,howeversawdust,nails,woodandlargerustflakesremainedonthetrestledeck(AR,exhibitM‐Tab28).PhotosdatedSeptember26and27showrustflakesinthewaterandsomefloatingwood.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at36‐40.)Violation123and124stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreport(Oct.23‐28)thatnotedlargerustflakesaccumulatedonthegravelbaronOctober24,butalsonotingthatthesewerecleanedup(AR,exhibitM‐Tab50).Onthenextdaythebiologicalmonitornotedthatwoodscraps,sawdust,rustflakesandplasticswerecleanedup,andlargerustflakesfromtheI‐beamsthatcouldeasilyfallintotheriverwerecleanedup.Additionaltrashwastargetedtobecleanedupbytheendofthemonth.Wedonotfindthattheseviolationsrisetothelevelofa$10,000fine.Nothinginthedocumentsindicatesthatcleanupeffortswerenotperformedinatimelymanner,infact,thedocumentsdemonstratethattrashissueswereidentifiedandaddressed.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsthatliabilityisnotwarrantedinthisviolationcategory.ContainmentonthetrestledeckisaddressedundertheLeakyEquipmentandStormWaterPermitsubcategories.CategoryHIndividualEventsTheProsecutionTeamallegedfiveindividualeventviolationsthatdonotfitintoanyspecificcategory,foratotalofproposedliabilityof$41,000.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportforfouroftheseviolations.Inaddition,violation150isdiscussedandassignedliabilityinthissectioninsteadofinCategoryDbecauseoftheunique

Page 24: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐24‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 circumstancesofthatevent.Liabilitiestotaling$40,000arewarrantedforthesefiveviolationevents.Violation1stemsfromasmallhydraulicfluidspillonAugust16,2006.Alineaccidentallyseveredonthegravelbarandwascleaneduppromptly.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab5.)ProsecutionTeamproposedatotalof$1,000liabilityfortheviolation.Thisdischargewasunauthorized;however,itwassmallandaccidental.Moreover,therecordshowsthatitwasreportedproperlyandpromptlycleanedup,whichdemonstratescorrectimplementationofthepermits.TheRegionalWaterBoarddeclinestoimposetheliabilityproposedbytheProsecutionTeamforthisevent.Violation5stemsfromcontractorfuelingequipmentonthegravelbar.ASWPPPcomplianceinspectionwasconductedonAugust22,2006wherefuelingonthegravelbarwasobserved.TheinspectionreportstatedthatJamesHammacknowledgedthattheywerefuelingacompressor,generator,man‐liftandbackhoe(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).Condition13ofthe401CertificationprovidedthatfuelingofequipmentandvehiclesshallbeoutsidethewatersoftheUS.(AR,exhibitA‐1.)Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedfortheviolationofthiscondition.Violation144stemsfromreportsofsedimentdischargesonNovember3,2006.WaltDragaloskivisitedtheprojectsiteduringaraineventtoreviewconstructionstormwaterBMPsandobservedthefollowing:“DuringconstructionoftheworkplatformforthesouthbridgePier2,loosesoilwaspushedovertheedgeofthebank.Thesoilcascadedallthewaytothetoeoftheslope,whichisbelowtheOrdinaryHighWaterelevation.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Mr.Dragaloskirecommendedthattheloosesoilberemoved.(Id.)Itisunclearwhethereffortsweremadetocleanuptheproblem.Condition9ofthewaterqualitycertificationprohibitedunauthorizeddischargesofconstructionwastetoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.(AR,exhibitA‐1.)Thepermitdidnotauthorizepushingloosesoiloverabankthestreamorareasaroundthestream.Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthisviolation.Violation150wasidentifiedinearly2007byCaltransassistantresidentengineer(AR,exhibitM‐Tab26).CaltransstaffreportedthedischargeofturbidwatertoRegionalWaterBoardstaffonFebruary21,2007,fivedaysafterevidenceofthedischargewasdiscovered.Thenotificationindicatedthatevidenceoffinegraysiltwasobservedinabackflowchannelandonthebankbelowthe100‐yearfloodplainonthewestsideoftheriveratthesouthbridgelocationduringaFebruary16,2007,DepartmentofFishandGame(DFG)siteinspection.AfterinterviewingCaltransstaffandarepresentativeofthecontractor,Caltransstaffestimatedthatthedischargeoccurredsixweekspriortodiscoveryon,oraroundJanuary5,2007.ThedischargewasthoughttohavebeencausedbyaruptureofanaeriallinesuspendedovertheRiver.Asmuchas170gallonsofturbidwaterdischargedtotheriver.ThedischargewasnotreportedtoCaltransstaffbythecontractor(AR,exhibitM‐Tab74).Thisviolationisparticularlydisturbingbecauseitwasneitherdiscoverednorreportedinatimelymanner.OnlyasaresultofaDFGinspectionwasthisdischargeofsedimentidentified,despitethatfactthatitwassignificantenoughtodisplayidentifiableresiduesixweekspostevent.(Id.)Thisviolationreliesuponthedirectobservationsandreportingof

Page 25: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐25‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 Caltransstaffonsiteandisthereforeconsideredreliable.Further,CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationevent.(AR,exhibitT‐2;H‐2tab100.)Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthisviolation.Violations152‐153stemfromsandblastingofrebarwhichoccurredontwoseparateoccasionsonMay23,2007.WaltDragaloskinotifiedtheRegionalWaterBoardoftheunauthorizeddischarge,asrequiredbytheStormWaterPermit.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab77.)“ThecontractorusedsandtosandblastrebarwhichwasextrudingfromconcreteontheNorthBridgeatPier3withouttheuseofappropriateBMPs,withoutCaltransoversight,andindisregardofthedirectionprovidedbytheResidentEngineerpriortotheactivity.”(Id.)Thesandandrebarwasnotcontainedandwasdepositeddirectlyontothegravelbarinviolationof401CertificationCondition9.Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthesetwoviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotimposeanyadditionalliabilityunderCondition7ofthewaterqualitycertificationforthisevent.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordestablishingfiveindividualviolationeventsforatotalpenaltyof$40,000.CategoryIStormWaterPermitViolations

TheProsecutionTeamalleged141violationsundertheStormWaterPermitforaproposedpenaltyof$450,000.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindstheproposedpenaltiesexcessiveinlightoftheevidencepresentedandinconsideringtheliabilitiesalreadyassessedforspecific401Certificationconditionviolations.Activitiesregulatedbythe401CertificationlargelyoverlapactivitiessubjecttoStormWaterPermitconditionssothatmanyviolationsfoundundertheCertificationcouldalsobeconstruedasStormWaterPermitviolations.Forexample,unauthorizeddischargesunder401CertificationCondition9wereunauthorizedbecauseproperBMPsasrequiredundertheStormWaterPermitwerenotinplace.Manyofthe401CertificationviolationsweredocumentedasaresultofStormWaterPermitimplementation.JustastheRegionalWaterBoarddeclinestoimposeadditionalpenaltiesformultiplepermittermviolations,theRegionalWaterBoardintendstoavoidimposingadditionalpenaltiesundermultiplepermitsforidenticalorrelateddischargeevents.However,StormWaterPermitimplementationisvitalforadequatewaterqualityprotection,andtherecordcontainstroublingevidenceabouttheDischargers’abilityandwillingnesstocomplywiththeProgram.Forthisreason,andbasedontheevidencepresented,theRegionalWaterBoardfinds$30,000liabilityappropriateforStormWaterPermitviolationsrelatedtothetrestledeckthatareindependentfrom401Certificationviolationevents.FederalregulationsrequiredischargesofstormwaterassociatedwithconstructionactivitythatdisturbsfiveacresormoretoobtainaNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permitandtoimplementBMPsthatachieveperformancestandardsofBestAvailableTechnologyEconomicallyAchievable(BAT)fortoxicpollutantsandBestConventionalTechnology(BCT)forconventionalpollutants.(AR,exhibitB‐1at3.)TheCaltransStormWaterPermitrequiresCaltranstoimplementaneffectiveStormWaterManagementPlan(SWMP)(Id.at9[emphasisadded])thatcoversconstructionbyCaltransandconstructionundercontractforCaltrans.(Id.at17.)Requiredprogramelementsinclude:1)reviewoftheconstructionsiteplan;2)implementationofstructuraland

Page 26: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐26‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 nonstructuralBMPs;3)siteinspectionandenforcement;and4)educationofconstructionsiteoperators.(Id.at17‐18.)Asite‐specificSWPPPisdevelopedforeachconstructionprojectandCaltransisresponsibleforhavinganeffectiveSWPPP.(Id.at19[emphasisadded].)TheSWMPisanintegralandenforceablecomponentofthestormwaterprogram.TheSWMPreferstoBMPmanualsandStandardSpecificationsthatcontaindetailsofBMPimplementation.(AR,exhibitB‐2.)ThepermitreliesonBMPimplementationratherthanestablishing“endofpipe”effluentlimitationstoreduceofpreventunauthorizedpollutantsindischarges.Therefore,adischarger’sabilitytoimplement,monitor,andadjustBMPsiscrucialforthispermittingprogramtobeeffective.Theproceduresfortheproperuse,storage,anddisposalofmaterialsandequipmentontemporaryconstructionpadsincludeprovidingwatertightcurbsortoeboardstocontainspillsandpreventmaterials,tools,anddebrisfromleavingtheplatform.(AR,exhibitB‐3at500‐11,12,13,M‐Tab81,ConstructionSiteBMPManual,NS‐13.)Ifaleakinglinecannotberepaired,theequipmentmustberemovedfromoverthewater.(Id.)Also,NS‐10requiresimmediaterepairofleakingequipmentandremovalfromtheprojectifleakscannotberepaired.(Id.;AR,exhibitF‐3tab8.)Allegedviolations154‐283arebasedonallegedinadequatecontainmentofthetrestledeckfortheentireconstructionseasonof2006,atotalof130days.TheevidencecitedbytheProsecutionTeamshowsthecontainmentproblembeginningAugust23‐29,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab47.)Atthattime,Dischargerstriedcaulkingthetrestledeckbutheavyequipmenthadsplittheseams.Meanwhile,leakyequipment,aswellasconstructionmaterialsandgarbage,dischargedorthreatenedtodischargedirectlytotheriver.Dischargersattemptedtopatchwithpiecesofplywood.ByOctober31,2006,“newwooddeckingusedtocompletethefalsebridgefittedtogethertightlyandsealedthedeckingadequately.However,theolddeckmatsemployeddirectlyabovetheriverarenotasflatorwellsealed,andhavethepotentialtoallowdebristoentertheriver.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab51.)Ultimatelyafabricbarrierwasrolledoverthedeck.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab76.)Assigningamaximumpenaltyeachdayfortheentireconstructionseasonseemsinappropriateinthiscase,astheevidenceshowsthateffortsweremadetoimprovecontainmentonthetrestledeck.WhileitistruethatthepermitrequiresBMPstobeeffective,itisreasonabletoallowforsomeamountoftrialanderror,particularlywhendocumentsshowthatdischargedmaterialsweresubsequentlyremovedandcleanedup.Ontheotherhand,suchanexcessiveamounteffortshouldnotberequiredbyCaltransandothersbeforethecontractorimplementedcorrectivemeasures.AsitevisitwasconductedbyaCaltransemployeereviewingstormwaterBMPsonNovember6.(SeeAR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Henotesthat“[t]hecraneisbeingusedonthetrestlehasleakingfluids.Thishasbeennotedmanytimesearlier.Thecontractorhasattachedapieceofplasticunderthecrane,buttheplasticcatchesbothoilleaksandstormwater.Thereisevidenceonthetrestledeckthatoilthat[sic]hasleakedofftheplastic.Iobservedcommingledoilwithwaterontheplasticduringmysitevisit.Irecommendthatthecraneberepairedimmediatelyordiscontinueitsuse.”(Id.at286.)MCMwasdirectedtoremovethe

Page 27: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐27‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 ManitowoccraneoffthedeckatnightinearlyNovember.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at442.)OnDecember1stMCMdidnotwantthecranetocontinuouslybemoved.AREDnotes“MuchtimehasbeenexpendedwithMCMonSWPPissues.Itisapparentthattheyhaveignoredmanyoftheissuesforcontainmentonthetrestle.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab61.)TheSWPPPrequirescontainmentofthetrestledeckandcontrolofexcessiveleakingequipment.Ifexcessivelyleakingequipmentcannotberepaired,itmustberemoved.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab81.)Whileeffortsweremadetocontainthetrestledeck,therecordshowsthatthecontractordidnotadequatelyrespondtospecificdirectionregardingtheManitowoccraneforoveramonth.ThisviolatessectionH(8)(b)oftheStormWaterPermitforfailuretoimplementBMPsNS‐10andNS‐13foranextendedperiodoftime.(AR,exhibitsB‐1;B‐3.)Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardassessesatotalpenaltyof$30,000forthenon‐containmentofthetrestledeckoveranextendedperiodoftime.Theremainingallegedstormwaterviolations288‐294arenotsupportedbyanyspecifically‐referencedevidence.Tab83ofProsecutionTeam’sdocumentaryevidence(AR,exhibitM)contains88pagesofrandomdocumentswithnodirectionaboutwhereandwhytheyarerelevanttothecharges.ProsecutionTeamhastheburdenofestablishingtheevidenceintherecordtosupportitscaseandhasnotdonesoadequatelyforthestormwaterrefuelingviolations.4. Conclusion

Thefollowingtablesummarizesthetotalpenaltiesforviolations:

Category Liability

A. ConstructionDewatering $100,000B. LeakyEquipment $25,000C. SlagDischarges $5,000D. TurbidDischargestotheRiver $40,000E. InsufficientTurbidityMeasurements $112,000F. CementitiousDischarges $50,000G. RubbishandDebrisDischarges $0H. IndividualEvents $40,000I. StormWaterPermit $30,000TotalPenaltyforViolations $375,000

SectionIXoftheStateWaterBoard’s2002“WaterQualityEnforcementPolicy”providesthattheRegionalWaterBoardmayallowadischargertosatisfysomeorallofthepenaltiesinanACLOrderbyfundingaSupplementalEnvironmentalProject(SEP).SomeorallofthepenaltiesassessedinthisOrdershallbeeligibleforaSEPifapprovedbytheExecutiveOfficeroftheRegionalWaterBoard.TheissuanceofthisOrderisanenforcementactiontoprotecttheenvironment,andisthereforeexemptfromtheprovisionsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(Pub.

Page 28: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

CaltransConfusionHill ‐28‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014 ResourcesCode,§§21000‐21177)pursuanttotitle14,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,sections15308and15321,subdivision(a)(2).AnypersonaffectedbythisactionoftheRegionalWaterBoardmaypetitiontheStateWaterBoardtoreviewtheactioninaccordancewithsection13320oftheWaterCodeandtitle23,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,section2050.ThepetitionmustbereceivedbytheStateWaterBoardwithin30daysofthedateofthisOrder.Copiesofthelawandregulationsapplicabletofilingpetitionswillbeprovideduponrequest.ITISHEREBYORDERED,pursuanttoWaterCodesection13385,that:Caltransisassessedpenaltiesof$375,000forviolationsandadditionalliabilityof$70,182forstaffcosts.Caltransshallpayatotalliabilityof$445,182inthefollowingmanners:(a). Pay$30,000oftheassessedliabilitytotheStateWaterPollutionCleanupand

AbatementAccount(CAA)and$445,182oftheassessedliabilitytotheStateWasteDischargePermitFundwithin30daysofthedateofthisOrder;or

(b). Within30daysofthedateofthisOrder:1)Paytheminimum$70,182staffcostsandanyremainingliabilitynotproposedforaSEPtotheCAAandorStateWasteDischargePermitFundasappropriate;and2)submitaSEPproposaltotheExecutiveOfficertosuspendalloraportionofremainingliability.AnySEPproposalshallcomplywithprovisionsofsectionIXoftheStateWaterBoard’s2002“WaterQualityEnforcementPolicy.”IftheinitiallyproposedSEPisnotacceptable,theExecutiveOfficermayallowCaltransanadditional30daystosubmitaneworrevisedproposal.IftheExecutiveOfficerdoesnotapproveanyproposedSEP,Caltransshallpaythesuspendedpenaltyinfullwithin30days.Allpayments,includingmoneynotusedfortheSEP,mustbepayabletoeithertheCAAorStateWasteDischargePermitFundinaccordancewithallocationsidentifiedundersection(a).above.

CertificationI,MatthiasSt.John,ExecutiveOfficer,doherebycertifythattheforegoingisafull,true,andcorrectcopyofanOrderadoptedbytheCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard,NorthCoastRegiononMarch15,2012asamendedFebruary12,2014. OriginalSignedBy___________________________________

MatthiasSt.JohnExecutiveOfficer

12_0034_ACLO_ConfusionHill_Revised_140212

Page 29: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 1

A. 401CertandRelatedDocumentsA‐1 401CertificationA‐2 AmendmentRequestA‐3 401CertAmendmentA‐4 October30NoticeofViolationA‐5 November27Noticeofviolation

B. StormWaterPermitandRelatedDocuments

B‐1 StormWaterPermitB‐2 SWMPB‐3 SWPPP

C. Complaint

D. PostComplaintCorrespondence

E. HearingNoticeandProcedures

F. ProsecutionTeamSubmittals

F‐1 CaseinChiefandAttachmentsF‐2 MonaDoughertyDeclarationF‐3 KasonGradyDeclarationF‐4 JulieMacedoDeclarationF‐5 RebuttalandAttachmentsF‐6 ResponseandDeclarationsF‐7 PTResponsetoCaltransEvidentiaryObjectionsMarch3F‐8 PTResponsetoCaltransEvidentiaryObjectionsMarch18

G. CaltransSubmittals

G‐1 CaseinChiefandAttachmentsG‐2 DefenseMatrixG‐3 RebuttalandAttachmentsG‐4 CaltransResponsetoPTRebuttalG‐5 CaltransResponsestoPre‐HearingInstructionsG‐6 CoverLetterG‐7 ContractwithMCMG‐8 StandardSpecifications1999

Page 30: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 2

H. MCMSubmittalsH‐1 OpeningBriefH‐2 OpeningBriefAttachmentsH‐3 RebuttalandAttachments

I. AdvisoryTeamPre‐HearingInstructionsandCorrespondenceMarch9

J. PTResponsetoATMarch9Request

J‐1 CoverLetterExplainingSubmissionJ‐2 A‐2ChartJ‐3 A‐3ChartJ‐4 PhotoDocuments

K. CaltransandMCMResponsetoPre‐HearingInstructions

L. CaltransResponsetoPT'sResponse

M. ProsecutionTeamDocumentaryEvidenceBinder

N. ProsecutionTeamViolationMatrix

O. ConcededViolationsSummaries

P. EvidentiaryRulingsandCorrespondence

Q. Caltrans‐MCMContract

R. PostHearingNoticeCorrespondence

S. PTHearingExhibits

T. CaltransHearingExhibitsT‐1 CaltransPowerPointPresentationT‐2 CaltransSummaryofAcceptedViolations‐RevisedJune23,2011

U. MCMHearingExhibits

Page 31: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedFebruary12,2014ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 3

V. MCMPetition

W. CaltransPetitionX. StateWaterBoardOrderWQ2013‐0100

Y. StateWaterBoardOrderWQ2014‐0015


Administrative Order No. 2014-0034

Medium Chess Puzzle # 0034

Satires Perse (0034-0062)

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V111P15

DOH Administrative Order 0034

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2020V120P107

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V113P187

FOOTBALL72 0034

Ele 0034 Etech9 Em

0034 gxc development_framework_estrategias_de_migración_a_gene_xus_x

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V111P105

@0034 OLIVEIRA Introducao ao Netbeans.pdf

S 0034-0143 Werkzeug Maschinen

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2019V118P151

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2018V117P511

termalismo 2017.qxp Maquetación 1 28/11/16 14:45 Página 1 · r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r2 r2 r3 r1 r1 r3 r3 r3 r4 r4 r4 r2 r3 r2 r1 r1 r3 r3 r3 r3 r4 r4 r4 r1 r1 r1 r1 r2 r2 r2 r2 r2

Revista Ahora 0034

MB-0034 (SET-2)

+ info: 0034 974 373 088

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD · 2010-05-29 · CITY OF HEALDSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT, RECLAMATION AND DISPOSAL FACILITY ORDER NO. R1-2009-0034 NPDES NO. CA0025135

Lampiran Surat No.0034

0034 - Gestão de Serviços

City of Oxnard Zoning Map...local government planning programs. Government Code Section 65583. Oxnard City Limits N R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 CPC CVC CVC RB1 RB1 R2c RB1 RC3

TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page03 · 2014-04-14 · TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page06. TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page07. TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page08

A S I N D TOWN MAP 2010 [kkjh unh - Rajasthan · 2020. 6. 7. · ( pawan pal daga ) ( s.g.chittoria ) r1 v + sc b h + pu pu ss ocf ss sr c pi v + r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

CContrato 0034-14 Alexanderontrato 0034-14 Alexander

PAT I.E. N° 0034

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V112P299

PJ1905-0034 livre v10

Administrative Order 2010-0034

0034 - Elfen Lied 31

The Beatles · 2015-09-21 · The Beatles - Mix #1 The Beatles = 140 Standard tuning 1 AIntro 0034 24 22 0 Guitar 2 4 0034 24 22 0 0034 24 33 7 0 0034 24 22 0 10 0034 2 34 22 0 0034

Ameopoema 0034 - Março de 2015

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2017V114P345

Notícias Da Corte 0034