Laserfiche WebLink
-'- , •r <br />• <br />-2- <br />2. Duration of Damage <br />• <br />At the time the violation was noted (February 7, 1985) approximately 90 <br />days had passed beyond the November 9, 1984 deadline for completing pond <br />upgrading work. This accounts for a medium duration of time during <br />which the pond was not in compliance with the requirements of <br />Stipulation No. 1 attached to the May, 1984 Findings Document. <br />Therefore, the Division assesses a duration of medium and a value of <br />three. <br />3. Extent of Damage <br />The Division could not determine that any damage had occurred as a <br />result of the violation. No evidence of runoff or discharge from the <br />pond was evident. Therefore, the Division assesses the extent of damage <br />as insignificant or not occurring and a value of one. <br />3x3=9 <br />9/64 x $1750 = $246.09 <br />Seriousness Total = $246.09 <br />III. Fault <br />The Division feels that the violation occurred as a greater degree of <br />fault than negligence. The permittee failed to comply with the terms of <br />the permit by virture of failing to meet the requirements of a <br />stipulation. The stipulation deadline was extended by the Division on <br />one occasion in November. Given this the permittee has swore that the <br />pond needed to be completed and a deadline was set. Therefore, the <br />Division assess fault in the amount of $750.00. <br />Summary <br />History -0- <br />Seriousness $246.09 <br />Fault 750.00 <br />TOTAL 996.09 <br />ROUNDED TO $1,000.00 <br />/fw <br />Doc. No. 8658 <br />