ENFORCE25304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUSTIFICATION NOV C-93-073 Notice of Violation C-93-073 was issued for "Failure to construct appropriate sediment control measures to retain sediment within disturbed areas, prevent additional contributions of sediment to runoff outside the permit area and to minimize erosion as necessary to protect topsoil and vegetation. Failure to pass all surface drainage from disturbed area through a sediment pond, series of ponds or treatment facility before leaving the permit area." The NOV was issued on May 7, 1993 by Steve Wathen. (He is no longer with the Division.) Larry Routten, representing the Division, said the NOV applied to two portions of the permit area. These were two unrelated incidence, but both applied to runoff in undisturbed areas. The first was a breach in the south ditch. During the May 5, 1993 inspection they observed evidence where a breach had occurred in the ditch. The breach had been repaired and the ditch was operational, although further repairs were needed to achieve the design configuration. The second portion of the NOV applied to erosional features created by the runoff from the topsoil windrow cutouts. In my opinion, the second portion overlaps with NOV C- 93-072. I am not considering it for penalty assessment. Colowyo, represented by Jim Kieger and Juan Garcia, said the breach in the ditch resulted from a snowdrift in the ditch. In April, Mr. Garcia walked the length of xiitch to check for damage. He observed the problem then and repaired it by hand using a shovel. The ditch was further repaired after a dozer could gain access. Colowyo objected to the proposed civil penalty as discussed in their August 17, 1993. The proposed penalty was: History $50.00 Seriousness $500.00 Fault $750.00 Good Faith $0.00 Total $1300.00 History Colowyo did not dispute this component. Seriousness At the time of the inspection the ditch had been preliminarily repaired by hand. Although, there was evidence sediment had gone outside the ditch, this was not occurring at the time of the inspection. I believe the extent and duration are low and $250.00 is proposed.