ENFORCE26776 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

obtained. This figure would increase substantially if the work is not eventually legitimized under and Corp permit. Mitigation of wetlands is required as part of the Compliance Order and as part of any Corps permit. Information provided in Hall-Irwin Corporation's response to the 308 information request estimates the cost of performing the requ'ved mitigation at $ 218,175. This penalty analysis assumes that the mitigation work will be performed and that the benefit to the Hall-Irwin Corporation will be the benefit of making the expenditures four years later than would have been required by a Corps permit required to construct the slurry wall in wetlands. This economic benefit is estimated to be at least $58,000. Therefore, the aggregate economic benefit to the Respondents as a result of unauthorized work is over $70,000. E. Ability to Pay Since the burden of proof on an inability to pay rests with the Respondents and none of the Respondents has asserted an inability to pay with respect to these penalty proceedings, this analysis assumes the Respondents can pay the full amount EPA is seeking. F. Other Factors The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute, meaning that each of the Respondents had an individual duty to know and comply with the requvements of the law. Pursuant to Section 309(8)(2) of the Clean Water Act, up to $11,000 per day in administrative penalties may be assessed against each person who violates the Act, up to a total of $137,500 in administratively assessed penalties per person who violates. In this action, EPA is seeking penalties that amount to less than 13 days of violation by one violator, despite the over 3 yeazs the wetlands have not been functional due to the unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material in the wetlands. Using the statutory maximum civil penalties EPA is entitled to seek in a judicial enforcement action for the same violations pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Act, the Respondents could each be liable for significantly higher penalties if EPA were to seek its redress in the federal district courts. However, in order to expedite resolution of these matters, EPA desires to use its Class II administrative penalty authority, which is limited to $137,500. This review of the statutory factors to be considered in assessing the proposed penalty fully supports the imposition of penalties in the amount of $137,500 against the violators. The aggregate mining company and landowners situated in these wetland and riparian areas have the responsibility and the knowledge to obtain a permit prior to beginning work in wetlands.