Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br />I. Htstorv <br />The permittee has received two previous violations which are not <br />currently in administrative review during the preceding calendar year. <br />These violations were NOV's 83-31 and 83-32. The Division must assess a <br />history component of 550.00 for each violation. <br />History Total: S 100.00 <br />II. Seriousness <br />The Division views this violation as a violation of the applicable <br />performance standards relating to control of the disturbed area drainage. <br />The Division fudged seriousness on the following three criteria. <br />1. Probab111ty of Damage Occurrence <br />The Division feels that damage is likely to occur given the amount <br />of recent precipitation and the aspect and steepness of the areas <br />involved. The Division therefore assesses a value of 3 for this <br />component. <br />2. Duration of Damage <br />The Division feels that this situation has existed for a period <br />greater thdn 90 days and therefore assesses a value of 4 for this <br />component. <br />3. Extent of Damage <br />The Division feels that the area which is uncontrolled is of a <br />relatively small size, a maximum of five acres. The Division for <br />this reason assesses a value of 2, or small for this component. <br />3x4x2=24 <br />24 ~ 64 x E1,750.00 = 1 656.00 <br />III. Fault <br />The Division feels that this violation occurred as a result of <br />negligence on the part of the permittee. The Division had previously <br />discussed sediment control 1n this area with the permittee, and feels <br />that the permittee did not act to control sediment flow from this area. <br />The Division therefore assesses the maximum penalty of 5750.00 allowable <br />under fault resulting from negligence. <br />Fault Total: S 750.00 <br />