Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to File C-81-019 <br />C. Fault (Rule 5.04.5(3)(c>) <br />Determination of fault is <br />NOV is issued, caused, or <br />practice which led to the <br />omission. <br />- 4 - July 6, 1993 <br />$750.00 <br />based upon the degree the person to whom the <br />failed to correct, the violation, condition, or <br />issuance of the NOV, either through act or <br />It is apparent at this time that the operator implemented the practice of <br />bulldozing slots in stockpiled topsoil, in an effort to route surface <br />water from above the topsoil around the piles prior to the May 5, 1993 <br />inspection. This is documented in the operator's May 10, 1993 comments. <br />This practice led to the funneling of surface water through these slots, <br />creating the erosional disturbances on the slopes downhill from the <br />topsoil cutouts. While the practice had apparently been conducted by the <br />operator in the past without erosive losses, the operator admits the <br />cutouts in this instance had not been fully completed when the erosion <br />began to occur. <br />It is also apparent at this time that the adequacy of the design of the <br />South Collection Ditch is yet to be fully resolved between the Division <br />and the operator, as stated by the operator. Yet, the operator has <br />proceeded with the ditch's installation. Furthermore, while data <br />submitted by the operator indicates the ditch can handle high <br />hypothetical flows, the ditch has not been designed to account for heavy <br />regional snowfalls that can apparently compromise ditch capacity. While <br />the occasional heavy snowfall is unpredictable, it is no doubt likely, as <br />the operator states that snow drifts typically collect on the slope where <br />the South Collection Ditch is situated. <br />In addition, it is apparent in the Division comments that the Division <br />had expressed concerns to the operator regarding the ditch's design as <br />far back as October, 1991. The operator had also been made aware that <br />Should ditch breaches occur, NOVs would be written. It is apparent that <br />by May 3, 1993, the final designs had not been submitted to the Division <br />by the operator, although the operator had been requested to specifically <br />do so. <br />As such, it is apparent that the operator constructed both the topsoil <br />dozer cutouts and the South Collection Ditch in a manner that led to the <br />Conditions that resulted in the issuance of this NOV. It is also <br />apparent that these practices were not fully approved by the Division, <br />yet the operator had proceeded with their implementation. As such, fault <br />is established as both indifference and a lack of reasonable care, and <br />assessed an amount of $750.00. <br />Number of Days Penalty Assessed. (Rule 5.04.6) $0.00 <br />No separate civil penalty for each day that this violation occurred is <br />proposed at this time. <br />