Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• • <br />JUSTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR <br />NOV C-90-046 <br />NOV C-90-046 was written for "failure to maintain the silt fence as required <br />by the permit for the 16.8 acre small area exemption above the Homestead <br />Ditch." Dave Berry explained that a silt fence was required for sediment <br />control as part of the small area exemption (SAE) above the Homestead Ditch. <br />He handed out Exhibit 3-30 which described the commitments made by CYCC. The <br />silt fence is the only sediment control structure for this area which drains <br />into Homestead Ditch and then Trout Creek. However, since the time the SAE <br />was approved there has been considerable vegetative growth. During Dave's <br />October 17, 1990 complete inspection he noted several segments where the silt <br />fence was not properly anchored allowing runoff to go under the fence. There <br />was approximately 295 feet of fence, or 17-20% of the total length, where <br />there were problems. Several slides were shown of problematic areas. The <br />fence was totally reinstalled by October 26, 1990 according to a letter sent <br />by the operator. <br />This NOV has some history to it which Dave provided. During the March, 1990 <br />complete inspection it was observed that the fence was degraded and in poor <br />condition, but it was functioning to control sediment. In April the fence had <br />further deteriorated, but it was functioning. During May the Division and <br />CYCC had several discussions regarding the need for the fence since the area <br />had been successfully revegetated. CYCC had the option of submitting <br />re vegetation data to demonstrate a sediment control structure was no longer <br />necessary. Rather than submit the data, however CYCC decided to install a new <br />silt fence. On August 17, 1990 CYCC sent a letter that the fence had been <br />installed. During the next complete inspection the Division inspected the new <br />silt fence and observed the numerous areas where it was not anchored. Thus <br />NOV C-90-046 was issued. <br />CYCC did not contest the fact of the violation. They had agreed to install <br />the fence after considerable discussions with the Division. The individual <br />assigned to install the silt fence was a second year ranch hand with CYCC's <br />ranch company. Mr. Middleton explained that he spent a half-day with the <br />individual showing him how to correctly install the fence and in fact <br />installed a section of the fence himself. He made periodic field checks the <br />first couple days to monitor the progress. After that he relied on the field <br />hands' word that installation was progressing without problems and that it was <br />properly completed. No-field check was conducted upon completion of the <br />installation. CYCC explained there were too many other projects, and they did <br />not have time to go look at it. Mr. Middleton provided a summary of this NOV. <br />CYCC questioned the proposed civil penalty. <br />The proposed civil penalty was: <br />History E0.00 <br />Seriousness 500.00 <br />Fault 500.00 <br />Good Faith 0.00 <br />TOTAL 3T;000-00 <br />-1- <br />