Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and therefore they had to be designed as a sediment control <br />structure. They were not. The Division accepted this abatement <br />because at least there was adequate capacity at the time of the <br />inspection and dve to geographic constraints, the West Pit Pond <br />cannot be enlarged. This is not to say that the Division agrees <br />with the fact that they were constructed without a design or <br />prior approval. <br />I agree with the proposed penalty. <br />Fault <br />Colowyo disagreed with the proposed penalty. The West Pit Pond <br />was not the sole structure for water runoff and sediment <br />containment. Structures ~2 and $3 were built for this purpose. <br />They said in-pit structures have always been an integral part of <br />their sediment control system and they did not feel it was <br />necessary to describe the in-pit structures in their plan. They <br />felt and demonstrated in their abatement submittal that there was <br />adequate storage. They did not disregard the permit provisions <br />or design parameters as stated in the proposed assessment. They <br />were relying on the in-pit structures for sediment control. <br />Based on the information presented in the conference, it is clear <br />that Colowyo needed more than the 124 acre drainage area allowed <br />by the West Pit Pond to develop the West pit area. in order to <br />increase their development area, they built nin-pit" structures <br />to contain the flow. I do not feel Colowyo intentionally <br />disregarded the regulations. I do feel Colowyo stretched the <br />meaning of "in-pith structure in order to enarge the development <br />area. I do not consider Structures ~2 and ~3 in-pit structures <br />and therefore, they must be permitted. <br />During the conference I was inclined to reduce the penalty to <br />negligence, but after further consideration on my part, I agree <br />with the proposed penalty. I feel the lack of permitting or <br />discussion regarding sediment control for the entire development <br />area, knowing that 124 acres would not be enough, is a greater <br />degree of fault than negligence. <br />Good Faith <br />Colowyo abated the NOV on the abatement deadline. They submitted <br />a demonstration that there was adequate storage. There was no <br />evidence of extraordinary effort. <br />Settlement Agreement Penalty <br />History $0.00 <br />Seriousness $1000.00 <br />Fault $1250.00 <br />Good Faith $0.00 <br />Total $2250.00 <br />