Laserfiche WebLink
17. In response to a 7anuary 24, 2005 letter of complaint from an Objector, the Division <br />inspector inspected the Tucson Resouce site, permit M-1991-140, on February 3, 2005. <br />As a result of the inspection, the Division inspector sent to the Applicant a Reason to <br />Believe a Violation Exists letter and set the matter for a hearing before the Board. On <br />March 16, 2005, the Board found that a violation existed for failing to notify the Division <br />prior to using backfill generated from outside of the permit area. The Board assessed a <br />civil penalty, which has been paid by the Applicant. The Division noted that Section 34- <br />32.5-120 prevents the granting of anew permit if a violation exists at the time of the <br />application, but this violation did not exist at the time of the application. It arose <br />subsequent to the filing of the application. There are no unabated violations at the <br />present time, and there were no unabated violations on July 2, 2004 when the application <br />was deemed filed. <br />18. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Applicant has complied with Section 34- <br />32.5-120 of the Act. <br />Issue 4: Minimization of Impacts to Hydrologic Balance <br />19. Construction Materials Rules 3.1.6(1) and (3) require an operator to minimize <br />disturbances to the hydrologic balance of the affected land and surrounding area and to <br />stabilize all surface areas of the affected ]and. <br />20. The Applicant has agreed to address concerns about the impacts of potential stockpile <br />erosion into the Brantner and Brighton irrigation ditches. The Applicant proposes to <br />construct sediment collection trenches and settling ponds in addition to placing hay bales <br />and silt fences as barriers to prevent erosion sediment from reaching the irrigation <br />ditches. The Applicant has agreed to construct stockpiles in the area of concern with <br />