The Complainant and the Respondent desire to settle and compromise this action without hearing or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and consent to the entry of the following Findings of Fact and Order. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-6, the Complainant and Respondent agree to resolve the violations raised in the Commissioner’s Order issued to Stonebridge Partners, L.P. on February 28, 2001.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant is the Commissioner ("Complainant") of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State of Indiana created by IC 13-13-1-1.
2. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, IDEM issued a Notice of Violation on October 21, 1997, via Certified Mail to Stonebridge Partners, L.P., (former "Respondent"), who owned, operated and developed the area of expansion at the Stonebridge Section 2, subdivision (the "Site") located approximately 1/8 mile south of intersection State Road 267 and County Road 100 North in Plainfield, Hendricks County, Indiana, and to John Huber at the following addresses:

Paul Hardin John Huber

Stonebridge Partners 11186 South State Road 42

P. O. Box 188 Cloverdale, Indiana 46168

Plainfield, Indiana 46168

3. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice of Violation to Stonebridge Partners, L.P., Avon I, LLC acquired the Site from Stonebridge Partners, L.P. As part of the sale of the Site, which occurred on December 31, 2000, Avon I, LLC, Charles F. Lieske, President, assumed responsibility for this matter.
4. Avon I, LLC, (the "Respondent"), whose mailing address is 9567 Valparaiso Court, Indianapolis, Indiana 46268, is the Respondent in this matter.
5. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.
6. Pursuant to 327 IAC 15-5-7, general conditions for construction activity erosion control measures state that the operator shall develop an erosion control plan in accordance with the requirements under this section. The erosion control plan must assure that erosion control measures are implemented and maintained, and that off-site sedimentation does not occur during the period of construction activity at the Site. The operator shall maintain all erosion control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this rule.
7. IC 13-30-2-1 states, in substance, that no person may discharge, emit, cause, allow, or threaten to discharge, emit, cause, or allow any contaminant or waste including any noxious odor, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, into the environment or into any publicly owned treatment works in any form which causes or would cause pollution which violates or would violate rules, standards, or discharge or emission requirements adopted by the appropriate board pursuant to this article.
8. 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1) states, in substance, that all waters at all times and at all places, including the mixing zone, shall meet the minimum conditions of being free from substances, materials, floating debris, oil or scum attributable to municipal, industrial, agricultural, and other land use practices or other discharges.
9. Representatives of IDNR and the Hendricks County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) conducted an inspection of construction activities at the Site, on September 25, 1996. During this inspection, it was documented that erosion control measures were not effectively implemented, causing sediment to leave the Site. Specifically, a sediment deposit was documented in a side channel of White Lick Creek, in violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7, 327 IAC 2-1-6 and IC 13-30-2-1.
10. IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance (WONC) to the Respondent on October 9, 1996, addressing the above referenced deficiencies. The Respondent was given ten days from the date of the letter to comply with 327 IAC 15-5-7. As of July 11, 1997, the Respondent had not fully complied with the deficiencies noted in the WONC.
11. On November 22, 1996, IDNR conducted an inspection of construction activities at the Site. A copy of the inspection report was sent to the Respondent on November 26, 1996. The inspection report noted that the plan was not being effectively implemented and there was evidence of sediment leaving the Site. It was also noted that erosion and sediment control measures were not installed in appropriate locations and other measures needed maintenance or modification. Conditions at the Site were cited as having a high potential for off-site damage from sedimentation. Erosion and sediment control measures were not appropriately incorporated into land disturbing activities. On-site drainage channels and outlets were not stabilized and storm inlets were not adequately protected. Sediment from the Site was documented as entering White Lick Creek. All of the above listed deficiencies are in violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7, 327 IAC 2-1-6, and IC 13-30-2-1.
12. The Hendricks County SWCD sent a letter to Stonebridge Partners, L.P. on December 12, 1996, addressing deficiencies at the Site. A copy of the IDNR report from December 6, 1996 was sent with the letter.
13. Huber Construction Co. sent a letter to the Hendricks Co. SWCD dated December 27, 1996. The letter stated that the areas of concern would be in compliance within fifteen "good" working days.
14. On April 3, 1997, IDEM sent another letter to the Respondent stating that there was an ongoing violation of 327 IAC 15-5. Compliance was to be achieved by April 21, 1997, or further enforcement action would be pursued.
15. Huber Construction sent a letter to IDEM on April 21, 1997. The letter stated that all items cited as deficient in IDNR’s letter dated December 26, 1996, had been addressed except item #4, which would be completed by April 30, 1997.
16. On April 23, 1997, IDNR and the Hendricks County SWCD conducted an evaluation of the Site. Items from the December 26, 1996, letter were not properly addressed, and sediment could still leave the Site. The following deficiencies were noted, in violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7:

1. Evidence of sediment leaving the Site;
2. Site presented a high potential for off-site sedimentation;
3. Existing measures needed maintenance or modification;
4. On-site drainage channels and outlets were not stabilized;
5. Storm inlets were not adequately protected.

II. ORDER

1. This Agreed Order shall be effective ("Effective Date") when it is approved by the Complainant or her delegate, and has been received by the Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have no force or effect until the Effective Date.
2. The Respondent shall immediately cease and desist violations of 327 IAC 15-5-7, IC 13-30-2-1 and 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1).
3. The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000). Said penalty amount shall be made in six monthly installments. The first monthly installment is due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within thirty days of the Effective Date of the Order. The first five monthly installments shall be Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). The sixth and final monthly installment shall be Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000). Each of the six monthly installments shall be received by IDEM on or before the fifth day of each month, or the next business day thereafter if payment is due on a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday.
4. Civil penalties are payable by check to the Environmental Management Special Fund. Checks shall include the Case Number of this action and shall be mailed to:

Cashier

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 7060

Indianapolis, IN 46207-7060

5. In the event that any of the civil penalty installments required by paragraph 3 is not paid within thirty days of the due date, the Respondent shall pay interest on the unpaid balance at the rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101. The interest shall continue to accrue until the civil penalty is paid in full.
6. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the Respondent, its officers, directors, principals, agents, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. The Respondent's signatories to this Agreed Order certify that they are fully authorized to execute this document and legally bind the parties they represent. No change in ownership, corporate, or partnership status of the Respondent shall in any way alter its status or responsibilities under this Agreed Order.
7. In the event that any terms of the Agreed Order are found to be invalid, the remaining terms shall remain in full force and effect and shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreed Order did not contain the invalid terms.
8. The Respondent shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if in force, to any subsequent owners or successors before ownership rights are transferred. Respondent shall ensure that all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
9. Within five (5) working days of the effective date of this Agreed Order, Respondent agrees to withdraw its March 21, 2001, petition for review filed with the Office of Environmental Adjudication.
10. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until Respondent has complied with paragraphs 3 through 5 and 9 of this Agreed Order and IDEM issues a close out letter.

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management Avon I, LLC

By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________

Mark Stanifer, Chief

Water Enforcement Section Printed: Candi L. Guilinger_ _____

Office of Enforcement

Title: Registered Agent________________

Department of Environmental Management Avon I, LLC

By: ____________________________ By: _____________________________

Michael S. Byron, Attorney Guinn P. Doyle, Attorney

Office of Legal Counsel Barnes & Thornburg Attns. At Law

The Department of 111 South Meridian Street

Environmental Management Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT THIS 3rd DAY OF December, 2001.

FOR THE COMMISSIONER:

_______________________________

Felicia A. Robinson

Deputy Commissioner

for Legal Affairs