STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT

) SS: OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

COUNTY OF MARION )

COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NOS. B-2051, B-2052,

) B-2057, B-2060, B-2102, B-2112,

) B-2204, B-2222, B-2223, B-2224,

) & B-2278

STEVE AULBACH, PARTNER )

INDIANA LAND COMPANY )

)

Respondent. )

AGREED ORDER

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.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Complainant is the Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State of Indiana created by IC 13-13-1-1.

• Respondent is Indiana Land Company which is partially owned by Steve Aulback (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), part owner and developer of Middle Fork Farm, Dutch Creek Estates , Butler Farm, Goodwin Farm, Simmons Court, Riverview Estates, Springhill Farm, Durning Property Project, Pear Orchard Farm, Rolling Hills, and Chinn Estates. Middle Fork Farm, Dutch Creek Estates, Butler Farm, Goodwin Farm, Simmons Court, Riverview Estates, Springhill Farm, Pear Orchard Farm, and Rolling Hills are located in Washington County; Durning Property Project is located in Clark County; and Chinn Estates is located in Harrison County, Indiana.

3. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.

4. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, IDEM issued Notices of Violations via Certified Mail to:

• Respondent waives its right to issuance of a Notice of Violation for Riverview Estates, Pear Orchard Farm, Rolling Hills, Durning Property Project, Springhill Farm, and Chinn Estates. The Respondent agrees to waive the settlement period of sixty (60) days as provided for by IC 13-30-3-3.

6. Based on the records reviewed and the inspection reports, the Respondent is found to be in violation of the following provisions of the Indiana Code (IC) and Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) pertaining to storm water requirements for land disturbing construction activities. This finding is based on the following:

• 327 IAC 15-5-2 pertains to storm water run-off associated with construction activity. The requirements under this rule apply to all persons who:

(1) do not obtain an individual NPDES permit under 327 IAC 15-2-6;

(2) meet the general permit rule applicability requirement under 327 IAC 15-2-3; and

(3) are involved in construction activity, which includes clearing, grading, excavating, and other land disturbing activities, except operations that result in the disturbance of less than five (5) acres of total land area and which are not part of a larger common plan of development or sale.

• 327 IAC 15-2-5 (a) states, "Any person subject to the requirements of this article shall submit a [Notice of Intent] NOI letter that complies with this section, 327 IAC 15-3, and the additional requirements in any applicable general permit rule."



• 327 IAC 15-2-5 (b) states, "A NOI letter shall be submitted to the commissioner by the time specified under 327 IAC 15-3 or the time indicated in the applicable general permit rule."



• 327 IAC 15-2-5 (c) states, "The person responsible for the operation of the facility from which a point source discharge of pollutants and/or stormwater occurs must submit a NOI letter."



• 327 IAC 15-2-3 states, in part, "A general permit rule may regulate all designated categories of point sources for which a general permit rule exists...."



• The above noted subdivisions fall under the applicability requirements of 327 IAC 15-5-2 in that five (5) or more acres of total land area are involved in construction activity at each site. The construction activity at these sites are not covered by an NPDES permit under 327 IAC 15-2-6, but they meet the general permit rule applicability requirement under 327 IAC 15-2-3. They are categorized as point source discharge of stormwater and therefore 327 IAC 15-2-5 (c) require submission of a NOI letters for each site.

• 327 IAC 15-5-6 pertains to the deadline for submittal of a NOI letter and additional information. All information required under 327 IAC 15-3 and 327 IAC 15-5-5 shall be submitted to the Commissioner prior to the initiation of land disturbing activities.



• 327 IAC 15-5-5 states, in substance, that in addition to the NOI letter requirements under 327 IAC 15-3, the following information must be submitted by the operator with an NOI letter under this rule:

1) A brief description of the construction project, including, but not limited to, a statement of the total acreage of the site.

2) Estimated timetable for land disturbing activities and installation of erosion control measures.

3) Statement of the number of acres to be involved in land disturbing activities.

4) A written certification by the operator that:

(A) the erosion control measures included in the erosion control plan comply with the requirements under sections 7 and 9 of this rule and that the plan complies with applicable state, county, or local erosion control requirements;

(B) the erosion control measures will be implemented in accordance with the plan;

(C) verification that an appropriate state, county, or local erosion control authority and the soil and water conservation district office have been sent a copy of the plan for review; and

(D) verification that implementation of the erosion control plan will be conducted by personnel trained in erosion control practices.

5) Proof of publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected area that notified the public that a construction activity under this rule is to commence.

• 327 IAC 15-5-7 pertains to general conditions for construction activity erosion control measures. In essence it states that the operator shall develop an erosion control plan in accordance with the requirements under the section. The following requirements shall be met on all sites during the period when active land disturbing activities occur:

a. Sediment-laden water which otherwise would flow from the site shall be detained by erosion control practices appropriate to minimize sedimentation in the receiving stream. No storm water shall be discharged from the site in a manner causing erosion in the receiving channel at the point of the discharge.

b. Appropriate measures shall be taken by the operator to minimize or eliminate wastes or unused building materials from being carried from a site by run-off.

c. Sediment being tracked from a site onto public or private roadways shall be minimized.

d. Public or private roadways shall be kept clear of accumulated sediment. Bulk clearing of accumulated sediment shall not include flushing the area with water. Cleared sediment shall be returned to the point of likely origin or other suitable location.

e. All on-site storm drain inlets shall be protected against sedimentation with barriers meeting acceptable design criteria, standards, and specification for that purpose.

f. The following items apply during the time construction activity is taking place:

1) Storm water drainage from adjacent areas that naturally pass through the site shall be controlled by diverting it around the disturbed areas.

2) Run-off from a disturbed area shall be controlled by one or more of the measures required under this section.

3) During the period of construction activity at a site, all erosion control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this rule shall be maintained by the operator.

4) All erosion control measures required to comply with this rule shall meet the design criteria, standards, and specifications for erosion control measures established by the IDEM in guidance documents. The erosion control plan shall include, but is not limited to, a site map, a plan of final site conditions and a site construction plan, all as detailed in 327 IAC 15-5-7 (d).

MIDDLE FORK FARM (Cause No. B-2060)

• The findings of fact numbered 17 through 24 relate to the Middle Fork Farm subdivision.



• On June 27, 1996, an IDEM representative and IDNR representatives conducted an inspection at the Middle Fork Farm Subdivision and noted that land disturbing activity had taken place. The inspection documented that gravel roads had been built, and utility lines and mobile homes had been installed throughout the subdivision. Constructing roads, and installing utility lines and mobile homes are part of land disturbing activities.



• On August 15, 1996, an IDEM representative sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter via certified mail stating that the Respondent had failed to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) prior to land disturbing activity. A follow up letter was sent on September 19, 1996. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.

• On November 6, 1996, the Respondent submitted the erosion control plan to the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). However, land disturbing activity had occurred prior to submitting the erosion control plan which violates 327 IAC 15-5-5.



• On November 25, 1996, the Respondent submitted the NOI to IDEM. However, land disturbing activity had occurred prior to submitting the NOI which violates 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On December 12, 1996, IDNR representatives and IDEM representatives conducted an inspection at the Middle Fork Farm and noted that land disturbing activity had taken place. The inspection documented that gravel roads had been built and utility lines had been installed throughout the subdivision.



• On January 15, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a Notice of Deficiency for the NOI that was received by IDEM on November 25, 1996.



• On January 22, 1997, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist reviewed the erosion control plan and found that the plan was deficient.



• On March 26, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter stating that the NOI letter was deficient. As of January 26, 1998 IDEM had no record that the Respondent submitted the required information that was requested.

GOODWIN FARM (Cause No. B-2102)

• The findings of fact numbered 26 through 31 relate to the Goodwin Farm subdivision.



• On July 9, 1996, IDNR representatives conducted an inspection at the Goodwin Farm Subdivision and noted that land disturbing activities had taken place and that erosion control measures were not properly implemented. The inspection report notes the following inadequate erosion control measures:

1. the erosion control plan was not readily available during the evaluation;

2. there is evidence of sediment leaving the site;

3. site conditions present a high potential for off-site damage from sedimentation;

4. erosion and sediment control measures are not appropriately incorporated into land disturbing activities; and

5. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized.

• Additionally, it was noted in the inspection report that no erosion control plan had been received by the Clark County SWCD, the drainage ways were gullied and unstable, and sediment was leaving the site and entering county road ditches. Initiation of land disturbing activities prior to submitting an Erosion Control Plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5. Failure to control sediment from leaving the site is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7.



• On July 30, 1996, Clark County SWCD approved the Erosion Control Plan for the Goodwin Farm Subdivision.



• On July 31, 1996, IDEM received and reviewed the NOI letter for the Goodwin Farm Subdivision. On September 16, 1996, an IDEM representative sent the Respondent a letter of sufficiency for the NOI letter. However, initiation of land disturbing activities prior to submitting the NOI is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On September 11, 1996, an IDNR representative conducted an inspection at the Goodwin Farm Subdivision. In the inspection report the following deficiencies were noted:

1. the plan is not being effectively implemented;

2. there is evidence of sediment leaving the site;

3. site conditions present a high potential for off-site damage from sedimentation;

4. erosion and sediment control measures are not appropriately incorporated into land disturbing activities;

5. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized; and

6. areas have not been stabilized as specified in the construction sequence.

Failure to effectively implement the erosion control plan and prevent sediment from leaving the site is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7.

• On September 16, 1996, an IDEM representative sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter via certified mail regarding the violations which had taken place at Goodwin Farm Subdivision. On September 22, 1996, a representative from the Respondent's office received the warning letter. This letter stated that the Respondent had failed to control sediment from leaving the site which was deposited on the county roads. The letter requested that within ten (10) days of the date of the correspondence, the Respondent implement the soil erosion control measures as outlined in the soil erosion control plan and within fourteen (14) days after receiving notice, submit to IDEM a written report outlining the measures taken. IDEM has no record of the written report and recent inspections conducted by the IDNR indicate that the erosion control measures are still inadequate and in violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7.

DUTCH CREEK ESTATES (Cause No. B-2057)

• The findings of fact numbered 33 through 36 relate to the Dutch Creek Estates subdivision.



• On August 15, 1996, an IDEM representative sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to the Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. A follow up letter was sent on September 19, 1996. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting an NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 15-5-6.



• On December 12, 1996, IDNR representatives and IDEM representatives conducted an inspection at the Dutch Creek Estates subdivision and noted that land disturbing activity had taken place. The inspection documented that gravel roads had been built and mobile homes and utility lines had been installed throughout the subdivision. Constructing roads and installing mobile homes and utility lines are part of land disturbing activities and further demonstrate your violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On September 18, 1997, the Respondent submitted a NOI letter to IDEM. On December 19, 1997, an IDEM representative submitted a notice of sufficiency letter to the Respondent. However, initiation of land disturbing activities prior to submitting the NOI is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On October 1, 1997, the SWCD approved the erosion control plan that the Respondent submitted. However, initiation of land disturbing activities prior to submitting the erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-7.

BUTLER FARM (Cause No. B-2051)

• The findings of fact numbered 38 through 40 relate to the Butler Farm subdivision.



• On June 18, 1996, an IDEM representative sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI letter and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.

• On December 12, 1996, IDNR representatives and IDEM representatives conducted an inspection at the Butler Farm subdivision and noted that land disturbing activity had taken place. In the report, it was documented that gravel roads had been built, and utility lines and mobile homes had been installed throughout the subdivision. Construction of roads, and installing utility lines and mobile homes are part of land disturbing activities, and further demonstrate the above cited violations.



• As of January 8, 1997, the Respondent has not submitted the NOI nor the erosion control plan as explained in the Warning letter that was issued on June 18, 1996.

SIMMONS COURT (Cause No. B-2052)

• The findings of fact numbered 42 through 45 relates to the Simmons Court subdivision.



• On June 18, 1996, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding Respondent's failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On July 13, 1996, SWCD received the erosion control plan for Simmons Court East subdivision. IDNR reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be deficient. IDNR sent the erosion control plan back on August 6, 1996, and asked the Respondent to resubmit a revised plan by August 19, 1996.

• On December 12, 1996, IDNR representatives and IDEM representatives conducted an inspection at the Simmons Court subdivision and noted that land disturbing activity had indeed taken place. The inspection documented that gravel roads had been built and utility lines had been installed throughout the subdivision. Constructing roads and installing utility lines are part of land disturbing activities and further demonstrate a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On November 26, 1996, the Respondent submitted a NOI letter to IDEM. On December 13, 1996, IDEM issued the Respondent a notice of deficiency letter stating that the NOI letter is incomplete. As of January 26, 1998 IDEM had no record that the Respondent submitted the required information that was requested.

RIVERVIEW ESTATES (Cause No. B-2278)

• The findings of fact numbered 47 through 51 relate to the Riverview Estates subdivision.



• On May 21, 1996, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding Respondent's failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On June 7, 1996, the Respondent submitted a NOI letter to IDEM. On July 26, 1996, IDEM issued the Respondent a notice of deficiency letter stating that the NOI letter is incomplete.



• On September 5, 1996, IDEM sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter regarding the NOI letter which was received by IDEM on June 7, 1996. The warning of noncompliance letter stated that the NOI submitted by the Respondent was deficient and IDEM allowed the Respondent an additional fifteen (15) days to submit the required information as required by 327 IAC 15-3 and 327 IAC 15-5-5.



• On August 5, 1996, a IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be sufficient.



• As of January 21, 1998, IDEM had no record that the Respondent submitted the required NOI information as requested in the warning letter that was issued on September 5, 1996.

PEAR ORCHARD FARM (Cause No. B-2223)

• The findings of fact numbered 53 through 57 relate to the Pear Orchard Farm subdivision.



• On January 27, 1997, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On March 5, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a letter stating that the Respondent had failed to respond to the Warning of Noncompliance letter which was issued on January 27, 1997.

• On March 7, 1997, IDEM received the NOI letter submitted by the Respondent. On April 2, 1997, IDEM issued the Respondent a notice of deficiency letter stating that the NOI letter is incomplete.



• On April 15, 1997, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be sufficient.



• On June 30, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter stating that the IDEM has not received a revised NOI letter.

ROLLING HILLS (Cause No. B-2224)

• The findings of fact numbered 59 through 62 relate to the Rolling Hills subdivision.



• On January 27, 1997, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On March 5, 1997, IDEM issued a letter to the Respondent stating that the Respondent had failed to respond to the Warning of Noncompliance letter which was issued on January 27, 1997.



• On April 15, 1997, IDEM received the NOI letter from the Respondent. On May 20, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a letter of sufficiency for the NOI letter.



• On October 1, 1997, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist for IDNR reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be sufficient.

DURNING PROPERTY PROJECT (Cause No. B-2222)

• The findings of fact numbered 64 through 67 relate to the Durning Property Project subdivision.



• On January 27, 1997, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Clark County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On March 5, 1997, IDEM sent the Respondent a letter stating that the Respondent had failed to respond to the Warning of Noncompliance letter which was issued on January 27, 1997.



• On March 26, 1997, IDEM received the NOI letter from the Respondent. On May 2, 1997, IDEM issued the Respondent a notice of sufficiency letter.



• On April 28, 1997, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be sufficient.

SPRINGHILL FARM (Cause No. B-2204)

• The findings of fact numbered 69 through 72 relate to the Springhill Farm subdivision.



• On May 21, 1996, IDEM issued a Warning of Noncompliance letter to the Respondent regarding the failure to submit a NOI letter to IDEM and an erosion control plan to Washington County SWCD prior to land disturbing activity. Initiation of land disturbing activity prior to submitting a NOI and an erosion control plan is a violation of 327 IAC 15-5-5 and 327 IAC 15-5-6.



• On June 5, 1996, IDEM received the NOI letter from the Respondent. On July 26, 1996, IDEM sent the Respondent a notice of deficiency letter stating that the NOI letter is incomplete.



• On August 6, 1996, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist approved the erosion control plan the was submitted to the SWCD.



• On September 5, 1996, IDEM sent another Warning of Noncompliance letter stating that the Respondent had failed to respond to the Warning of Noncompliance letter which was sent on July 28, 1996.

CHINN ESTATES (Cause No. B-2112)

• The findings of fact numbered 74 through 84 relate to the Chinn Estates subdivision.



• In July of 1994, the IDNR Urban Conservation Specialist reviewed the erosion control plan and found the plan to be sufficient.



• On May 19, 1995, a representative from IDNR conducted an inspection and noted the following deficiencies at Chinn Estates Subdivision:

• the plan is not being effectively implemented.

2. there is evidence of sediment leaving the site.

3. erosion and sediment control measures are not appropriately incorporated into land disturbing activities.

4. existing measures need maintenance or modification.

5. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized.

6. areas have not been stabilized as specified in the construction sequence.

Failure to control and maintain sediment from leaving the site is a violation of

327 IAC 15-5-7.

• On August 25, 1995, a representative from IDNR conducted an inspection and noted the following deficiencies at Chinn Estates Subdivision:

• the plan is not being effectively implemented.

2. there is evidence of sediment leaving the site.

3. erosion and sediment control measures are not appropriately incorporated into land disturbing activities.

4. existing measures need maintenance or modification.

5. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized.

6. areas have not been stabilized as specified in the construction sequence.

Failure to control and maintain sediment from leaving the site is a violation of

327 IAC 15-5-7.

• On September 7, 1995, a representative from the Harrison County SWCD sent the Respondent a letter stating that they had conducted an on-site inspection on August 25, 1995 and found that the site was is noncompliance with 327 IAC 15-5. A copy of the inspection was sent with this letter.



• On April 5, 1996, a representative from IDNR conducted an inspection and noted the following deficiencies at Chinn Estates Subdivision:

• there is evidence of sediment leaving the site.

2. existing measures need maintenance or modification.

3. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized.

4. areas have not been stabilized as specified in the construction sequence.

5. storm inlets are not adequately protected.

Failure to control and maintain sediment from leaving the site is a violation of

327 IAC 15-5-7.

• On April 9, 1996, a representative from the Harrison County SWCD sent the Respondent a letter stating that they had conducted an on-site inspection on April 5, 1996 and found that the site was is noncompliance with 327 IAC 15-5. A copy of the inspection was sent with this letter.



• On August 22, 1996, a representative from IDNR conducted an inspection and noted the following deficiencies at Chinn Estates Subdivision:

• there is evidence that soil/sediment is being tracked onto public or private roadways.

• existing measures need maintenance or modification.

3. on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized.

4. areas have not been stabilized as specified in the construction sequence.

5. storm inlets are not adequately protected.

Failure to control and maintain sediment from leaving the site is a violation of

327 IAC 15-5-7.

• On August 29, 1996, a representative from the Harrison County SWCD sent the Respondent a letter stating that they had conducted an on-site inspection on August 22, 1996 and found that the site was is noncompliance with 327 IAC 15-5. A copy of the inspection report was sent with the letter.



• On September 16, 1996, IDEM issued the Respondent a Warning of Noncompliance letter stating that the Respondent has failed to submit a NOI letter to IDEM as required by 327 IAC 15-5-5 and had not implemented the erosion control plan as required by 327 IAC 15-5-7.



• On June 5, 1997, representatives from IDNR conducted an inspection and noted the that the on-site drainage channels and outlets are not stabilized at Chinn Estates Subdivision:

Failure to control and maintain sediment from leaving the site is a violation of

327 IAC 15-5-7.

• As of January 21, 1998, IDEM had no record that the Respondent submitted a NOI letter.



• In recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives any right to administrative and judicial review of this Agreed Order.

II. ORDER

1. This Agreed Order shall be effective ("Effective Date") when it is approved by the Complainant or his delegate, and has been received by the Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have no force or effect until the Effective Date.

2. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, the Respondent shall submit all remaining missing or deficient NOI letters or revised NOI letters to IDEM, with the appropriate information for Middle Fork Farm, Butler Farm, Simmons Farm, Riverview Estates, Springhill Farm, Pear Orchard Farm, and Chinn Estates as required by 327 IAC 15-5-5, to:

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Water Management

100 North Senate Avenue, P.O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

Attention: Permits Section, Storm Water Desk

• Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, the Respondent shall submit erosion control plans to the Washington County SWCD for the Butler Farm and the Simmons Farm. Upon review, should the SWCD determine that the erosion control plans are deficient, the Respondent will submit modifications of the erosion control plan to the SWCD within ten (10) days of notification of any deficiency.



• After the Washington County SWCD has approved the erosion control plan for a given subdivision, the Respondent shall immediately implement the erosion control plan and maintain the erosion control measures until the development of the subdivision is completed.



• Upon completion of construction activity, Respondent shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) letter to IDEM as required by 327 IAC 15-5-11. Please submit the NOT letters to the addresses below:

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Office of Water Management

100 North Senate Avenue,

P.O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

Attention: Permits Section, Storm Water Desk

AND

Brett DeBusk, Environmental Scientist

Water Enforcement Section

Office of Enforcement

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 N. Senate Avenue

P. O. Box 6015

Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

• Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($14,400). Said penalty amount shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order.

7. In the event the following terms and conditions are violated, the Complainant may assess and the Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty in the following amounts:

Violation Penalty

Paragraph 2 $500 per week for failure to timely submit any NOI letters or revised NOI letters.

Paragraph 3 $500 per week for failure to timely submit any erosion control plans or modifications to the erosion control plans as requested.

Paragraph 4 $1,000 per week for failure to timely implement the erosion control plan and maintain erosion control practices.

Paragraph 5 $500 per week for failure to timely submit NOT letters for each subdivision.

8. Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days after Respondent receives written notice that the Complainant has determined a stipulated penalty is due. Assessment and payment of stipulated penalties shall not preclude the Complainant from seeking any additional relief against the Respondent for violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu of any of the stipulated penalties given above, the Complainant may seek any other remedies or sanctions available by virtue of Respondent's violation of this Agreed Order, or Indiana law, including but not limited to civil penalties pursuant to IC 13-30-4.

• Civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the Environmental Management Special Fund. Checks shall include the Cause Numbers 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

10. In the event that the civil penalty required by paragraph 6 is not paid within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, 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.

• 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.



• 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.

13. 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.

14. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until Respondent has complied with all terms and conditions of this Agreed Order.

15. 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.

TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

By: _________________________ By: _________________________

Mark Stanifer, Section Chief

Office of Enforcement Printed: ________________________

Title: ________________________

Date: _______________ Date: _______________

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT:

Department of Environmental Management

By: _________________________ By: ________________________

Nancy A. Holloran, Attorney

Office of Legal Counsel

Department of Environmental Management

Date: _______________ Date: _______________

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT THIS ___________ DAY OF ______________________, 1998.

FOR THE COMMISSIONER:

Signed on April 28^th, 1998

David J. Hensel

Director

Office of Enforcement