“Since at least November 3, 2021, Respondent, or persons acting on behalf of Respondent, have, on an ongoing basis, operated equipment that discharged dredged and/or fill material to waters of the United States at the Site without authorization from the Corps.”

💡 This confirms the company knowingly operated for years without required federal permits.

“EPA conducted an inspection on April 5, 2023, and observed that Respondent had discharged fill material to approximately 2.5 acres of waters of the United States at the Site.”

💡 2.5 acres represents substantial destruction of protected wetlands that provide flood control and water filtration.

“Since at least November 3, 2021, Respondent has violated Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), by discharging dredged and/or fill material to the waters of the United States from a point source without authorization.”

💡 The EPA formally concludes the company violated federal law for over two years.

“At no time during the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States at the Site did the Respondent have a permit from the Corps as required by Section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.”

💡 This confirms the company never even attempted to seek proper authorization before destroying wetlands.

“Violation of the terms of this Order may result in further EPA enforcement action including, but not limited to, imposition of administrative penalties, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g) as modified by the Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1996 and the subsequent Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 19, and/or initiation of judicial proceedings that allow for civil penalties of up to $53,484 per day for each day of violation that occurs, and/or for the criminal sanctions of imprisonment and fines of up to $25,000 per day, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c).”

💡 The order threatens substantial penalties but does not impose any, suggesting the company may avoid financial consequences.

“Respondent waives any and all remedies, claims for relief and otherwise available rights to judicial or administrative review that Respondent may have with respect to any issue of fact or law set forth in this Order, including any right of judicial review pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706.”

💡 By waiving review rights, the company prevents public scrutiny of whether the restoration requirements are truly adequate.

“A written description of the actions to be taken to remove the dredged and fill material and restore the waters of the United States on the Site, specifically, the waters of the United States described above, and depicted in Exhibit A (Site Map). Restoration shall be to the approximate pre-disturbance grade and conditions, including the identification of an upland disposal area where the material removed from the wetlands will be placed.”

💡 The order requires restoration to original conditions, but achieving true ecological recovery is extremely difficult after years of damage.

“Respondent shall monitor the restored area at the Site for a period of no less than ten (10) years to ensure the objective of restoring impacted aquatic resources. Respondent shall conduct monitoring events at the Site twice per year, once in the spring and once in the fall, and submit to EPA a monitoring report at the address listed in Paragraph 29 (Correspondence), including the language set forth in Paragraph 30 (Certification), by December 31st of the monitoring year.”

💡 A decade of monitoring suggests EPA recognizes restoration will be difficult and may fail without sustained oversight.

“Respondent’s compliance with the terms of this Order shall not relieve Respondent of their obligation to comply with all applicable provisions of the CWA or any other Federal, Commonwealth or local law or regulation. Issuance of this Order is not an election by EPA to forego any civil or criminal action otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act. EPA reserves the right to seek any remedy available under the law that it deems appropriate to the violations described herein.”

💡 EPA could still pursue additional penalties, but this language suggests it may not, allowing the company to avoid full accountability.

“For purposes of the identification requirement in Section 162(f)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 162(f)(2)(A)(ii), and 26 C.F.R. § 162-21(b)(2), performance of the activities in Section III (Order for Compliance), Paragraphs 18-36 is restitution, remediation, or required to come into compliance with the law.”

💡 By classifying restoration as restitution, the company may be able to deduct these costs, reducing the financial impact of the violation.

“The term fill material, within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 232.2, includes any pollutant which replaces portions of waters of the United States with dry land or which changes the bottom elevation of a water body for any purpose.”

💡 This confirms that the company replaced protected wetlands with dry land, permanently altering the ecosystem.

“The term discharge of fill material, within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 232.2, includes placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure or infrastructure in a water of the United States.”

💡 The fill was discharged to construct campground structures, demonstrating commercial motives for the illegal activity.

“Cease and desist all discharges to waters of the United States at the Site, including filling, clearing, and grading except in compliance with a CWA Section 404 or 402 permit or in accordance with the plans submitted and approved pursuant to this Order.”

💡 The order stops ongoing illegal discharges, but allows continued operations under approved plans, potentially enabling further unauthorized work.

“If EPA disapproves all or part of the Restoration and Mitigation Plan, Respondent shall, within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of EPA’s disapproval, correct the deficiencies and resubmit the Plan for approval. If the Plan is not approved as provided in this Order, EPA retains the right to order restoration in accordance with a plan to be developed by EPA.”

💡 Multiple revision cycles could delay restoration for years, and EPA may ultimately have to develop the plan itself if the company fails to comply adequately.

“Responsibility to complete the required restoration as set forth in the approved Restoration and Mitigation Plan will not be considered fulfilled until Respondents have demonstrated project success and have received written verification of that success from EPA.”

💡 The company remains liable until EPA confirms restoration succeeded, but this depends on EPA having resources to rigorously verify success over many years.