:Enforcement Procedures and Considerations Relative to Chapter 811 Acts of Assembly,Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Habitat Management Division. Roadley, Charles R. Virginia.Marine Resources Commission.Habitat Management Division. Richmond, Va.:Virginia Marine Resources Commission,1991. Subaqueous lands regulation Virginia. Tidal wetlands regulation Virginia. Licenses Government policy Virginia. Marine resources Virginia. Coastal primary sand dunes regulations Virginia. Virginia Marine Resources Commission Permit Compliance and Inspection Program. . . ....... .... .......... ............ him- -..dd bf I. ........... ................ . ....... . ............... VIRGINIA .... .............. .... . . . . ..... .. .. .. ............. .. . .... . ... ................... ion -IJ Cn "ahd -Conside" ations Enforcement kioco@du'res, r Relative to Cha'tei,811 Act 'of Asgembly "tp, Ch*akes'R. &adl a strong deterrent to violating the law and a power- ful incentive for resolving the matter at an adminis- Introduction trative level. In that regard, Section 62.1-13.18:2 grants the Commission and wetlands boards the Recent changes in legislation altering enforce- authority to assess civil charges of up to $10,000 ment authority under Title 62.1 present an excellent per violation. Civil charges are to be paid in lieu of opportunity for a review of enforcement proce- any appropriate civil penalty and can be assessed dures as well as a chance to highlight the changes only with the consent of the person in violation. that resulted from these additions to the law. This The obvious intent of both civil penalties and review is designed to be used as an enforcement charges is to provide financial disincentives against guide to aid in interpreting the changes and should violating the law while at the same time providing not take the place of advice from knowledgeable the impetus to resolve these issues at an administra- counsel. tive level. A $10,000 civil charge may seem ex- All of the amendments and additions included treme but when compared to perhaps a $500,000 in Chapter 8il Acts of Assembly 1990 (Senate Bill civil penalty ($25,000 x each day of the violation, 183) as found in Attachment A, are contained in Ti- 20 days in this example) the more cost effective so- tle 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and affect the regu- lution remains at the administrative level. It should lation of subaqueous lands, tidal wetlands and be noted, however, that civil charges may be in ad- coastal primary sand dunes, Chapters 1, 2.1 and 2.2, dition to the cost of any restoration ordered under respectively. Specifically, those amendments pro- Section 62.1-13.16:I(C). vide the Commission with the authority to adopt The adoption of financial disincentives not only regulations, and the Commission or local wetlands commands the attention of those parties involved in board with the authority to issue restoration orders coastal development but also those responsible for and assess civil charges for violations of the applica- administering Virginia's coastal law. Enforcement ble statutes. These amendments became effective on July 1, 1990. In the past, violations of the aforementioned --------------- Code sections usually resulted in either voluntary ....... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . restoration or more frequently, submittal of an after- ........ ...... X. ........ ---------- the-fact application for a permit. Violators were usu- ........ .... ally asked to appear before the Commission or ..... ....... . ........... ......... .............. wetlands board and reprimanded for their actions . . . . . . . . . . with the intent of producing a lasting impression ......... ................ ............. ........... through public admonishment. The prospect of . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . sem prosecution within the judicial system was pre- I NO S U. viously and remains a viable option. Unfortunately, . ........... the inherent problems associated with preparing a case to go to Circuit Court remained unchanged. . . ......... The difference now is that once in Circuit Court, a . .......... ... .. ........ judge can levy a civil penalty up to $25,000 for . ........ each day of a violation. This hopefully will serve as .......... . .......... .... This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resources Management Program through grant # NA90AA-H-CZ796 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 amended. procedures within Virginia's 34 wetland boards has proach is intended to be only a guide and is not a in the past reflected the varying degrees of complex- substitute for a more comprehensive review and un- ity found in each local government. Unifying these derstanding of individual Code sections. A discus- procedures to conform to rigid standards is perhaps sion of each of these components combined with not desirable but a review of the basic enforcement relevant reporting requirements will hopefully solid- components does provide a basis from which locali- ify the enforcement procedure within the context of ties can refine an enforcement mechanism which is your individual needs. legally complete and reflects the unique character Report of a violation (Step 1), either through of each locality. citizen response or staff awareness, immediately calls into question the test of imminent danger and Enforcement significant harm. If the potential violation appears to involve substantial impact to natural resources Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures, represents and further delay could lead to increased despolia- an overall generalized outline of the enforcement tion, it may be necessary to forgo standard notifica- components incorporated into Title 62.1 of the tion requirements and serve a Stop Work Order as Code. Because different Code sections embody dif- specified in Section 62.1-13.16:1(B). Otherwise, ferent enforcement components, this unified ap- standard operating procedures dictate that prior to inspection, notice shall be provided to the resident owner, occupier, or operator (Step 2). If notice is Figure 1 - Enforcement Procedures given verbally, it should be followed with written correspondence. The individual(s) involved should be given an opportunity to accompany the site in- Violation step I spector during their inspection (Step 3). If it is determined there is failure to comply imminent Danger or No with a permit or that unauthorized activities have Si * cant "--- transpired, a Sworn Complaint (Step 4, Attachment Step 2 Notice B) from the designated enforcement officer should be completed and presented to the board chairman. 1 3 I-p-tion Upon receipt of a Sworn Complaint, the board chairman issues a Notice to Comply (Step 5, Attach- ment C), indicating the measures needed for compli- IN Violation ance and a specified time within which such Unauthorized Actiity measures shall be completed. Non-compliance can also result in the issuance of a Stop Work Order (At- Step 4 Sworn Complaint Stop Work tachment E) from the board chairman. The affect of Order a Stop Work Order is directly related to the desired outcome of any given situation. A Stop Work Order Notice to Comply Sup 5 is usually viewed administratively as an "attention getter" designed to reinforce the need for compli- Step 6 ance with the law. As such, Stop Work Orders can be issued in conjunction with the Notice to Comply. PermilModifi ion In the absence of compliance, the Stop Work Order Permit Application serves as the precursor to application for appropri- Show Cause Step 7 ate relief to a Circuit Court in the jurisdiction Voluntary Restoration Step8 Hearing I andlor wherein the violation was alleged to have occurred. Restoration Hearing The Sworn Compliant is an important compo- Restoration Order nent of the violation procedure. While not required -f i I A@Charg- under Section 62.1-13.16:1(A), the Sworn Com- plaint is an integral part of the enforcement proceed- Step 10 ing under Sections 62.1-13.16: 1 (B), and (C). In fact, the Sworn Complaint is required as a precursor Non-compliance Circuit Court to the issuance of a Stop Work Order or a Restora- S p te ' tS,.p 2 SIV 34 V4 Una @u&orizedA i,4ty Ci%41 Penalties? tion Order. Care should also be taken at this time to completely document and photograph the violation (Step 6). Ile violation worksheet (Attachment D) 2 contains pertinent questions which should be an- Restoration swered and may be helpful to ensure that all neces- sary information is obtained. Section 62.1-13.16: I(C) provides the boards Compliance can reasonably involve one of two with additional remedies under the law in the form separate approaches. In one instance the Board can of a Restoration Order. A general fonnat for this or- request the property owner appear before the Board der is contained in Attachment F. The restoration or- during the next regularly scheduled hearing and der should not be considered a position of last show cause why he or she is not in violation (Step resort. In cases where restoration is a desirable out- 7). The show cause hearing allows the Board mem- come, a Notice to Comply with voluntary restora- bers an opportunity to bring forth and put to record tion may preclude a formal restoration hearing. pertinent facts. On the other hand, the Board might A restoration hearing is appropriate in those in- also recognize the project was not constructed in a stances where substantial damage to resources, be- fashion which warrants removal. In such a case the yond that which would normally have been Board could move to accept an application and per- permitted, has occurred. Even in instances where mit a project with the appropriate application of voluntary restoration is deemed a viable alternative, civil charges (Step 9 & 10). the restoration order may be useful in specifying In the former example, a Notice to Comply the details necessary to ensure an effective restora- would request the party responsible for the viola- tion effort. tion to cease the activity and for the owner to ap- A restoration order results from the issuance of pear before the Board to show cause at a specified a Sworn Complaint along with the provision of the date and time. It should be understood, however, necessary 30 day notice to the affected party includ- that the show cause hearing is not the public inter- ing the time, place and purpose of the restoration est review. Rather, it is merely a fact finding ses- hearing. Such an order should require the submis- sion. At it's conclusion, the Board must decide sion of a complete restoration monitoring plan to en- which path is most reasonable. A move toward im- sure successful re-establishment of the affected mediate restoration could be viewed as depriving resources (see Restoration Under Title 62.1 of the the property owner of due process and a full public Code of Virginia, Attachment F). In general, these interest review under the law. This approach stems plans define project details and formalize the per- from Petzinger vs. VMRC 1980. In this proceeding, formance standards by which the restored area will VMRC, on advice from counsel, vacated it's own be evaluated over the long term. The restoration or- order to restore and allowed the appellant@ Freder- der n= also require a prepaid contract acceptable ick J. Petzinger, III the opportunity to apply for an to the board be in affect for the purpose of carrying after-the-fact permit. In this case, the appellant had out the Monitoring Plan. In addition, the board knowingly installed a number of mooring pilings in ma,.x require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in excess of that authorized by an existing permit. an amount and with surety and conditions satisfac- The VMRC originally moved for immediate restora- tory to securing compliance with the conditions set tion, but upon further consideration from the Attor- forth in the Restoration Order. Failure to complete ney General's office, decided to subject the project the required restoration constitutes a separate viola- to a full public interest review providing the prop- tion. erty owner with due process. The application was subsequently denied during review and the appli- Compliance Monitoring cant was directed to remove the offending struc- tures. The decision was later upheld on appeal to ne adoption of financial disincentives places a the Circuit Court. burden not only on developers but also on individ- The submission of an application or allowance ual wetlands boards. As briefly touched on earlier, thereof is not a predilection for approval. It is an af- many of the problems previously associated with firmation of due process which now also allows for enforcement efforts remain today. While it may the application of civil charges (Step 10) for pro- prove relatively easy to determine that a bulkhead jects which might reasonably have been approved was constructed without authorization, it is some- in normal channels. what harder to determine the extent of encroach- ment beyond that which was authorized by a particular permit. The basis for such determinations frequently hinges on the permit drawings that be- came a part of the permit document at issuance. 3 As such, it would certainly behoove each local These are the only options available under this board to adopt a more demanding stance in deter- Code section. The ramifications of each need to be mining adequacy of application drawings. Effective clearly explained to the individual(s) in violation. enforcement of permit noncompliance can only be Only with the individual's concurrence can the achieved with more rigorous application standards. board assess a civil charge. In a report produced by the Wetlands Advisory Pro- gram at VIMS, "Monitoring of Compliance with Permits Granted by Local Wetlands Boards," they Environmental Impact concluded that without compliance monitoring for permitted projects, the regulatory process may be Significant $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 undermined by unnecessary wetland losses. Thus Moderate $1,500 $3,000 $4,500 producing a false impression of the degree to which wetland resources are being protected (Bradshaw, Minimal $ 500 $ 1'000 $11500 1990). Minor Moderate Major Relative Degree of Deviation Civil Penalties and Charges or Non-compliance The major thrust of SB183 was the addition of teeth into an administrative process. The provision Table I - Civil Charge Determination of penalties and charges, however, does nothing to ease the burden of identifying and legally docu- menting the existence of a violation. As previously discussed, application drawings become the only re- liable standard by which permit compliance can be Section 62.1-13.18:2 indicates that a board may determined. order a one-time payment of civil charges for each The review of enforcement procedures identi- violation not to exceed $10,000. Table I - Civil fied two available paths for invoking civil penalties Charge Determination, has been developed to en- or charges, step 8 or step 9. Both paths involve sure continuity between the boards as they individu- identifying the presence of a violation. Only after a ally arrive at an actual dollar amount representative violation has been determined and sufficiently docu- of the violation in question. This assessment is de- mented, including steps 4, 5 & 6, can the board pro- signed to contain the flexibility necessary for the ceed. In cases where restoration is a desirable board to arrive at a conclusion based on the specific conclusion, the individual has the option of restor- terms of each specific violation. Tlese amounts are ing the area to pre-existing conditions. (Voluntary by no means absolute and are intended to be used restoration in this manner may still benefit from a as a guide rather than a template. restoration hearing to establish the formal condi- Environmental Impact in this table refers more tions for restoration. A minimum 30 day notice of a to the relative environmental value of the resource restoration hearing applies.) Otherwise, application lost and less to the actual square footage of area im- for a permit modification or after-the-fact approval pacted. The values for each wetland type may be is necessary. The show cause hearing again pro- found in the Wetlands Guidelines. For example, vides the setting for discussion of the available op- tions. 100 square feet of impact to two stands of vegetated Any violation, whether voluntarily restored or wetlands may be viewed differently depending on not, should be considered an agenda item and fully the dominant plant species. A Group One wetland discussed during a regularly scheduled meeting of ranks higher in value than a Group Five wetland the wetlands board. Standard notification proce- and therefore would tend to be a more significant d ures apply. The party involved should be con- loss even though on an areal basis the impacts tacted and informed that the violation in question might at first appear relatively equal, (Wetland will be discussed at the following board meeting Guidelines 1974, amended 1982). and that their presence is requested at the hearing. Relative Degree of Deviation or Non-compli- In the absence of complete and satisfactory res- ance refers to the extent of a violation. This could toration, anyone found in violation of these Code include not only the magnitude of the area of im- sections is subject to either a civil penalty (Circuit pact but other mitigating factors such as: Court) or to a civil charge (local wetlands board). 4 Good Faith Degree of Willfulness History of Non-compliance Cooperation (Professing an ignorance of the law should not be considered a mitigating factor.) Conclusion While it is appealing to believe that successful implementation of these Code changes will solve all of the problems with respect to wetland viola- tions and after-the-fact applications, such a situ- ation is unlikely. As long as individuals choose to live along the shores, development activities within this coastal fringe will continue to exert tremendous pressure on Virginia's tidal wetlands and sub- merged lands. The success or failure of these Code changes will be directly related to each of Virginia's local wetlands boards. Enforcement needs to be accom- plished in as uniform and consistent a manner as possible. At a minimum, each board should thor- oughly review its present enforcement procedures and determine how the current changes need to be incorporated within their existing administrative in- frastructure. This expanded authority is not the ultimate an- swer. A great deal of the problem with enforcement and permit compliance rests in a lack of attention to detail, crossed communication, and poor follow-up. Remember, "as close to the bank as possible" may be viewed in a variety of ways. It may mean within three feet to the wetlands board, but it could mean "as far as I care to go" for someone buflding the structure. Literature Cited Bradshaw, J.G. 1990, Monitoring of compliance with permits granted by local wetlands boards. Technical Report No. 90-1. 7p. College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, Wetlands Program, Gloucester Point, Virginia. Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1974. Wetlands Guidelines. Available from VMRC, Newport News, Virginia. 5 Attachment A Virginia Acts of Assembly - Chapter 811 1990 Session An Act to amend and reenact §§ 62.1-13.4 and 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter I of 2-ttle 62.1 a section numbered 62.1-9.1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18:2 and 62.1-13.27.1, relating to the restora- tion of habitat; penalties. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That §§ 62.1-13-4 and 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reen- acted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Chapter 1 of Title 62.1 a sec- tion numbered 62.1-9.1, and sections numbered 62.1-13.18:2 and 62.1-13.27:1 as follows: § 62.1 -9. 1. Penalties. -A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or fails, ne- glects or refuses to obey any Commission notice, orde', rule, regulation orpermit condi- tion authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civilpenalty not to exceed $25,000for each day of violatiom Such civil penalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be directed to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation occurredfor thepurpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wetlands therein, in such a man- ner as the court may, by order, direct except that where the violator is the county, city, or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct thepenalty to bepaid into the state treasury. B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the consent of anyperson who has violated anyprovision of this chapter or who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission order, rule, regulation orpermit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission may provide, in an order issued by the Commission against such person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums, not to exceed $10,000for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civil charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wetlands board. § 62.1-13.4. Marine Resources Commission to develop guidelines.---In order to im- plement the policy set forth in § 62.1-13.1 and to assist counties, cities or towns in regula- A - 1 tion of vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands, the Commission shall, with the advice and assistance of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which will evaluate wetlands by type and maintain a continuing inventory of vegetated wetlands, from time to time promul- gate in accordance with the Administrative Process Act (§ 9-6.14:1 et seq.) guidelines which scientifically evaluate vegetated and nonvegetated wetlands by type and which set forth the consequences of use of these wetlands types. In addition, the Commission may promulgate regulations in accordance with the Administrative process Act (§ 9-6.14:1 et seq.) which are necessary to carry out itspowers and duties under theprovisions of this title. In developing guidelines or regulations, the Commission shall consult with any af- fected state governmental agency. § 62.1-13.16:1. Reporting, site inspections and notice to comply: Commission or Wetlands Board to issue stop work order or restoration order. -- A. Repei4ifig, site ifispee fiefts and nefiee te eemply. With respect to permits required pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 1 (§ 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (§ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title, the Commis- sioner or Board Chairman may require of the person responsible for carrying out the provi- sions of the permit such monitoring and reports as they may reasonably deem necessary. With respect to any reported activity not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or with respect to the violation of any permit issued pursuant thereto, they may direct such on-site inspections as are deemed reasonably necessary to determine whether the meas- ures required by the permit are being properly performed, or whether the provisions of the aforementioned chapters are being violated. Prior to conducting such inspections, notice shall be provided to the resident owner, occupier or operator. Such resident owner, occupier or operator shall be given an opportunity to accompany the site inspector. If it is determined that there is a failure to comply with the permit, the Commissioner or Board Chairman shall serve notice upon the person who is responsible for carrying out the provisions of the permit at the address specified by him in his application or by delivery at the site of the permitted activities to the person supervis- ing such activities and designated in the permit to receive such notice. Such notice shall set forth the measures needed for compliance and the time with which such measures shall be completed. Upon failure of such person to comply within the specific period, he may be deemed to be in violation of this section and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. B. Issuanee ef step werk e Upon receipt of a sworn compliant of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chapter 1 (§ 62.1.1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (§ 62.1-13.21 et seq.) of this title from the designated enforcement officer, the Commissioner or Board Chairman may, in conjunction with or subsequent to a notice to comply as specified in subsection A of this section, issue an order requiring all or part of the activities on the site to be stopped until the specified corrective measures have been taken. In the case of an ac- tivity not authorized by the aforementioned chapters or where the alleged permit noncom- pliance is causing, or is in imminent danger of causing, significant harm to the subaqueous bottoms, wetlands or the coastal primary sand dunes protected by the afore- mentioned chapters, such an order may be issued without regard to whether the person has been issued a notice to comply as specified in subsection A of this section. Otherwise, such an order may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply with such a no- tice to comply. The order shall be served in the same manner as a notice to comply, and A-2 shall remain in effect for a period of seven days from the date of service pending applica- tion by the enforcing authority, permit holder or the resident owners, occupier or operator for appropriate relief to the circuit court of the jurisdiction wherein the violation was al- leged to have occurred. Upon completion of corrective action, the order shall immedi- ately be lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Commissioner or Board Chairman from taking any other action specified in § 62.1-13.16. C. Upon receipt of a sworn complaint of a substantial violation of this chapter, Chapter 1 (§ 62.1-1 et seq.) or Chapter 2.2 (§ 62.1-13.23 et seq.) of this title fi-om a desig- nated enforcement officer, the Commission or a wetlands board may order that the af- fected site be restored to predevelopment conditions if the Commission or board deems restoration necessary to recover lost resources or to prevent further damage to resources. Such an order shall specify the restoration necessary and establish a reasonable time for its com letion. Such orders shall be issued only after hearing with at least thirty days no- p tice to the affected person of the time, place and purpose thereof, and they shall become effective immediately upon issuance by the Commission or board The Commission or board shall require such scientific monitoringplans as it deems necessary to ensure that such projects result in the successful reestablishment of wetlands, subaqueous bottoms or coastalprimary sand dunes protected by the aforementioned chapters and may require that a prepaid contract acceptable to the Commission or board be in effect for the pur- poses of carrying out the scientific monitoringplan. In addition, the Commission or the board may require a reasonable bond or letter of credit in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to it securing to the Commonwealth compliance with the condi- tions setforth in the restoration orde-. The appropriate court, uponpetition by the Com- mission or board, shall have authority to enforce any such restoration order by injunction, mandamus or other appropriate remedy. Failure to complete the required res- toration shall constitute a violation of this chapter G.- D. The duties of the Commissioner or the Board Chairman prescribed in this section may be delegated to their respective designees; however, such respective disignees shall not be those persons who are also designated as enforcement officer. §62.1-13.18:2. Penalties.--A. Without limiting the remedies which maybe obtained in this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or fails, neglects or refiises to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule, regulation or permit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 for each day of violatiom Such civilpenalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be di- rected to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc- curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wetlands therein, in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where the violator is the county, city or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury. B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the consent of any person who has violated any provision of this chapter or who has violated or failed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board orde-, rule, regulation orpermit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against such A-3 person, for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums, not to exceed $10,000for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate civil penalty which would be imposed under subsection A of this section. Civilcharges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet- lands board. § 62.1-13.27. 1. Penalties. --A. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, any person who violates any provision of this chapter or who violates or fails, neglects or refuses to obey any Commission or wetlands board notice, order, rule regulation orpermit condition authorized by this chapter shall, upon such finding by an appropriate circuit court, be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed $25, 000 for each day of violation. Such civilpenalties may, at the discretion of the court assessing them, be di- rected to be paid into the treasury of the county, city or town in which the violation oc- curred for the purpose of abating environmental damage to, or the restoration of wetlands thereit; in such a manner as the court may, by order, direct, except that where the violator is the county, city or town itself, or its agent, the court shall direct the penalty to be paid into the state treasury. B. Without limiting the remedies which may be obtained in this chapter, and with the consent of anyperson who has violated anyprovision of this chapter or who has violated orfailed, neglected or refused to obey any Commission or wetlands board order, rule, regulatiot; or permit condition authorized by this chapter, the Commission or wetlands board may provide, in an order issued by the Commission or wetlands board against such persot; for the one-time payment of civil charges for each violation in specific sums, not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. Civil charges shall be in lieu of any appropriate civilpenalty which could be imposed under subsectionA of this section. Civil charges may be in addition to the cost of any restoration ordered by the Commission or a wet- lands board. A-4 Attachment B Sworn Complaint No. Date Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, I hereby certify that a substantial violation of Chapter 1, 2.1,or 2.2 of the Code has occurred at (Location). I have personally inspected the site and noted the following unauthorized activity: 19- (Designated Enforcement Officer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriate Wetlands Board a Notary Public within and for hereby certify that a designated Enforcement Officer whose name is signed to the foregoing, has acknowledged the same before me. Given under my hand this _ day of My Commission expires: Notary Public B - 1 Attachment C Notice To Comply No. Date Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, my field staff inspected your construction site at (Location), on (Date), at _(Time), having provided prior notice of such inspection to on The following discrepancies were noted: The following corrective measures are needed to bring you into compliance: These measures are to be completed by (Date). Notice ordered by (Wetlands Board Chairman) on 19-. Notice served to (Signature of Person Notified) on 19-. C - 1 Attachment D Violation Worksheet ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: DATE/TIME: OTHERS PRESENT: PHOTOS: YES or NO 1. LOCATION: 2. WHEN DID VIOLATION OCCUR: (If Known) 3. DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: 4. DIMENSIONS OF IMPACT AREA: 5. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 6. WETLAND TYPE (S) IMPACTED: (Consult Wetland Guidelines) TYPE: APPROX. AREA: sq. ft. TYPE: APPROX. AREA: sq. ft. TYPE: APPROX.AREA: sq. ft. TYPE: -APPROX. AREA: sq. ft. 7. REASON FOR VIOLATION: D-1 Attachment E Stop Work Order No. Date Pursuant to Section 62.1-13.16:1 of the Code of Virginia, having received a Sworn Complaint from my designated Enforcement Officer (Copy Attached), issued Notice to Comply No. on , (Copy Attached), that a substantial violation of Chapter 2.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code exists as noted on the attached, you are hereby notified that further work at (Site Location) must be IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUED. Work may be resumed under the following conditions: Ordered by (Wetlands Board Chairman) on 19-. Notice served to (Signature of Person Notified) on 19-. (Signature of Enforcement Officer) E - 1 ,I I i, I NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY . . 3 6668 14112907 4