Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />-6- <br /> <br />April 24, 1991 <br />Mr. Brent Anderson <br />4A. The Division believes that significant downcutting was observed at <br />the identified inlets for Ponds 2, 3, 4 and 5/6. This issue was <br />not contested by Rock castle as shown by their failure to attend the <br />assessment conference and payment of the civil penalty for this <br />violation. ACZ believes that there is no significant erosion on <br />4A-1, 4A-2, 4C-1, 4C-3 and 4D-1 and proposes no mitigative action <br />(October 18, 1990 letter). The abatement called for design <br />calculations. If Rockcastle/ACZ can prove that the velocity at the <br />inlets for a ]0-year 24-hour event is non-erosive, then armoring <br />calculations would not be necessary. If not, we expect to see <br />designs and a schedule for construction. <br />4B-1 and 48-2. Work on these inlets is not required since the pond is <br />being removed. <br />4C-2.This inlet is associated with Uie ditch described in 1C above. <br />5A. The Division is still awaiting responses to the Division's adequacy <br />response date October 23, 1990. Pond specifications for Pond 2 <br />were requested at that time. <br />5B. 7his issue is no longer pertinent in light of plans to rec]aim <br />Pond No. 3. <br />6. See Question 19 on page 4 above. <br />Please call if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Catherine W. Begej <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />CW8/ern <br />CC: Steve Renner <br />Jim Stevens <br />5120E <br />6 <br /> <br />