ENFORCE20172 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Steven G. Renner 2 the water contained by these structures is not for a beneficial use, and these structures were installed for use in locations where a sedimentation pond would not be necessary or would be impractical. There are two definitions that one must bear in mind for this analysis. MLR!) regulations at 1.04(115) define a sedimentation pond as meaning, "* * * a primary sediment control structure designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with 4.05.6 and including but not limited to a barrier, dam, or excavated depression which slows down runoff to allow sediment to settle out * * *." Section 1.04(64) defines an impoundment as a,"* * * closed basin, naturally or artificially built, which is built to or does in fact retain water, sediment, or slurried waste." MLRD's responses contain statements that either acknowledge that these structures fall under these definitions or describe these structures using language from the definitions. MLRD represents the structures as being impoundments outright and through inference. The May 3, 1991, response states in the first paragraph on page 2, "The structures in questions do not fall under the broad definition of sedimentation pond but do appear to fall under the broader definition of impoundment." The fact that the structures receive drainage from disturbed area watersheds and are termed "non- discharging" also indicates that they are impounding structures. As such, one must consider the intended usage of the structures because all impoundments are not sedimentation ponds. MLRD responses indicate that the intended use of these structures is for sediment control. MLRD states that the structures are all, "* * * designed, constructed, and maintained to contain runoff from small disturbed areas * * *." MLRD states that the structures are all non-discharging, and at least three of the structures are designed to contain the 10-year, 24-hour event. MLRD also defines the structures intended use, "* * * the structures in question are clearly intended, designed, constructed, and maintained as non- discharging sediment control structures" (May 3, 1991, response, page 2, paragraph 1). Also, "While they may be primary sediment control devices * * *" (May 3, 1991, response, page 2, paragraph 2). The fact that the water impounded is not put to any beneficial use also supports the interpretation that they are sedimentation ponds. The term "beneficial use" comes from the sedimentation pond and permanent impoundment regulations. These regulations require the operator to meet all applicable State laws if the water is to be put to beneficial use, and they require an operator to meet certain criteria for permanent impoundments. AFO agrees that the water would not be put to any beneficial use and that the impoundments are not permanent. Barring the beneficial use, the only other purpose would be for sediment control. The regulations do not