Laserfiche WebLink
Regulations as an erosion control reservoir. As you are aware, sedimentation pond <br />regulations aze very specific and detailed for even the smallest of ponds. Pond M <br />has functioned according to that design for many years. It has routinely held <br />moderate amounts of water and has discharged numerous times throughout it's life <br />without incident. Given the design and configuration as it exists today, there is <br />no reason to believe that the design and construction varied significantly from the <br />requirements of publication 378. With that in mind, the Division can reasonably <br />assume that the requirements of Rule 4.05.9(1)(e) have been met for Pond M. <br />3. My recollection of the Pond M watershed is that two side ditches and one main <br />drainage direct water to the pond. If these ditches are to remain, some language <br />should be included in the permit text stating that these ditches will remain as <br />permanent. I recall that the main, permanent drainage leading to Pond M was the <br />subject of some controversy during the Block A or Block D bond release <br />inspection. At that time, the drainage was not defined as a permanent drainage, <br />while others were elsewhere on the site. Handling this issue now would seem <br />convenient tmd may prevent problems later during bond release. <br />If you have any questions, let me know. Again, [apologize for my tardiness. <br />