Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5/6) as permanent, then the issues outlined in our letter of October 23, 1990 <br />must be resolved Permanent pond demonstrations pursuant ro Rule <br />4.05.9(1) are still required <br />Response: Rockcastle has reviewed potential storage capacity, water <br />availability, and modifications necessary for retention of existing <br />sedimentation ponds as permanent impoundments. As a result, <br />Rockcastle has determined that retention of Ponds 4 and 5/6 as <br />permanent impoundments wilt enhance the value of reclaimed areas for <br />the proposed postmining land uses of rangeland and wildlife habitat. <br />In addition, retention of these ponds is feasible within the constraints <br />of applicable regulatory requirements. <br />Further review also resulted in a determination that the marginal <br />benefits relative to water storage and availability resulting from retention <br />of Ponds 2 and 3 are offset by limited potential storage volumes and <br />the magnitude of the modifications required to meet applicable <br />regulatory standards. Rockcastle, therefore, proposes to remove <br />Ponds 2 and 3 and reclaim the associated disturbance areas. <br />Documentation of effective restoration of surface drainage for these <br />areas, consistent with requirements for pond removal, is provided in <br />Appendix D, Sedimentation Pond Retention/ Reclamation. The <br />proposed reclaimed pond configurations are shown on the Postmining <br />Drainage and Sediment Control Map, (Map R-1). <br />The Division's 10/23/90 letter identified the following general concerns, <br />specific concerns, and information requirements for retention of existing <br />sedimentation ponds as permanent impoundments: <br />. • Water level and impoundment configuration adequate to <br />support intended use. <br />11- <br />