Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comments - Continued (2) <br /> <br />CYCC made the following commitment with regard to pond dewatering in a <br />stipulation response dated December 20, 1984. <br />" ..pump systems will be installed in each of the detention basins to <br />dewater the runoff volume of the 10 year 24 hour storm within 72 <br />hours..." <br />The Division accepted that stipulation response, but further recommended, in a <br />letter dated April 4, 1985, that the permittee "...place gages in both ponds <br />in order to clearly indicated the required dewatering level". <br />On the inspection May 23, 1985, no pumping system was evident, and no storage <br />capacity was available (since discharge through the emergency spillway was <br />occurring). <br />The operator had no explanation for why the pond had not been pumped. The <br />water discharging into Middle Creek at the time of the inspection was clear, <br />while Middle Creek itself was turbid. The potential far significant <br />degradation to Middle Creek appeared to be low, although if a storm event had <br />occurred there would have been no storage capacity available and discharge <br />water would be likely to contain a high suspended solids load. <br />Additionally, collection Ditch P-1 had not been installed along the base of <br />the Middle Creek Pit regraded spoils. Rough grading had resulted in a spoil <br />berm averaging 40 feet wide extending approximately 1,500 feet along the base <br />of the Middle Creek Pit area. This portion of the spoils drained into the <br />haul road ditch (due to the fact that collection Ditch P-1 was not in place). <br />Approximately 1 1/2 acres of spoils drained to Middle Creek without sediment <br />control. Photos 5/85/F-1 through 5/85/F-14 were taken along the base of the <br />Middle Creek Pit regraded spoils. <br />The operator did not offer an explanation as to why the ditch had not been <br />constructed. Due to the small drainage area, the potential for environmental <br />harm was slight. <br />4. NOV C-85-046 was issued for failure to minimize erosion to the extent <br />possible. Specifically, failure to divert spring flow from an undisturbed <br />area away from topsoiled slope at the regraded Mine No. 3 Pit. Spring flow <br />resulted in a gully approximately 800 feet long, averaging 10-18 inches deep <br />and 18 inches wide through the upper 150 feet and 3 feet wide on the lower 50 <br />feet. ' <br />The spring arises in the bottom of a drainage immediately upslope from the <br />regraded Pit 3 spoils (photos 5/85/E-9 and 5/85/E-11). The spring was flowing <br />2-3 gpm at the time of the inspection. Photos 5/85/E-3, 5/85/E-4, 5/85/E-6 <br />and 5/85/E-10 are of the resultant gully. Approximately 50 yd3 of topsoil <br />was eroded. <br />