2009-03-03_REVISION - C1980005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REVIEW OF 2/27/09 SL-3 ADEQUACY RESPONSES ? . The Dlvlsron ldentl?ied ? number ?? de?iclencle with respect t0 vegetatlon COVer success docun?entatian submitted for Band Release Bloch 4 ?BRB-4}, and stated that there appeared to be two alternatives; either would need to amend the application to remove BRB-4 from the release request area, or the Division would issue a partial approval for SL-3, with BRB-4 excluded from the approval, In their response, ?? requested that the Division issue a partial approval far SL- ?; granting Phase II release for BRB-2 and BRB-3, but not BRB-4. The Division will move far?vard on the L-? review ar?d decision preparation with this understanding. item resolved. ? The Division noted that in the revegetation success den?anstratian sections of the application, statistical sample adequacy for vegetation cover was demonstrated only for total vegetation cover, and not for herbaceous vegetation cover, This is consistent with the methods specih.ed in appendix 1 ?- l ? of the approved permit. However, because herbaceous vegetation cover is the basis for the saver success standard, it would be appropriate far sample adequacy to be denaonstr?ted based an herbaceous saver, as well as total vegetation cover. The Division requested that SCE provide a commitment to farmalry revise the sample adequacy demonstration n?ethad to address the noted concern, prior to submittal of future Phase II or Phase III bond release applications. In their response, SCE did commit to formally revise the Seneca II permit to address the concern ldentlfied by the Divtslan. Ytem ?esalved, 3. The Division noted that in t-test demonstrations ofsuccess for BRB-?4, the sample standard deviation far fatal vegetation saver eras used, rather than the sample standard deviation far herbaceous vegetation cover. Because the sample mean far herbaceous saver 1s used In the t-tit to demonstrate saver success, It 15 appropriate that the sample standard deviation for herbaceous cover, rather than total vegetation cover, be used as well. In their response, SCC noted that the t-test rnethadfar BRB-? was moot, because ?-? would be excluded from the SL- approval, Response to Item 1 noted that a future BRB-4 Phase II application would re?.ect consideration of DRrS camn?ents regarding success comparison statistical methods. item resolved. 4. The Division requested dacumentatian regarding approval o? existing stag ponds as permanent impoundments, consistent with the information provided regarding sediment ponds approved as permanent. Zn their response, SCE referenced recent revision actions and approved permit sections dacu?nenting the permanent impoundrr?ent status of Stock ponds T-3, T-?, T-8, T-16, T-17, T-??, T-??, T-?8, 2