Laserfiche WebLink
Tonga ?. Hammond <br />snowcap foal ornpan?, Ync, <br />duly ?, 2a09 <br />Page ? <br />from the U.. ?y corps of Engineers. Please add a discussion regarding the <br />?urlsdlct?anal v?etlands and whether or nit ? Section 4?4 permit 1? requ?red? ?n page 14- <br />9i, ? states that the flat gradient of the drainage Swale connecting ponds 1 and ? and <br />assaciated slow velocity wi11 allow solids to settle thus virtually eliminating the discharge <br />of sediment into the wetlands}. If this precludes the need far a ection ?a4 permit, then <br />this should be clearly stated in the revised text. The wetland areas are Shawn on Exhibit <br />1 a and 11 these locations should also be referenced in the amended text. If a Section <br />4a4 permit is required then it should be listed in the permit application package in <br />accordance with Rule ?,a' . l ?. <br />?. The potential far sediment deposition to the wetland areas is described in the revised text, <br />but these is no mention of water quality impacts, if any, to the wetland areas. Please add <br />a discussion of any discharges to the wetlands from the proposed drainage Swale ar other <br />sources as a result of the revised reclamation plan and address the potential for impacting <br />the water quality of the wetland areas. <br />3. S? did not provide a demonstration as required by Rule 4.a5.? ?} for sediment pond <br />removal. The D?vts?on may authari?e removal of ? sedl?nent pond ?f the disturbed area <br />has been stabilized, the untreated drainage from the disturbed area ceases to contribute <br />additional suspended solids above natural conditions, and the quality afuntreated <br />drainage from the disturbed area meets the State and Federal water quality standard <br />requirements applicable aver the sedimentation ponds and treatment facilities are <br />removed, if any, far receiving streams generally ? sedlmentology demonstration is <br />ravided to meet these re uirements. In this case, based on our discussions with ?? <br />p q <br />and Jim Stover of J. E. Stover l?ssociates, a sedimentolagy demonstration may not be <br />relevant because of the active post-mine industrial use of the site and the fact that these <br />panels ?CJTL #1 and #?}have never discharged in the past and accumulate only a small <br />amount afwater in the spring time at UTL #2. The water that collects west of UTI1 #? is <br />essentially the same water that makes up the lager wetland area shaven on Exhibit 11 . <br />Please pravide an appropriate demonstration far the removal of ponds IJTL # 1 and UTE <br />#2 ar otherwise pravide amended permit text that addresses the suspended solids and <br />water quality requirements of ?.a????}. Ifappropriate, the amended text should explain <br />that a sedirnentology demonstration is not necessary, <br />4, SCE is proposing to leave the ? a inch ?1VIP drainage pipes spillways from L1TI?# 1 and <br />TI1# ?} in place. Typically the Division requires that culverts or pipes that are not <br />permitted as a permanent past-mine feature be removed frarn the reclaimed area. Each <br />pipe is approximately 1 as feet long and their removal from beneath the railroad <br />embankment and track would cause a significant disruption to the railroad. Jinn Stover <br />also recently indicated that ?Iallibuon may have a future need far these. Therefore, S? <br />proposes to leave them in place and cap the inlets and backfill the intake sides. There is