CORRESPONDENCE_2000-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

discharged into Littlejohns Creek currently,which both recharges aquifers below and moves offsite. Treated groundwater from the groundwater extraction system is proposed to be infiltrated back to the aquifer through an infiltration basin (AEE, 2001 B, 2002x) located near well MW-11. The infiltration basin would improve recharge to the local aquifer and is also designed to create a hydraulic barrier to inhibit further northward migration of the groundwater plume. The RWQCB letter to Forward dated March 11, 2002 agreed to allow for their recharge remedy(Alternative 11)to go forward without Alternative 3 (extended pumping)while quarterly monitoring at the groundwater wells occurs. If the groundwater VOC concentrations do not attenuate at a rate that is acceptable to the RWQCB then the Board will require that Alternative 3,or some variant on Alternative 3, be implemented. The recent(AEE, 2002a)addendum to the corrective action proposed procedures to analyze the hydrochemical trends and trigger concentrations at which additional extraction wells would be considered. (Atkinson, 2002). 1. 51 (F.9) Identified in EIR: Replacement wells(as well as additional wells north of the Austin Road Landfill to better define the leading edge of the plume)shall be installed to mitigate against the loss of old wells as presented in the JTD currently under review by the RWQCB. The RWQCB must approve the JTD's plans for the number and location of the new wells as part of their approval process,which is separate from the EIR approval process. J. 52 Austin 1994(KU),Austin 2000(K3.c) The timing of the pumped discharge from the detention pond must not occur with the peak flow rate of Little John's Creek as this would impact downstream locations by increasing the flood hazard Telemetry, which monitors the flow in the creek to datermh7d the peak, should be provided. This information should then be used to coordinate the start cep of the pumps. k. 56(G.3) Proposed as Part of the Project: The project sponsor has prepared a seismicity study for the site. If the potential maximum peak ground acceleration in the seismicity study is greater than that assuffied in the preliminary design,the final project design analysis will make modifications ed to meet the factor of safety(determinations may be subject to the approval of the CNVMB and/or RWQCB). Impacts to the new liner and drainage system installed overthe Austin Road Landfill will be monitored as appropriate based on any stipulations of the CMNB and/or RWQCB. 1. 57(G.4) Proposed as Part of the Project: Overall reduction—or, in some cases, elimination or improvement—of slope instability at the project site can be achieved through the implementation of the seismic design measures designed to meet CCR Title 27. m. 58(G.5) Proposed as Part of the Project: The applicant's Joint Technical Document references an erosion management plan that delineates various actions to minimize erosion and sedimentation, including appropriate construction, landscaping, and maintenance of graded slopes and subsurface drainage systems. As part of that plan,grading operations will be scheduled to avoid the rainy season and be implemented by interim engineering control measures. Before grading is stopped, San Joaquin County UP-00-7, ER-00-27orward, Inc. Community Development Page 17