2014-06-04_REPORT - C1981025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Brock Bowles Page 2 of 2 June 4, 2014 annually in June. There does not appear to be any June data from the No. 1 Mine discharge in the 2013 Annual Hydrology Report. Please provide data from the June 2013 sampling event on the No. 1 Mine discharge, or provide an explanation of why the sampling was not conducted. 2. CDPS monitoring: Minrec, Inc. reports no discharge at Outfall 001, since there was no discharge directly to North Thompson Creek. The October 17, 2012 (within 2012/2013 water year) Division inspection report indicated that Pond P9 was discharging. Any discharge through the Pond P9 spillway would constitute a discharge as soon as it crosses the permit boundary, regardless of where the flow is directed after crossing the permit boundary. Rule 4.05.2(1) requires discharge from underground workings to meet the effluent limitations of Rule 4.05.2 before leaving the permit area. Accordingly, Minrec, Inc. should be recording and analyzing discharges from Outfa11001 in accordance with the approved CDPS permit to demonstrate that the discharge is meeting the applicable effluent limitations. 3. Surface water quality: The water quality data provided for North Thompson Creek generally indicates little change in water quality at the downstream point, below Outfall 001, when compared to the upstream data. There are a couple of isolated incidents of constituents with elevated values downstream (Arsenic (both total recoverable and potentially dissolved) 10/30/2013 and Iron (dissolved) 5/28/2013). The operator's data indicates that there was no mine water discharge to North Thompson Creek, which would indicate that the degradation in quality would not be attributed to the mine. Again, it is not clear whether there was actually no discharge from Pond P9, or no discharge as defined by Minrec, Inc., so it is somewhat dubious to definitively conclude that there are no mine related impacts to North Thompson Creek. 4. The 2013 report includes monitoring data from samples taken at the No. 1 Mine and No. 3 Mine discharges prior to passage through the passive water treatment system. The data is from one monitoring event (08/21/2013) that did not coincide with the two monitoring events on North Thompson Creek. It would be helpful if future sampling events would coincide with the upstream and downstream monitoring of North Thompson Creek. 5. Monitoring results to date are generally in line with the predicted impacts to the hydrologic balance summarized in the report and detailed in the approved permit application package. Should you or the operator have any questions, please let me know.