Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-3- <br />The applicant was requested to carry the analysis downstream to C~'~• Qf a~~``~'"~ <br />the point where changes in water quality and quantity become p.,-~,~ "CFts~~~~ <br />Tf~«n'rr•,~+~o., CreeknandcTrout~Creek,n9faappropriatent Theeapplicant~s~ddle ~ c~ ~-~„-y~s <br />~-•~~• aseesement indicated that in his worst case scenario "the \~a~l c~ nc'r ~-- <br />~ow-(iok~ contribution of TDS one mile downstream was computed to be ~-~crEd <br />~~~ ~„j approximately 1,100 mg/1". The assessment was carried no <br />h~~own„,~,y;~,,,further downstream. The applicant must carry this analysis (and <br />~n~ the analysis of other effects) downstream to the point where the <br />~~-s,G on 5~ „{F,c~„,effects become insignificant. This nay require an assessment of <br />v 1 ~ `~~~~_ effects upon the stream/alluvial aquifer systems of Middle Creek <br />and Trout Creek. <br />3)and4) These items concern mining effects upon the ground water system <br />and possible secondary effects upon the surface water system. <br />Roy should perform the primary review on these sections. Once <br />he is satisfied, we can consider surface water effects. <br />5) This item requested that the applicant demonstrate that its <br />effluent would meet the Colorado Uepartment of Health's <br />receiving stream standards, or provide a plan for the treatment <br />of the effluent for those standards which are exceeded. The <br />applicant has responded that the Department of Health is <br />requiring CYCC only to meet the normal effluent limitations <br />(TSS, total iron, oil and grease, and pH), and not the receiving <br />stream standards. (This concern remains unresolved.). <br />Surface and Ground Water Monitoring <br />1) The applicant was requested to commit to establishing its own <br />upstream monitoring station on Foidel Creek should the USGS <br />discontinue their station. The applicant has identified his own <br />monitoriny station on upper Foidel Creek. The applicant's <br />response is satisfactory. <br />2) The applicant has corrected the inconsistances in the <br />identification of surface water monitoring stations. <br />3) The applicant was requested to expand his proposed effluent <br />water quality monitoring to include those water quality <br />constituents for which the Colorado Department of Health has <br />established numerical stream standards. The applicant has <br />responded that the Department of Health is requiring CYCC only <br />to meet the effluent limitations of their existing NPDES <br />Permits. The applicant has, however, added all of the water <br />quality parameters included in the Division's September 1982 <br />Baseline Water Quality Guideline. This guideline includes many <br />of the same water quality parameters. (This concern remains <br />unresolvea.). <br />'~_> <br />~(~ l~e <br />