Laserfiche WebLink
- 4- <br />f) The applicant must indicate the source of water to be used for <br />augmentation purposes and discuss whether this water will meet NPDES discharge <br />and Department of Health Receiving Stream Standards. Snowmass must analyze <br />this proposed augmentation water according to the Division's Surface 4la ter <br />9uality Monitoring List. <br />B. Ponds, Impoundments, Diversions <br />1. Snowmass needs to respond again to question 4d on page 16 of the <br />Preliminary Adequacy Review letter. The original Snowmass response was <br />inadequate. <br />2. Culvert designs {or the haul road to the truck dump must be sub- <br />mitted as was requested on page 16 of the Preliminary Adequacy Review letter. <br />3. Snowmass has not responded to questions 4, 5, and 6 on page 18 of <br />the Preliminary Adequacy letter. <br />C. Surface Water Hydrology <br />1. In regard to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Preliminary Adequacy <br />Review letter on page 6, has all data concerning surface water quantity and <br />quality been submitted to the Division? Please forward all data to the <br />Division as it is collected and made available. <br />2. Amore specific response to question 4 on the bottom of page 20 of <br />the PAR is needed. The existing and proposed sediment control system at <br />the mine is intended to protect North Thompson Creek from unnatural sediment <br />loads. According to the reclamation maps submitted by Snowmass, many acres <br />of reclaimed land will not be controlled by the existing sediment control <br />system. All reclaimed areas must be passed through a sediment pond until <br />the revegetation criteria of 4.15.7 are satisfied, the untreated drainage <br />ceases to contribute additional contributions of suspended solids above <br />natural conditions, and the drainage meets applicable State and Federal <br />water quality standards for receiving streams. Snowmass needs to supply <br />specific information on how the above requirements will be met, as well as <br />indicate what areas will not be controlled by the sediment control system. <br />For those areas that cannot be feasibly controlled, Snowmass should request <br />an exemption in accordance with 4.05.2(3) and propose specific alternative <br />sediment control measures for each area. <br />3. In regard to question 6 on page 20 of the PAR, Snowmass did a <br />fine job of discussing the impact of sediment discharged from ponds to <br />receiving streams. The discussion did a good job of predicting worst case <br />impacts from suspended solids. However, this discussion needs to be <br />expanded to consider dissolved solids as well. The discussion should <br />consider receiving stream standards set up by the Colorado Department of <br />Health. If the data base is insufficient to draw any conclusions, Snowmass <br />should develop and submit to the Division a monitoring plan to be imple- <br />mented by Spring of 1982. <br />