APPCOR13077 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- The applicant was requested to carry the analysis downstream to the point where changes in water quality and quantity become insignificant, including an assesss~nent of effects on Middle Creek and Trout Creek, if appropriate. The applicant's asesse~nent indicated that in his worst case scenario "the contribution of TDS one mile downstream was computed to be approximately 1,100 mg/1". The assessment was carried no further downstream. The applicant must carry this analysis (arid the analysis of other effects) downstream to the point where the effects become insignificant. This nay require an assessment of effects upon the stream/al]uvial aquifer systems of I+liddle Creek and Trout Creek. 3)and4) These items concern reining effects upon the ground water system and possible secondary effects upon the surface water systern. Roy should perform the primary review on these sections. Unce he is satisfied, we can consider surface water effects. 5) This item requested that the applicant de~norrstrate that its effluent would meet the Colorado Department of Health's receiving stream standards, or provide a plan for the treatment of the effluent for those standards which are exceeded. The applicant has responded that the Department of Health is requiring CYCC only to meet the normal effluent limitations (TSS, total iron, oil and grease, and pH), and not the receiving stream standards. The Division should consult with the Department of Health to determine which water quality standards apply to the water discharged frorn the underyround workings and the spoils well. Surface and Ground Water hlonitorin 1) The applicant was requested to co~n~nit to establishing its own upstream monitoring station on Foidel Creek should the USGS discontinue their station. The applicant has identified his own monitoring station on upper Foidel Creek. The app]icant's response is satisfactory. 2) The applicant has corrected the inconsistances in the identification of surface water monitoring stations. 3) The applicant was requested to expand his proposed effluent water quality monitoring to include those water quality constituents for which the Colorado Department of Health has established numerical strewn standards. The applicant has responded that the Department of Health is requiring CYCC only to meet the effluent limitations of their existing NPUES Permits. The applicant has, however, added all of the water quality parameters included in the Division's Septemoer 19ti2 baseline Water Quality Guideline. This guideline includes many of the same water quality parameters. The Division should consult with the Uepart~nent of Health to determine which water quality standards the applicant must meet.