Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br />Probable Hydrologic Consequences - Surface Water - Rule 2.05.6(3) <br />This section of CYCC's permit application was inconclusive. Basically, they <br />have said they will comply with applicable regulations by proceeding with <br />their mine plan as presented in the permit application and this will not have <br />an adverse effect on water quality or quantity. There is quantitative data to <br />verify the water quantity portion, but very little information to verify the <br />water quality portion. Following are my comments. <br />1. The applicant's monitoring data for surface water quality 1s <br />inconclusive and does not accurately demonstrate undisturbed (baseline) water <br />quality vs. disturbed water quality. The introduction of flows from Foidel <br />Creek between the two data collection points and the lack of information on <br />water quality in Foidel Creek immediately upstream of the present disturbance <br />makes 1t impossible to determine what portion of the quality change is <br />attributable to Foidel Creek and what portion is attributable to the present <br />disturbance. <br />2. The effluent monitoring sites 24 and 76 mentioned in Exhibit 15 are now <br />shown on Map 4, Hydrology. <br />3. More recent monitoring data needs to be presented. The data presented <br />does not reflect improvements that may have been made since recent sediment <br />control measures were established. <br />4. It should be stipulated that 180 days prior to the commencement of <br />mining, the applicant must furnish proof that he has reactivated his NPDES <br />monitoring point. <br />/mt <br />Doc. No. 9466 <br />