Laserfiche WebLink
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMEM, Water Qualiry Control Division <br />Amendment No. 1 -Rationale. Page 2, Permit No. CO-0032115 <br />Outfall Source: Storm Runojj (SR), Active or Receiving Water <br />Mine Water (MW) or Spoils Spring (SS) Pos[-Mining <br />015 SR/MW Active Grouse Gulch <br />016 SR/MW Active Sage Culch <br />017 SR/MW Active Oak Gulch <br />019 SR/MW Active Flume Gulch <br />FD -This outfall may receive a small volume ojflow from a french drain system installed as part of a remediation <br />plan at the location of a landslide. Flow should be less than 5 gpm. <br />Ill. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT <br />A. In a letter dated November 4, 1996, the permittee requested three items: <br />I) The actual location of Outfall 017 is approximately 400 jeer north of the planned location that was approved in the <br />permit. The permittee supplied an ameMed Figure 4 for the permit to show the correct location. They asked that <br />this amended figure replace the existing Figure 4. This figure will replace the existing figure. (Ihe figure has since <br />been updated [o add ano[her outfali, no. 019-see below under the March 10, 1997, fetter); <br />2) The spring below the East Pyeatt Gulch ponds (outfa11011) and above the parshall flume for the outfall is flowing. <br />The permirtee requested inclusion of this spring under the Special Conditions, Part 1.6.2. of the permit. This is <br />appropriate because aj similarities to outfal1005 when it was first covered under this section; <br />3) They asked that the Speria! Conditions be deleted for outjail 005. The penaittee states that the spring addressed <br />under existing Part L8.2. is naturally-occurring and has been monitored since 1980. The permittee feels that <br />sufficient data indicating no detectable change in quality have been gathered to support the conclusion that no <br />permit conditions are appropriate. The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (CDMG) concurs and has <br />indicated that mature vegetation around the spring demonstrates that it is preexisting. The permittee supplied a map <br />to CDMG dated 1979 (premising) that shows this spring. <br />B. In a letter dated March l0, 1997, the permittee requested addition of one new discharge point, outfal1019. This outfall <br />would serve to treat and discharge surface runoff and possible mine dewatering. The new outfa[I will be added to the <br />permit. This outfall discharges to Flume Gulch, which is within segment 3a, Lower Yampa/Green River sub-basin, <br />Lower Colorado River basin. The permi[ effiueru limitations and monitoring requirements are identical to other outfa!!s <br />with similar sources. Please see the renewal permit rationale dated April 23, 1996, for derailed discussions. <br />Outfall 018 has been planned for but will not be constructed for a few years. For this reason, the permittee is not <br />requesting that outfall 018 be added to the permit at this time. <br />ry. PERMIT PAGES AMENDED <br />The Table of Contems, page 2 ojthe permit is being amended to reflect the changes described herein. Pages 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, <br />10 and 11 are being amended to add coverage for new outfall 019 and make the changes described in III.A. above. Page <br />20, Figure 4, is being amended to show the correct location for outjall 0!7 and new outfall 019. <br />lon C. Kubic <br />March 20, 1997 <br />Issued MAY 3 0 1997 Effective JUL 1 - 1997 Expires 07/31/01 <br />