GENERAL42884

• Permit No: M1977342
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 8/12/1988
• Doc Name: M-77-342 PERMIT SYNOPSIS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Technical Revision to
Henderson Mine Permit f7o. 77-342
Page 5
wish to obtain the flexibility to reduce or increase the
frequency of monitoring as warranted by the trend at the
time.
The results of the nearly ten years of data are extremely
interesting. The data indicate that the numbers of elk
utilizing the area remained somewhat constant for the
years 1974 through 1977, generally increased each year
from 1978 through 1980, and dramatically increased during
1981 and 1982, resulting in a present estimated
utilization four to five times greater than that prior to
the initiation of production. Deer utilization of the
area has also increased, but not as dramatically.
11. Page b-38, second paragraph, first sentence, states,
"Biology of the watersheds is also monitored annually by
Calgon". Please change to read "Biology of the waterslie~9 has
been and~will be monitored as warranted by events and po=ential
trends."
Also, in all of the section entitled Water Monitori~~,
pages 6-37 and 6-38, please delete all references to numt~ers of
sites sampled and frequency of sampling.
Discussion: The sampling frequency and location of a
discharge is regulated by the CDH, however, we norm illy
perform more monitoring than required. The general
objective of our extensive aquatics and chemical
monitoring program is to provide us with the earliest
possible }:nowledge of any potential change so that
corrective action can be taken, if necessary and possible,
before reaching a level of significant concern to tt.e
watershed or a regulatory agency.
As previously indicated, 1983 was the first time a
discharge at the mill site was necessary. It became
necessary because of the reduced consumption rates cf
water (due to reduced levels of operation) and because of
the heavy winter snowpack. During the discharge, one of
our water quality monitoring activities was the placement
of trout in live-cages for 46 days located 1) directly in
our discharge water, 2) upstream of the discharge, and 3)
downstream of the discharge. The DOW and CDH assisted in
the design of this voluntary study.
All of the fish in our discharge water survived, whereas
two out of 20 perished in the control cage upstream of the
discharge. This result should not be interpreted to mean
that our discharge water was better for trout; rather it
should be interpreted more simply that our discharge was
not deleterious to trout.