REP01568

• Permit No: C1981018
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Name: AHR REQUIREMENTS & INFORMATION PERMIT # C-81-018
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

- III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
999
Deserado AHR Information
Permit # C-81-018
1. AHR Due Date: January 31. Covers preceding water year
(October 1 - September 30). Due to the mine fire emergency,
operator has requested that the due date for '95 report be extended
to April 1, 1996.
2. Specific Reporting Requirements: Report will contain a
summary of new hydrologic data for the subject year, and a
.discussion of the impacts of mining on the hydrologic regime. The
data summary section will list all new hydrologic data collected
for the subject year, and will include statistical comparisons with
previous years. This section will include a mine inflow study
reporting inflows, discharges, and consumption of water in the
mine, supported by a mine workings map showing location and
quantity of inflows. Tables to detail source, quantity, duration
and field parameters of all inflows, mine water discharge,
importation, and consumption records, and discussion of water
balance in the mine.
The impact discussion section will compare projected with observed
impacts, discuss significance of impacts, and effectiveness of
mitigation measures along with any necessary modifications to
impact mitigation measures.
Copies of the hydrology monitoring program are included in
Enclosure A.
3. CPDES Outfalls and Effluent Limits:
See Enclosure B.
4. 1994 AHR Review Letter and List of Unresolved Issues:
Enclosure C is the initial letter sent to the operator following
our review of the '93 and '94 AHR's, in February, 1995. Enclosure
D is a second letter sent to the operator following review of their
responses. There is no documentation in my AHR file that WFU
responded to the three items in the March 15, 1995 letter.
5. Probable Hydrologic Consequences Impacts:
Surface Water
High TDS mine water discharges caused concern with respect to
surface water quality impacts, and resulted in failure of WET tests
from '89-'93. Main mine water source was changed from 5000 ppm
alluvial well to 500 ppm surface lagoon, and other steps were taken
by the operator to meet WET test requirements. EPA report on cause
of the observed toxicity had not been received by WQCD when permit
renewal findings was issued in 11/94.