Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Deserado AHR <br />Permit # <br />3/26/99 <br />1. Affil Due Date: January 31. <br />(October 1 - September 30). <br />Information <br />C-81-018 <br />Update <br />Covers preceding water year <br />2. Specific Reporting Requirements: Report will contain a <br />summary of new hydrologic data for the subject year, and a <br />discussion of the impacts of mining on the hydrologic regime. The <br />data summary section will list all new hydrologic data collected <br />for the subject year, and will include statistical comparisons with <br />previous years. This section will include qualitative discussion <br />of visual monitoring of water inflows in the mine. <br />The impact discussion section will discuss impacts on the <br />hydrologic regime which can be traced to mining activities. This <br />section will compare projected impacts with observed impacts. It, <br />will also discuss the significance of impacts to the use of the <br />water. The effectiveness of mitigation measures will be discussed <br />along with changes necessary to minimize impacts. <br />3. CPDEB Outfalls and Effluent Limits: <br />See Enclosure. <br />4. 1997 Affil Qnreaolved Issues: <br />The only issue apparently left somewhat hanging from last year's <br />review related to water level data reported for Wells 33-8M, and <br />31-7M. Our concluding statement on the subject, in a letter of <br />August 25, 1998, was that it appeared that "water level <br />measurements taken by Terra-Matrix in September, 1997, for Wells <br />33-8M and 31-7M, may have been erroneous. This will be taken into <br />consideration in review of future water level data for the subject <br />wells." <br />Probable Hydrologic Consequences Impacts: <br />Surface Water <br />High TDS mine water discharges caused concern with respect to <br />surface water quality impacts, and resulted in failure of WET tests <br />from '89-'93. Main mine water source was changed from 5000 ppm <br />alluvial well to 500 ppm surface lagoon, and other steps were taken <br />by the operator to meet WET test requirements. EPA report on cause <br />of the observed toxicity had not been received by WQCD when permit <br />renewal findings was issued in 11/94. <br />