Laserfiche WebLink
January 10, 2003 <br />Page 2 of 4 Pages <br />report by reference (Page 5). They were submitted quarterly to the Colorado Division of Public <br />Health and Environment with a copy to the Division. <br />Rule 4.05.14(4)(c)(ii): Water quality data obtained from each monitoring site during the water year; <br />and <br />The report is in compliance with this rule with the exception that water quality data was submitted by <br />calendar year in-lieu-of water yeaz (in compliance with the Permit). <br />The CDMG permit requires biannual quality monitoring of the upper and lower North Thompson <br />Creek (provided in Appendix I)[in addition to required parameters (PAP page 3-86), conductivity <br />and temperature were reported]. The quality parameters of CDPS reports are presented (less oil and <br />grease and WET tests) for mine water discharges in the report. Impacts of WET tests aze presented in <br />the report. The CDMG permit also requires additional monitoring for quality of Mine Number 1 <br />treatment pond discharges in June (permit, page 3-86). The date of the sample reported is June 10, <br />2002. Results of this monitoring aze presented in the report (provided in Appendix f~[in addition to <br />required parameters (PAP page 3-86), conductivity and temperature were reported]. The CDMG <br />permit requires quarterly monitoring (quality) of wells D-lA and D-2A (permit, page 3-61). The <br />report contains this information. <br />Rule 4.05.14(4)(c)(iii): If required by the Division, a written interpretation of the data and <br />identification of mining related impacts to the hydrologic balance. <br />The report is incompliance with this rule. The Division required no written interpretation of the data, <br />but a summary of impacts is provided in the report. <br />Probable Hydrologic Consequences vs. 2002 Impacts: <br />Probable hydrologic consequences aze identified in a number of places in the permit: <br />All monitoring associated with the loadout site was terminated before the report year. <br />No impact to the middle sandstone was anticipated (permit, pages 3-34, 4-118). There is no <br />monitoring associated with the middle sandstone. <br />No impact to the Upper sandstone was anticipated (permit, page 3-48). There is no monitoring <br />associated with the Upper sandstone. <br />Mining activities were anticipated to have "very little effect" on flows of local streams (permit, page <br />3-49). "The flow in North Thompson Creek will not be significantly affected by impoundments, <br />surface disturbances, or surface facilities."(Permit, page 4-109) "--- the effects of the altered <br />infiltration and evapotranspiration rates on the entire watershed's flow rates wouldbe imperceptible <br />