Laserfiche WebLink
include both field parameters and laboratory analyses, as detailed in the <br />currently approved hydrologic monitoring plan. <br />5. All surface water sites will be sampled on a quarterly basis. Quarterly <br />analyses at the surface water sites will include flow, field parameters and <br />laboratory analyses, as detailed in the currently approved hydrologic <br />monitoring plan. <br />All parties agreed that the changes to the hydrologic monitoring plan listed above would <br />be adequate to assess the hydrologic impacts due to mining. Colowyo agreed to submit a <br />Technical Revision to the permit to incorporate the above changes into the hydrologic <br />monitoring plan. Although no real timeframe was discussed, it was agreed that the effort <br />to make the changes would be minimal. The Division understands that Colowyo is <br />putting the fiinal touches on the Technical Revision for their new reclamation plan, <br />Stipulation 8., which is due no later than 15 March 2008. Therefore, the Division requests <br />that Colowyo submits a Technical Revision addressing Stipulation 5 and the changes <br />listed above no later than 31 March 2008. <br />The second issue that was discussed was the possible need for a point(s) of compliance at <br />the Colowyo Mine. The requirement for assessing the need for a point(s) of compliance <br />was attached to the permit as Stipulation 7 during the approval of Permit Revision 02. <br />There was a good deal of positive discussion regarding points of compliance as well as a <br />direction for Colowyo, as I will detail below. <br />There was some confusion regarding points of compliance that was addressed at the <br />beginning of the discussion. Colowyo believed that since there is no potential impact to <br />any bedrock aquifers due to mining at the Colowyo Mine, they were not required to have <br />a point of compliance. The Division has confirmed this and agrees with Colowyo's <br />position regarding bedrock groundwater. The Division has also stated that there is no <br />requirement for a bedrock point of compliance in the PR-02 Findings document. <br />The possible need for an alluvial point(s) of compliance was then discussed. The <br />requirement for alluvial points of compliance is where the confusion arose. Colowyo had <br />interpreted the; points of compliance Rules to apply only to bedrock aquifers. Mike <br />Boulay detailed the points of compliance Rules and the meetings and discussions that he <br />has had with the Water Quality Control Division regarding alluvial points of compliance <br />and stated that: alluvial water did need to be evaluated in the same manner as bedrock <br />water. Once this confusion was cleared up, the discussion returned to the possible need <br />for an alluvial groundwater point(s) of compliance. <br />The Division briefly outlined what would be required to complete the analysis for a <br />point(s) of compliance for the alluvial water. Considerations should include whether <br />there are wells within 1-''/2 miles of the creek, whether there is any irrigation, what are the <br />uses of the wager, what are the potential impacts, etc. The Division directed Colowyo to <br />review the Division's preliminary adequacy review letter for Permit Revision 02, dated <br />11 October 2006, specifically question 109 and the narrative that precedes it for more <br />information on the alluvial point(s) of compliance. It was agreed that Colowyo would <br />