My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-08-10_PERMIT FILE - C1982056A (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1982056A
>
2009-08-10_PERMIT FILE - C1982056A (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:49:34 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 9:53:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/10/2009
Section_Exhibit Name
2.05.5 Postmining Land Uses
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In the case of several trace metals (cadmium, lead,. and perhaps mercury), the noted average or extremE: <br />concentrations may involve minimum analytical detection limits which are greater than the standard limits. At anv <br />rate, a critical assessment of currently applicable standards, and the extent to which they should be shifted <br />downward to reflect more realistically ambient conditions, should be conducted before conducting a post minim; <br />mine impact analysis. <br />No recent (since 1997) exceedances of discharge limits of pH were recorded at the mine. In addition no <br />exceedances of.the manganese or iron in-stream standards attributable to the mining operations have been observed <br />(Annual Hydrologic Reports). <br />(Note: The previous calculations and analysis were based on the premise that EC and sulfate standards were <br />applicable for Lower Trout Creek, based on the stream designation for water supply. Subsequent review by <br />the WQCD determined that these standards are not applicable if there is no active water supply useage. So <br />the following information is no longer valid) Exhibit 49, Tables E49-12 to E49-14 present predicted in-stream <br />TDS, conductivity and sulfate values for Cases 1, 2 and 3 for normal and dry years. The tables indicate that the <br />mine should be able to meet the conductivity limit of 1500 µmhos/cm under most conditions, but will not be able to <br />discharge at maximum rates during low flow conditions due to the inability to meet the sulfate standard (250 mg/L). <br />Exhibit 49, Tables E49-15 presents the maximum discharge rates from Sites 109 and 115 that will not cause ari <br />exceedance of the sulfate standard during a normal year. It indicates that in the future, Site 115 should be able to bc; <br />discharged at higher rates than at present. Table Exhibit 49, Tables E49-16 and E49-17 present the in-stream flow <br />rates required to not exceed the sulfate standard using dry year water quality data and maximum discharge rate:; <br />from Sites 109 and 115. These tables also indicate that Site 115 may be able to discharge at higher rates in thc; <br />future. Exhibit 49, Tables E49-18 shows the minimum in-stream flow rate required in order to meet the sulfate <br />standard using low flow water quality data and the minimum discharge rates from Sites 109 and 115 required to <br />dewater all inflow. This table indicates that the mine can discharge at these rates under most conditions. <br />• Discharge of Ephemeral Runoff From Disturbed Areas <br />Runoff from surface areas disturbed during construction of roads and facilities or by activities during operation anti <br />reclamation would be expected to be higher in suspended solids. <br />The potential problem of increased levels of suspended solids in the surface runoff will effectively be mitigated <br />during operations by construction and operation of sedimentation control structures. The sedimentation control <br />structures will be operated to effect compliance with the effluent limitations of the NPDES permit. Under the <br />stringent limitations of the NPDES permit, the suspended solid concentrations of the discharge will be lower than <br />the streams during the spring run-off period. Successful completion of reclamation activities as described under <br />Rule 2.05.4 will provide effective surface erosion control and will result in runoff characteristics similar to the <br />premising conditions. <br />Streamflow -Ground Water Relationships <br />Underground mining operations may also affect streamflow conditions by affecting ground water discharge or by <br />induced recharge. The two streams that could be affected are Foidel Creek and Fish Creek. Although underground <br />mining activities are below or downgradient from Foidel Creek, it is conceivable that underground mining and <br />reclamation activities could influence ground water discharge from surface mine spoils upgradient (south) of Foidel <br />Creek. Underground mining by increasing the effective permeability and storativity of the Wadge overburden unit <br />could increase the rate of recharge and thereby reduce ground water discharge to Foidel Creek from upgradient <br />mine spoils. This does not appear to have occurred to date. Springs from backfill spoils have appeared since the <br />onset of underground mining. The clay barrier constructed to cut off spoil water inflows in the vicinity of the portal <br />may have reduced the effective permeability of the Wadge overburden unit to levels comparable or lower than <br />. premising. Still, some spoil water has by passed the barrier as indicated in the discussion on this issue in the <br />ground water baseline section. <br />MR08-230 2.05-159 09/05/08 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.