AOÖÍ 4-ÔOé. —Ö O 1. A i t a B o l d Co. Sunnvsids Mine/Water Q uality — Gen-

F/W? . >W.'* 1200 17TII STRRKT SUITJ5 1390 JA M RS M. NEWCOMB » E N V E R , CO flOSOa SWNIOR VICW PRKKJIMCNT <303t 8 0 3 -0 8 0 0 CHIRP' OPTEKATINO O rflC K R P A X <»0U) 8 0 3 -2 8 2 0

RODNEY D. KNUTSON ATTOKNKY AT l'AW

TEUEPHONe (303) 825-4877- ^KNUTSOH. a « « VtS- P C- 1*»i?H uisO N '.»A V CENTRE FAX [3 0 3 ) © 25-8537

"i1 *7« •?3& Pagç 20

continuation and those factors necessary to, and his/her plans for, resumption. In no case shall temporary cessation be continued for more than ten (10) years without terminating the mining operation and fully complying with the reclamation requirements of this article.

103(a)(IV) 1.6.4 A permit granted pursuant to Rule 2 or 3 shall continue In effect as long as:

The Board does not take action to declare termination of the life of the mine, which action shall require a sixty (60) day notice to the operator alleging a violation of the permit, a discontinuance of the mining operation without a temporary cessation as provided 1n Rules 1.6.2 or 1.6.3, or failure to submit the reports required under Rules 1.6.2 and 1.6.3. In such cases, the Board shall provide a reasonable opportunity for the operator to meet with the Board to present the full case and further provide reasonable time for the operator to bring violations into compliance. Such hearings and procedures shall be 1n compliance with the requirements of Rule 8.2.2; or at such hearings the Board may:

(1) Declare termination of the life of the mine according to the provisions of this Rule and after finding a violation in accordance with Rule 8.2.2; or *•# 2) Declare that a mining operation 1s In a state of temporary cessation, establishing a commencement date as necessary according to a review of the facts.

103(6)(b) 1.6.5 "Life of the mine" Includes that period of time after cessation of production necessary to complete reclamation of disturbed lands as required by the Board and this article, until the Board releases, in writing, the operator from further reclamation obligations regarding the affected land, declares the operation terminated, and releases all applicable performance and financial warranties.

119 1.7 Permit Transfers

1.7.1 Where one operator succeeds another at any uncompleted operation, the first operator shall be released from all liability as to that particular reclamation operation and all applicable performance and financial warranties as to such

2 CC R 407-1 THE CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS © 1988 THE PUBLIC RECORD CORPORATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ÜCR11,11-8$ Page 21

operation shall be released 1f the successor operator assumes, as part of his obligation under this article, all liability for the reclamation of the affected land, and his obligation 1s covered by an appropriate performance and financial warranties as to such affected land.

1.7.2 Requests for permit transfers and succession of operators must be submitted on "Request for Transfer of Mineral Permit and Succession of Operators" forms provided by the Board. Each request must Include an executed performance warranty and applicable replacement financial warranty. The Division shall act on a succession of operator application within thirty (30) days. Succession of operator requests will be considered automatically approved af.ter thirty, (30) days of filing unless the operator Is notified by the Division that the request 1s denied.

1.7.3 Approval of a permit transfer and succession of operator request shall be given by the Division If It finds that the successor operator Is capable of assuming all , responsibility for the conditions Included under the original permit. Notice of permit Transfer will be acknowledged 1n the monthly activity report attached to the monthly Board agenda,

114 1.7.4 In the event that the Division decides to deny 115 a succession of operator application, the Division will notify the Applicant in writing within ten (10) days of the decision deadline. The Applicant may appeal the decision to the Board for a final determination by submitting a Request for Adninlstrative Appeal to the Division within sixty (60) days of the date of decision. The Request for Administrative Appeal must specify the application number assigned by the Division and all factual and legal questions which the Applicant wishes to . have the Board decide.

1,8 Amendments

112(8) 1,8,1 An amendment 1s defined as: A change in the permit which Increases the acreage of the affected land, or which has, in the judgment of the Board or Division, a significant effect on reclamation. STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone (303) 331-4525

NOTICE OF FINAL ADOPTION

PURSUANT to the provisions of Sections 24-4-103(5) and 24-4-103(11), C.R.S.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after public hearing on August 7, 1989 and complying with the provisions of 24-4-103(3), 25-8-401(1), and 25-8-402(1), C.R.S., amended on November 7, 1989 pursuant to 25-8-202(1)(b) and f2); 25-8-204; and 25-8-207; C.R.S., and Section 2,1.3 of the "Procedural Rules" the regulation titled:

"Classifications and Numeric Standards for San Juan River and Dolores River Basins, 3.4.0 (5 CCR 1002-8).

Providing for revisions to use classifications and water quality standards for different segments throughout the Basin.

Also, pursuant to 24-4-103(8)(b), C.R.S., this amendment was submitted to the Attorney General for review and was found to be within the authority of the Water Quality Control Commission to promulgate, and further that there are no apparent constitutional deficiencies in its form or substance. Furthermore, in adopting this amendment the Commission adopted a general Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose in compliance with 24-4-103(4) and (8 )(d) C.R.S.

These amendments will be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services within twenty (20) days after the date of the Attorney General's Opinion, pursuant to 24-4-103(8)(d), C.R.S., and to the Secretary of State in time for December, 1989 publication in the Colorado Register pursuant to 24-4-103(5), and (ll)(d), C.R.S,, and will become effective December 31, 1989.

A copy of said amendment is attached and made a part of this notice and will be incorporated into the full text of said regulation*.

Dated this 17th day of November, 1989, at Denver, Colorado.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

*A copy of this regulation is available at a charge of ¿5.00, pursuant to 24-4-103(9), C.R.S.

1132m/0116m (1) Introduction

The numeric standards for various parameters in the attached tables were assigned by the Commission after a careful analysis of the data presented on actual stream conditions and on actual and potential water uses.

Numeric standards are not assigned for all parameters listed in the Tables attached to 3.1.0. If additional numeric standards are found to be needed during future periodic reviews, they can be assigned by following the proper hearing procedures.

(2) Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in the attached tables:

ac 68 acute (1 -day) Ag ■ silver A1 ■ aluminum As = arsenic B ** boron Ba “ barium Be “ beryllium Cd “ cadmium ch “ chronic (30-day) Cl - chloride CI2 = residual chlorine CN * free cyanide CrIII * trivalent chromium CrIV “ hexavalent chromium Cu “ copper dis 0 dissolved D.O. dissolved oxygen F ° flouride F. Coli “ fecal coliforms Fe ■ iron Hg 88 mercury mg/ 1 18 milligrams per liter ml * milliliters Mn “ manganese NH^ = un-ionized ammonia as N (nitrogen) Ni " nickel NO^ = nitrite as N (nitrogen) NO^ “ nitrate as N (nitrogen) P 88 phosphorus Pb ■ lead S “ sulfide as undissociated (hydrogen sulfide) Se 53 selenium SO^ “ sulfate sp " spawning T1 “ thallium tr = trout Tree = total recoverable TVS ■ table value standard U “ uranium ug/l ** micrograms per liter Zn “ zinc

Table Value Standards

(a) In certain instances in the attached tables, the designation "TVS" is used to indicate that for a particular parameter a "table value standard“ has been adopted. This designation refers to numerical criteria set forth in Table III from the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, which is reprinted, including footnotes, on the following three pages for informational purposes. (b) In many cases, the table value standards are in the form of equations dependent on hardness levels. The selection of an appropriate site-specific hardness value is addressed in footnote 3 to Table III.

(c) The designation "TVS(tr)" for cadmium, silver, or zinc indicates that the corresponding "acute (trout)" or "chronic (trout)" equation from Table III applies.

(d) For segments with multiple classified uses, when the "TVS" designation is listed, each of the corresponding standards from Table III applies, in accordance with the specific classifications adopted for the segment in question.

0489m/0116ra/ Final/11/89 DESK CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS mm: 9 TEHPÛRARY Pâgs 1 AQUATIC REC MODIFICATIONS LIFE PHYSICAL BASII: San Juia liver and and INORGANIC «ETAIS QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL Stream $¿5sant flescription ig/l «9/1 Kaiostei of the Navajo River and 0.0. : 6.0 fig/1 NH3(ac)=0.02 KÛ2=0.Q5 ac)=50(Trec) Fe(chl=300(dis) fch)=TVS the Little Kavajo River, including 3.0.(spj- 7.Q ig/1 012=0.003 NOîMO.O ac =ns(tr) Fe(ch)=100û(Trec) all tributaries, lakes and pH : f.H.D CN=.005 Cl=25Û.O ch)=TVS Pb(ac/ch)=TVS :}?iïrecl reservoirs, frca the boundary of F.Coli=280/100i1 S:0.002 SO<=25û.O II(ac)=50(Trec) Kn(ch =50{dis) =TVS(tr the South San Juan Wilderness Area B=0.75 Cr¥I(ac/ch)=h$ Mnfch =1QÛ0(Trec) =TVS(tr to the San Juan-Chasa diversion. Cu{ac/ch)=TVS Hg(ch =.0 1{Trec) =TVS 2. Xaiflstei of the Navajo River froi D.O. : 5.0 1 3/I N»s(ac =0.02 NOî=O.Q5 Asfch=50 Fe ch =30Ö(dis) Hi ch=.05 AH letals are Tree the San Juan-Chaia diversion to the D.O.(sp): T.O 13/Ì Cl2=0. N0s=10.0 Cdj ch=.4 Fech=1,200 Nich=50 unless otherwise noted Colorado/Ne» Mexico border near pH = 6.5-9.0 CN=.005 CU25Û.0 CrIII ch)=50 Pbch=5 Sech =10 Edith, Colorado and frei the F.Coli=2Q0/108il S=0.002 SO<=25Q.O CrVI(ch)=25 Knch=i0(dis) Aq ch = .1 Colorado/de* Kexico border tothe 3:0.15 Cu(ch)=14 Hnch=1,000 ¿flch=50 confluence vith the San Juan River. 3. Mainstei cf the little Navajo River D.O. : 5.Q «g/l frca the San Juan-Chasa diversion pH = 6.H.Q to the confluence with the Navajo F.Coli=2OÛO/î0Ûtî River; all tributaries to the Navajo River and the Little Navajo River, including all lakes and reservoirs, froi the San Juan-Chasa diversions to the confluence with San Juan River. 4. All tributaries to the San Juan 0.0. : 6.0 ig/ì NHj{acNJ2 NO?=O.Ü5 As =50(Trec) Fe(ch)=300(dis) ac/ch) =TVS River. Rio Blanco, and Navajo River 0.0.(S3): 7.Q Eg/1 CLz=0.003 N0j=10.0 Cd =TyS{tr) Fe(chj=UD0iTrec) ac including all lakes and reservoirs, pH : 5.5-8.0 CK-.005 CU250.Q Cd =TVS Pb(ac/ch)=TVs ac l IrîC) which are within the Neiinuche F.Coli=2QQ/t00fil S=0.082 S0*=250.Q Cr . ac)=50(Trec) Knich)=50{dis) ch =TVS(tr Wilderness Area and South San Juan B=0.?5 Cr/I{ac/ch)=TVS Nn(ch)=l,ööO(frec) ac :TVS(tr Wilderness Area. Cu ac/cn)=ïVS Hgich):.C!(Trec) ch =TVS Hainstei of the San Juan River and .0. : 6.0 M /l NHa{ac)=0.02 RQ2=0.05 As(ac)=50(Trec) =30Û(dis) ac/ch.JsTYS the East Fork and Vest Fork of the .0.{sp): Î.Ü ig/ì CLì=0.003 N0a=10.0 Cd ac)=Tvà(tr) =l,ÖÖÖ{Trec) ac =10(ïrec) San Juan River, frca the boundary * = «.5-9.0 CN=.0Û5 CU25Ö.0 Cd ch =TVS chJ=TVS ac =TVS of the Meainuche Wilderness Area .Cûli=200/100ïl S=0.002 SÜÍ-250.Q CrIII ac):50(îrec) =50 dis) ch =TVS{tr (lest Fork) and the source (East S-0.75 CrVI(ac/ch):ÎVS ac =TVS(tr Fork) to the confluence vith Cu(ac/ch)=ÎVS ch =TVS Founile Creek, including all ÄT 1 tributaries, lakes and reservoirs except for tributaries, lakes, an lakes, and reservoirs included in Se OES 18CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGIOM: 9 TEXPQRARY AQUATIC REC KQDIFICATIÖHS LIFE PHYSICAL 8ASIK: San Juan River and H and IHÛRGA8IC METALS CLtCL2 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL

Streu Segesnt Description ig/l U9/Î S. Xainstei of the San Jo River fro* 0.0. : 6.0 1 ÜH}(ac}:Q.02 8=0.75 :50 Fe(ch :2.400 :2 Q All cetals are Tree the confluence with Fcuriile Creek fl.O.(Sp): I.Û lj/ I CL2=Q.6Q3 K0z=0.Q5 =.4 Pb ch :10 :.1 unless otherwise noted to lavajo Reservoir. pH : $.5-1.0 CR-.C05 ch):100 Hatch :J.0(J0 :50 F.ColÌ-20Q/1G0BÌ S:0.002 CrVI(ch):25 Hgich :5i Cu(ch)-2 Hl ch -50 7. lavajo Reservoir (portion in 9.0. : 5.6 13/I KH3(acN.02 m - u As(ch):50 Feich :30Q(dis} Hgich :.05 All letals are Tree Colorado). pH = 6.5-9.0 CL2=0.003 KOs^tO.O Cd ch :.4 Fe ch :|,0 0 0 Xi ch :50 unless otherwise noted F.Co1í-2Q0/íQGb1 CH-.GQ5 0:250.0 CriII(ch}:5Ö Pb ch Seich :1 0 3:0.002 S0«:25ü.fl CrVI(ch):25 Mn(ch Agjch :.1 8:0.75 Cu(ch):5 Mnich Zn ch :50 9. Hainstei of the Rio Blanco, 0.0. : 6.0 19/I KH3(ac)-Q.02 1102:0.05 As(ac):50(Trec) ch]:300(dis) ac/ch):TVS including all tributaries, lakes, 0.0.(spi- 7.0 13 / 1 CL2=0.DQ3 N03-Î0.0 Cd ac :TYS(tr) :10(Trec) and reservoirs, froi the Boundary pH : 6.5-9.0 CH:.005 CU250.0 Cd(ch):TVS » rec) :TVS of South San Jum iilderness Area F.Coli=200/10Ûïl S:0.C02 S04-25G.C CrIII{ac}:50, ch):50(dis] :TVS(t'r to the confluence vith the San Juan 8:0.15 CrVI(ac/ch):ti/S ch :l,00Ü(Trec) =TVS tr River, except for the specific Cu(ac/ch):fvs ch :Jl(Trec) =TVS listing in Segaeat 13. 10. Kainstei of the Rito Blanco River 0.0. : 6.0 19/ì froi Echo Ditch to the confluence 0.0.(sp): 7.0 BS/1 with the RioBlanco River. pH : 5.5-9.0 F.Cali=20Û0/î00al 11. All tributaries to the San Juan D.O. : 5.0 13/I River in Archuleta County, pH : 6.5-9.Û including all lakes and reservoirs, F.Coli=20DQ/tö0il except for specific listings in Segeents 1, 4, 5, and 9. NUMERIC STANDARDS OESIG CLASSIFICATIONS TEMPORARY mm: 9 Page 3 AQUATIC EC KODIFICAIIOSS LIFE PHYSICAL and BASH: PIESRA RIVER KETALS and IH0R6AHIC QUALIFIERS Cll CL2 BIOLOGICAL Streai Segsent Description ■3/1 ug/1 All tributaries to the Piedra 0.0. = 6.0 tg/1 KHj(ac)=0.02 1102=0.05 As(ac)=50(Trec) ch)=3Q0(dis) ac/ch)=TVS River, including all lakes and B.Q.(sp): 7.0 ig/l Li=fl.003 N0j=10.0 Cd(acj=TVS(tr) ch M.OOOttrec) reservoirs, which are within the pH : 6.5-9.0 CX=.005 01=250.0 Cd(chS=m ac/ch)=TVa :{5iTrec) leiinuche lilderness Area. F.Cclt=2S3/1Q0a1 3=0.002 SO<=25Q.I] Crni(ac):50(Trec) ch =50(dis) i -TVSitr 8=0.75 !rvi{ac/ch]=tvs ch =UQQ(frec) =TVS tr u(ac/ch)=TVS ch):.01(Trec) =TVS ch)=IVS 2. Kainstei of the Piedra River, 0.0. : 6.0 M /1 NHa(ac)=0.Q2 HOi=O.Q5 =50(Irec) ch)=3Q0(dis) including the East and Middle 0.0.(sp)= 7.0 ig/1 CL2=0.CQ3 N0j=10.0 =IVS(tr) ch}=t,000(Trec) =î0(Trec) Forks, froi the boundary of the H = *.5-5.8 CN=,005 CU25Ö.O =TVS ac/chj=î¥S =TV$ leainuche Wilderness Area to the .Coli=200/1fi0il S-O.C02 SQ«=25Q.Î ac)=50(Irec) ch)=50(dis) =TVSftr ccachence with Indian Creek! B=0.75 rVI[ac/ ch]=TVS =TVS tr except for the specific listing in Cu(ac/ch =TVS é!ì!f?ilE1c) =TYS Segient 3.

3. Kainstei of the East Fork of the D.O. : 6.0 M/1 KMac)=0.02 »02=0.05 Asiac =50(Trec) ch)=300(dis) Hiac ch)=TVS Piedra River froe the Piedra Falls O.Q.(sp): 7.0 ig/ 1 CLî=0.0û3 KOâ-lû.O Cdfac =TVS{tr) ch)=1f00Q(Trec) Seac =10(Trec) Ditch to the confluence with Pagosa pH = 6.5-9.0 CH=.0Û5 01=250.0 Cdich =TVS ac/chi=TVS ac =TVS Creek. F.Co1ì=200/10Qbì S=0.CQ2 $04=250.0 CrIII ac)=50(Trec) Kt :h):50(dis) ch =TYS(tr) 1=0.75 CrVI{ac/ch]=TVS ch =1 .ÛÛ0(Trec) h ac =TVS tr Cu(ac/ch)=TYS ch)=.Dl(Trec) h ch =TVS All netals are Tree 4. Kainstei of the Piedra River froa 0.0. = 5.0 m /1 NHa(ac)=0.02 8=0.75 =50 Fe(ch}=1,5$ Sech =20 the confluence with Indian Creek to l.(sp)= 7.0 1 3 / 1 CL2=a.Ö03 H0î=0.05 :.4 Pb chj=4 ch=.t unless otherwise noted Ravajo Reservoir. DH = 6.5-9.0 CM>.û05 ch)=t00 Kn ch =Ut ¿nch=50 F.ColttOO/lOOil S=0.002 CrVI(ch)=25 Hg ch =.05 Cu(ch)=16 Hi (ch}-50

5. All tributaries to the Piedra 0.0. = 6.0 m /1 NHi(ac}=0.Q2 NÜ2=Q.05 =50(Trec) ch)=300(dis) Niiac, ch)=m River, including all lakes and CL*=0.003 1(03=10.0 =TVS(tr) ch =1.050jirec) Setae ^Irec) reservoirs, frci the boundary of h[l t d ‘3/ CSU05 Cl-250.0 =ÏVS ac/ch)=TVs Ag ac the ieiinuche Kilderness Area to Coli=2Q0/100il S=0.002 S04-25G.C ac)=5Q(Trec) =50(dis) Agjch =TVS(tr point iuediatelv below the 8=0.75 CrVI(ac/ch)=TVS =1 ,000(trec) Zniac =lVS(tr confluence with Devil Creek. Cu(ac/cn)=TYS =.0HTrec) h ch =TVS 6. All tributaries to the Piedra 2.0. = 5.0 ig/1 River, including all lakes and dH = 6.5-9.0 reservoirs, fro* a point F.Co1i=2000/i00nl iiaediately below the confluence with Devil Creek to Navajo Reservoir, except for the specific listings in Segsent 7. ÛESIG CLASSIFICATIONS HUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 TEMPORARY Page 4 AQUATIC REC KQDIFIGATIQHS PHYSICAL LIFE and BASI»: PUERA RIVER and IKQRGAftIC KEIAIS CL1 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL

Streu Segment Description C i #9/1 7. 'Hatcher lake, Stevens lake, Pagosa t D.O. : 5.0 ig/l XMac)=MS =TVS(Trec) ch)=3Q0(dis) Hi&c Lake, Village Lake and forest Lake.' oH : M-9.0 CL2-Û.Q03 -TVS ch =U 00(Trec) Seac sW(Trec) F.Cali=2ßOO/tOÖil «=0.085 =TVS ac/ch)=TV M ac :TVS 3=0.002 ac)= VS(Trec =5Q{dis] A

Streu Segsent Description C Ï ig/l ug/1 7. Mainstei of Mineral Creek, iH • 3.5-9.0 'M.l B:0.75 ch=0.1 Cuch)=0.2 Se(ch =0.02 All letals are Tree including all tributaries, froi the c.Coli=2fl00/100il ch=0.005 ‘bch=0.035 Aqlch =.1 unless otherwise noted source to & point issediately above TTch)=0.1 ch =.05 ¿Aich =2.0 the confluence with South Mineral I(ch)=0.1 Ni ch=0.05 Creek except for the specific listing in Segaent Sa. Hainstei of South Mineral Creek 3.0. : 6.013/1 {ac)=Q.Q2 M.05 =50(Trec) ch)=3G0(dis) ch)=TVS including all tributaries, lakes .Q.(sp)= 7.0 ig/1 C12-Q.CG3 KOs^ia.Q sTYS(tr) ch M,000(Trec) and reservoirs froi the source to a H = 6.5-9,0 CH-.005 01=250.0 =TVS ac/ch)=TV WK) point iuediatelv above the .Coii=200/10Qil S=0.002 S04=2S3.Q ___ ac)=50(Trec) =50(dis] --TVS(tr) confluence with Clear Creek; 3-0.75 CrVKac/chHVS :l,000(irec) =TVS tr) sainsteis, including all Cu(ac/cn)=TY$ =.Û1{Trec) =TVS tributaries, lakes and reservoirs of Mill Creek, and Bear Creek froi sources to confluence with lineral Creek; all lakes and reservoirs i Creek; all lakes and reservoirs in the drainage areas described in Sega Mainstei of South Mineral Creek, 0.0. = 6.0 15/1 XHa(&c)=0.02 3-Û.0Q2 Asích =50 -I,ut =20 All sstals are Tree including all tributaries, froi a O.Q.(sp): 7.0 ig/1 CU=0.003 3=0.75 Cdlcfi =2 -û =.t unless otherwise noted point iuediatelv above the pH = 6.5-9.0 CK=.0Q5 KÛ2-Q.Q5 CrIIl(ch)=1C =UC =50 confluence with Clear Creek to the F.Cali-2CG0/10!!il CrVI(ch}=25 =Ì5 confluence with Mineral Creek, and Cu(ch):5 =50 the lainstei of Mineral Creek froi iuediately above the confluence with the South Fork to the confluence with the Aniias River. 9. Mainstei of Clear Creek froi the D.O. = 6.0 ig/1 HHî(ac)=0.Û2 S=0. As(ch)=50 Fe{chj=5,00 Seich =20 All cetals are Tree source to the confluence with South Q.0.(sp)= 7.0 13/ CL2=0.CQ3 8=0.75 Cdlch =.4 Pb(chi=4 Agích =.t unless otherwise noted Mineral Creek. H = 6.5-9.Û CN=.( ” 1(02=0.05 CrIII(ch)=1C Znlch =480 .Coli=20Ö0/10Öil CrVI(ch)=25 Hg(chí=.ü5 Cu(cii)=150 Ni eh =50 13. Mainstei of the Florida River froi S.O. = 6.0 ig/1 kHj(ac):0.02 N0*=0.05 Asfac =50{Trec) ch)=303(dis) ch)=TYS the boundary of the Heiinuche 0.0.(sp : 7.0 eg/ 012=0.003 NQj=tO.O Culac =TVS{tr) chj=1,ôûüjîrec) =10[Trec) Wilderness Area to the Florida pH = 6.S-9.0 CH-.0G5 01=250.0 Cd(ch =TVS a c / c h l = m =TVS Farsars Canal Keadgate, except for F.Coli=200/10Qsl 5=0.002 SO«=250.0 Crlll.. ac)=5ÛA =5Dídis) =TVS(tr the specific listing in Segsent 12a. 3=0.75 CrVI(ac/ch)=ÎYS =1.ôûû(Îrec) =TVS{tr Cü(ac/cn)=TVS =.it(Trec) =TVS T i i QESIG CLASSIFICATIONS U I C STAHQARDS REGIGK: 9 TEMPORARY Page 9 AQUATIC REC KOQIFICATIQüS LIFE PHYSICAL BASIN: AKIMS ANQ FLORIDA RIVER and and IÜ0RGAHIC METALS CL2 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL Streu Segient Description i i ig/i ug/i It. Mainstei of the Florida River froi D.O. : 6.0 ig/1 KH3(ac):0.02 ÜO2=O.05 Asíac =50(Trec) FeíchHOÜfdis) /ch)=TVS tile Florida Fariers Canal Headgate Q.G.(sp)- T.O ig/1 CL2=D.Q03 Üü3=10.0 Cdíac =TYS{tr) Fe(ch)=1,0ûi3(îrec) =t0(Trec) to the confluence with the Anitas = 6.5-9.0 CM=.QÜ5 CU2SQ.Q Cd(ch =TYS ‘ dc/ch)=m =TVâ River. f.Coii=20a/1QQi1 8:0.002 S04=250.Ö CrIII__ ac)=50[Trec) ch)=50(dis} =TVS(tr B=a.T5 CrVI(ac/ch)-TVS ch)=t.oÛ0(îrec) =TVS(tr Cu(ac/cn)=TYS Hg ch):.û1(Trec) -TVS 12a.AH trib. to the Aniias D.O. = 6.0 ig/1 HHj(ac)=0.02 «02=0.05 As(ac)=50(Trec) ch)=3Q0(dis) fch)=TYS fivr..including all lakes and 3.0.(spU 7.Ö ig/1 CL2=Û.0Ü3 1= 1 0 . 0 Cd(ac)=TV5(tr) ch)=1 ,Cö0(Trec) =1c(Trec) reser..froi a point isaediatelv OH = 6.5-9.0 it-.m CU250.O Cdich =TVS ac/ch =TVS =TVS above the confluence with Elk Cr. F.Coli=20a/10Q»l 8=0.002 SÛ4-250.C CrIII(ac)=50(Trec) ch)=5Í(dis) =TVS(tr to a point iisediately below the 2=0.75 CrVI(ac/ch]=TYS ch =1.000(írec) =TVS tr confluence with Her&osa Cr.; except Cu(ac/c(i):iVS ch =.ol(Trec) =T¥S for specific listings in seg.15. All trib. to the Florida Rvr.,including all lakes,and reser..except for the specific list for the specific listing in Seg.i. Mainsteis of Red Cr. ana Shearer Cr. froi their sources to their confluences with the Florida Rvr.,and lainstei of Lightner Cr. froi the source to the Boundary of tl S r 12b.le*an Reservoir. S.O. : 6.0 14/1 HHi(ac)=Û.02 KÛ2=0.05 =50(Trec) ch)=30O(dis) fch)=TVS O.O.(sp): 7.8 *3/1 CL2-O.O03 N0î=î0.02 =TVS(tr) chJ=1000(Trec) =10^Trec) pH : 8.5-9.0 ir-mí C1=250.O -TVS ac/ch)=TVS F.Co1i=2Q0/10Ql1 S=0.O02 SQ<=250.0 ___ ac)=50(Trec) ch)=5f3{dis) Ag ch =TVS(tr B=0.75 CrVI(ac/ch]=TVS ch)=lüüO(Trec) U ac =TVS(tr Cu(ac/ch)=TVS ch):.0 1{Trec) Znich =TVS tta.Xainstei of Junction Creek, and D.O. : 6.0 l?/l KH3(ac)=0.02 S=0.002 AsiacichMYS ch)=1tOOQ(Trec) ac)=TVS including all tributaries, froi 0.0.(sp): 1.3 ig/1 CL2=O.003 B=0.T5 Cdtac =TVS(tr) ac/chJ=TVè ch =TVS(tr U.S. Forest Boundary to confluence pH = 6.5-9.0 C.H=.G35 IM.Q5 Cdich =TVS ch)=1.0O0(Trec) ac =TVS tr with Aniias River. F.coii=2oaa/tooii CrIII ac/ch):TVS chj=.Òt(Trec) ch =TVS GrVI(ac/chi=TVS ac/ch)=TVS Cu(ac/cn)=TYS ac/chJ=TVS 3 ES IS CLASSIFICATIONS KUHERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 TEMPORARY AQUATIC Page 10 MODIFICATIONS LIFE PHYSICAL and BASIN: ANIMAS AMD FLORIDA RIVER and INORGANIC METALS 11 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL

Streaa Segsent Description ■3/1 ug/1 13i.AU tributaries to the Aaisas 3.0. = 6.0 ifl/ 1 River, including all lakes and D.0.{sp}= 7.0 ig/1 reservoirs, frca a point - 6.a-9.0 mediately belcv the confluence Coli:2OOQ/i0Q&1 vith Heriosa Creek to tr.s Colarada/Mew Mexico border, except for the specific listings in Segaents 10, 11, 12a. 12b, 13a and 14; all trioutaries to the Florida River, including all lakes and reservoirs, free the outlet of Leaon Reservoir to the confluence vith the Aniaas River, except for the specific listi i t 14. Hainstea of Lightnsr Creek froi the 0.0. = 6.0 ij/i NHi(ac)=0.G2 NO2=O.05 Asiac =5Q(Trec) di):3O0(dis) fchWYS boundary of U.S. Forest Service O.O.(sp): 7.0 ag/1 CLr-0.003 NOj :1O.0 Cdiac =TVS{tr} ch):l,oio(Trec) lands to the confluence with the pH = 6.5-9.0 CK-.0G5 Cl:250.0 Cdlch =TVS ac/ch]=TVS l rrec) Aniaas River. F.Coli=2O0/1O0al S=0.GO2 SQi=250.O Crill ac):5Q(Trec) =5ö(dis) :TVS(tr B-0.Í5 CrVI{ac/ch]=TVS =1 1G00(Trec) -TVS tr Cu{ac/ch)=TVS s.Ot(Trec) :TVS 15. Hainstea of Purgatory Creek froa }.Q. : 6.0 83/1 CN=0.2 NOi:1G.O =50 =1,030 :2 All aetals are Tree scarce to Cascade, Cascade Creek, ).0.(sp)= 7.5 ag/1 S=Q.Q5 01=250.0 :0.3{dis) =10 unless otherwise noted Sculdina Creek free the source to 3» : 6.5-9.0 W 2sl.ll SO«:250,0 chf;5fl :50 -.50 Elbert Creek, and Nary Draw frca :.Co1i=200û/1008l CrVI{ch)=5Q ch :50 =5,0 the source to Navilana Lake. DESIG CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS TEMPORARY Page 1Î AQUATIC REC MODIFICATIONS LIFE PHYSICAL BASII: LA PLATA RIVER. MANCOS RIVER, and KcELKO CREEK, ARO SAS JUAN and INORGANIC METALS RIVER IN MONTEZUMA COUNTY AMQ CL1 CL2 QUALIFIERS DOLORES CQUMTIES BIOLOGICAL Streai Segient Description C % 19/1 «g/l 1. Mainstei of the La Plata River, 0.0. = 6.0 if/1 XHs(ac):Q.02 H02=0.05 As(ac)=5Û(Trec) ch):30û(dis) ch)=T¥S including all tributaries, lakes, O.Q.(Sp): 7.8 13/I Îlr-Lm ,=10.0 Cd ac =TVS(tr) ch):1.QQ0(Trec) rnjînc) end reservoirs, froi the source to pH = 6.5-9.0 CK:.005 01=250.0 Cd(ch =Î¥S ac/ch|=ÎVS the Hay Gulch diversion south of h.Coli-2ûQ/1QQsl S:0.ÖQ2 S04=25Q.a CrIII{ac):50(Trec} :50(dis) =TVS(tr Hesperus. B:0.75 CrVI(ac/ch)=TVS =1,000{frec) =TVS(tr Cu(ac/cÎi)=ÎVS =.0 1(Trec) =TVS 2. Mainstei of the La Plata River froi 0.0. = 5.0 1 3/I KHa(ae)=0.t 5=0.002 Asfch =50 =1 . 0 0 =20 All Betels are Tree the Hay Gulch diversion south of pH : 6.5-9.Ö CU-0.QQ3 8:0.75 Cd(ch =.1 =4l =.t unless otherwise noted Hesperus to the Colorado/Si* h&xico F.Coli=2000/100il CN=.ÖQ5 N0z-0.Q5 Crin ch}=100 sl.OC =140 border. Cr¥I(ch)=25 :.i5 Cu(ch)=1Q 3. All tributaries to the La Plata 0.0. = 5.0 19 /1 River, including all lakes and pH : 6.5-9.0 reservoirs, froi the Hay Gulch F.ColWOM/IÛÜil diversions south of Hesperus to the Colorado/New Mexico border. 4. Mainstei of the Mancos River, 1.0. : 6.0 13/I NHi(ac)=0.02 NQ2:0.05 AsCac ch):330(dis) fchkTVS including all tributaries, lakes, ).Q.(Sp]= 7.0 19/I CL2=0.éû3 N0s:t0.0 Cdiac ch)=1,0Gfl(Trec) =1û(îrec) and reservoirs, froi the source of ;H : 6.5-9.0 CN:.005 01:250,0 Cdich =TVS ac/ch :TVS =TVS the East, lest and Middle Forks to :.Coli=2D0/ia0ai S=0.0Q2 S0<=2£0.C Crin ac):5Û(Trec) =5Ô(dis) =TVS(tr K»y 160. 3:0.75 CrVI(àc/ch =TVS :1.000(Trec) =TVS(tr Cu{ac/cn)=ÎVS :.01(ïrec) =ÎVS S. Mainstei of the Mancos River froi 0.0. : 5.0 19/1 N»3(ac}:0 .1 S:0.0Û2 ch =50 =20 All setals are Tree tivy to ISO to the Cokrado/Ne* pH = 6.5-9.0 CL*=Û.ÛÛ3 8:0.75 ch :| =.l unless otherwise noted Mexico border. F.Coii=20C0/10ûi1 CX=.0û5 NQ2=0.Q5 ch):1QQ =150 'I f 5 Üif 6 . All tributaries to the Mancos D.O. : 5.0 19/I River, including all lakes and pH = 6.5-9.0 reservoirs, froi Hwy 160 to the F.Coli=2DÛÛ/10Ûil Colorado/Me« Mexico border. 7. Mainstei of McElso Creek froi the D.O. = 5.0 13/1 RHiUcH.I S--0.002 As(ch):50 Fech=10400 Sech =20 All istals are Tree source to the Colorado/Utah border. pH : 6.5-9.0 CLz=0.a03 8:0.75 Cd[ch}=5 Pbch :50 ch=.15 unless otherwise noted F.Coli=2ÛÛ0/lGÛfil CN:.ÛD5 N0z:0.05 CrIII ch)=1( Mnch =1.000 Znch =100 CrVI{ch)=25 ch =.05 Cu(ch}=19 Nilch =200 DESIS CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STAUS REGIÛK: 9 TEMPORARY Page 12 AQUATIC REC KÛ0IFICATIGNS LIFE PHYSICAL BASIH: U PIATA RIVER. KASCOS RIVER, and INQRGAXIC METALS KcELHO CREEK. ÀHQ SAH JÜAM and QUALIFIERS RIVER IS mrnu CÛUXÏY ARB DOLORES COURUES BIOLOGICAL Streu Segment Description sg/l «9/1 All tributaries ta KcEUo Creek and 0.0. : 5.0 *3/1 the San Juan River in Kontem&a and OH = 6.5-9.0 Dolores Counties, including all F.Coli:2000/100*l lakes and reservoirs, except for specific listings in Sagaeats 2 tnrough 7. 9. Kainstes of the San Juan River in .0. : 5.0 ig/1 RHa(ac):Q.G6 S-Ö.ÖQ2 ac/cfi)=TVS ac/ch)=TVS acch):TVS Xontezusa County. H : 6.5-9.0 M .m 2:3.75 ac =TVS ch):2200{Trec) ac=IVS .Coli=200/10Q*1 Cli=.005 HQ?=0.5 ch *-TVS ac/ch)=TVS ch=TVS Il(ac/ch)=TVS chW.OOÛÎTrec) ac=TVS CrVI(ac/ch)=TVS ch):.lt(Trec) ch =IVS NUMERIC STANDARDS OESIS CLASSIFICATIONS TEKP0RARY RESIDU: 9 Page 13 AQUATIC REC HE3DIFICAIIQNS LIFE PHYSICAL BASIM: DOLORES RIVER and C and INORGANIC HETALS LCL1 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL Stream Se3aa.1t Description C V IS/1 ug/l 1. All tributaries to the Dolores 0.0. : 6.0 19/Ì NHj(ac)=0.C2 ÍÚ2=0.05 Asiac ch)=300(djs) „ fch]=T¥S, River and Vest Galores River, O.Q.(sp}= 1 . 0 1 3/I CLj=Q.Q03 «01=10.0 Cdfac ch)=1,Q0Q[Trec) =10(Trec) including all tributaries, lakes, pH = 6.H.0 CH=.oas Cl=250.0 Cdich =TVS ac/chi=IVS =TV5 and reservoirs, which are within r.Coli=200/i00il S=0.002 SO<=25O.0 CrIII___ ac)=50(Trec} ch)=50(dis) =TVS(tr the lirard Head lilderness. 8=0.75 Cr¥I(ac/ch)=TVS chj=t.Ò00(frec) =TVSitr Cu(ac/ch)=TVS ch =il(Trec) =TVS 2. Hainstei of the Dolores River froi 0.0. : 6.5 I1/Ì NHj(ac):Q.02 NO2=0.05 Asich =50 =1,008 =50 All tetáis are Tree the source to a point iisediately O.O.(sp): 7.0 ig/1 Cl2=oiû3 N0i=10.Q Cdich =.4 =10 unless otherwise noted above the confluence with Horse : 6.5-3.0 OU.Q35 Cl=25Q.O CrIII ch)=50 =50fdis) =.1 Creek. Coli=20OO/tOOil 8=0.002 S0*-2£Q.C CrVI(ch)=25 =1,600 8:0.75 Cu{ch)=6 =Ì5 Hainstei of the Dolores River froi 0.0. = 6.0 13/I i(ac):0.C2 S-.0.002 Asich =50 =20 All letals are Tree a point iisediately above the O.O.(sp): 7.0 ig/1 CLi:0.003 5=0.75 Cdich =.4 =4 =.1 unless otherwise noted confluence with Heru Creek to a oH = 6.5-9.0 CH:.0D5 NÜ2=0J5 CrIII ch)=ioa = 1. 0( =240 point iisediately above the F.Coli:2CCQ/!CGii CrVI(ch)=25 =.¡5 confluence with Bear Creek. Cu(ch)=t4 =50 Hainstei of the Dolores River froi 0.0. : 6.0 sg/1 NHa(ac)=0.02 *02=0.05 =50(Trec) ch)=300(dis) ac/ch)=TVS a point iisediately above the O.Q.(sp): 7.0 13 / 1 CL2=0.003 NQi=10.0 =TVS(tr) di)=1,000(Irec} ac)=10(Trec) confluence with Bear Creek to the H = 6.5-9.0 CN=.005 01=250.0 =T¥S ac/ch =TVS =TVS bridge at Bradfield Ranch (Forest .Coli=2GQ/1CCfil 3=0.002 S0i=250.0 ac)=50(Trec) =5fi(dis) =TVS(tr Route SOS) includes RcPfcee 8=0.75 CrVI{ ac/ch j=T¥S =1,0QC(Trec) =TVSitr Reservoir. Cu(ac/cn)=TVS =.¡t(Trec) =TVS 5. All tributaries to the Dolores Ö.Q. = 6.0 ig/ 1 NHi(ac}=0.02 »02=0.05 =50 :3Cu(dÌS) =.Q5 All letals are Tree River and west Oolores River, 0.0.(sp]= 7.0 13/I Cl2=0.003 «03=10.0 =.4 =1,000 =50 unless otherwise noted including all lakes and reservoirs, H = 6.Í-9.Q CN=.005 Cl=25G.O ch}=50 =10 froi the source to a point .Coli=2000/100sl S=0.002 SÛ4=250.0 CrVI(ch}=25 :50( =.! iisediately below the confluence B=0.75 Cu(ch)=S =50 with the Mest Dolores River except for specific listings in Segsents 1 and 6 through 10; lainstei of Beaver Creek (including Plateau Cree Creek) froi the source to the confluence with the Dolores River. 6. Hainstess of the Slate Creek and .0. = 6.013/1 KHs ac|=0.02 NÜ2=0.(15 As ch =50 ch=.05 All letals are Tree Coke Oven Creek, froi their sources .0.(spj= 7.5 ig/1 Cl2=0.003 N03=10.Q Cdch =1.1 ch =50 unless otherwise noted to their confluences with the » = 8.5-9.0 CK=.D05 C1=25Q.O Crll(ch)=50 ch =10 Oolores River. .Coli=2Q00/100l1 S=0.002 SG<=250.0 ch = .1 B=0.75 ch=50 ÛESIG CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 TEMPORARY Pa3e U AQUATIC REC MODIFICATIONS LIFE PHYSICAL and BASIK: DOLORES RIVER n TO S! and INORGANIC METALS L L CL1CL2 QUALIFIERS BIOLOGICAL

Striai Segaent Description C Ï ag/1 ag/1 7. Nainstea of Coal Creek frci the D.O. = 6.0 lo/l HHs(ac)=Q.02 NO2=0.G5 Asiac =5Û(Trec) Fefch =30ß(dis) idch)=TYS source to the confluence with the Û.Q.(sp = 7.0 ig/l CLi=0.0D3 =10.0 Cdfac =TVS(tr) Fetch ac Dolores River. H = 6.H .0 CN=.0Q5 Cl-250.0 Cdich -TVS m i d » £C) ac :{SiTreci .Coli=2ÜO/1üûal S-Q.QQ2 504=250.0 CrIII ac)=5Q(Trec) Hnich =50ídÍ$) ch =TVS(tr) 8=0.75 CrVI(ac/ch>=TVS Hntch =1,0Q0{frec) ac =TVS(tr) Cu(ac/cn)=IVS Hgich =.0î(Trec) ch =TVS Hainstea of Horse Creek frei the .0. = 6.0 m/1 ,(ac):Q.02 N0z=Q.Q5 =50 =30D|dis) ch=.05 All aetals are Tree source to the confluence nth the .0.(spj= 7.0 ag/1 CL2=0.6C5 H0a=10.0 -A ch=50 unless otherwise noted Dolores River pH : 6.H.0 CH-.Q05 Cl=250.0 ch):53 ch =10 F.Coli=20Q0/1Q0al S=0.CQ2 SOi=25Q.O CrVI(ch>=25 ch=.t 5=0.75 Cu(ch):22 ch =100 3. Hainstea of Silver Creek froi a D.O. : 6.0 ag/1 NHj(ac):0.O2 3-0.D02 *50 =20 =50 All aetals are Tree point iasediatelv below the Town of D.Q.{sp)= 7.0 ig/l CL2-O.ÓO3 B=0.75 =6 =16 =20 unless otherwise noted Rico’s watersuppiy diversion to the pH = 6.5-9.0 NÖ2:0.ß5 ch)-100 =UC = .1 ‘ confluence with the Dolores River. F.Coîi=28Q0/1ÛQal CrVI(ch)=25 =.¡5 =1,400 13. Hainstea of the Vest Dolores River Q.Û. = 6.0 ag/1 XHi(ac)=0.02 HÛ2-0.05 ac .-50 ch=30O(dis) Nich :TVS All aetals are Tree froa the source to the confluence D.Q.(sp]= 7.0 ag/1 CLî=0.0Û3 »03=10.0 ac =TVS(tr) ch=1,000 Se ac =10 unless otherwise noted with the Dolores River. pH = 6.Í-9.0 CN=.0Q5 CU250.Ö ch =TVS ac=TVS Aq ac = IVS F.Coli=20Q/100sl S=Q.0Q2 3Q4-25Q.Q II ac):50 ch=TVS Aq ch=IVSItr 0=0.75 rVlac =TVS ch=5Q(dis) Znac=TVS|tr *«ch :TVS ch=1.000 h ch=TVS ac : VS ch =.tl Ch = VS ac=TVS 11. All tributaries to the Dolores D.O. : 6.0 ag/1 River, including all lakes and S.O.(sp): 7.Q ag/1 reservoirs, froa a point pH = 6.5-9.0 iiaediately below the confluence of F.Coli-2Û00/î00al the Kest Dolores River, to the bridge at Iradfield Ranch (Forest Route 505), except for the specific listing in Segaent S. AUGUST, 1989 HEARING ON MULTIPLE SEGMENTS

The provisions of 25-8-202(l)(a), (b) and (2)j 25-8-203; 25-8-204; 25-8-207 and 25-8-402 C.R.S. provide the specific statutory authority for adoption of these regulatory amendments. The Commission also adopted, in compliance with 24-4-103(4), C.R.S., the following statement of basis and purpose.

BASIS AND PURPOSE:

First, the Commission has adopted new introductory language for the tables, in section 3.4.6(2). The purpose of this language is to explain the new references to "table value standards" (TVS) that are contained in the Tables. The other changes considered and adopted are addressed below.

A. Jurisdiction on Tribal Lands

On the issue of classifying and setting standards on tribal lands, the Commission was advised to classify and set standards as they would for waters on non-tribal lands with the understanding that the Commission is not attempting to assert jurisdiction or to usurp the authority of the tribe to classify and set standards for waters within the boundaries of the reservation.

B. Table Value Standards for Metals

San Juan, Segment 7; Los Pinos, Segment 4; Animas, Segment 5; Dolores, Segments 5 and 7.

Numerical standards for metals for these segments have in most instances previously been based on table values contained in Table III of the Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water. Table III has been substantially revised, effective Sep -mber 30, 1988. A few of these segments had no new data to indicate that new cable value standards are not appropriate. There are also some of these segments whose previous standards were based in part on ambient quality, since their quality did not meet old table values based on alkalinity ranges. However, these segments generally have much higher hardness than alkalinity, and the new table values (based on hardness-dependent equations) are now appropriate as standards.

C. New High Quality 2 Designations

San Juan, Segments 1, 5, and 9; Piedra, Segments 3 and 5; Los Pinos, Segment 2a; Animas, Segments 8 a, 10, 11, 12a, 12b, and 14; La Plata, Segments 1 and 4; Dolores, Segments 4 and 10.

From the information available, it appears that the existing quality of these segments meets or exceeds the quality specified by the revised criteria in Table III, and new acute and chronic table value standards based thereon have therefore been adopted. Second, in addition to these standards changes, the use classifications have been revised where necessary so that each of these segments has the following classifications:

Recreation - Class 1

Cold Water Aquatic Life - Class 1

Water Supply

Agriculture

D. Existing High Quality 2 Segments; New Classifications and Standards

San Juan, Segment 4; Piedra, Segments 1 and 2; Los Pinos, Segment 1} Animas and Florida, Segment 1; Dolores, Segment 1.

These segments were already described as High Quality Class 2, as all are wilderness and wild and scenic rivers. Available information indicates that the parallel new High Quality 2 designation continues to be appropriate for each, along with new table value numeric standards and equations for cold water aquatic life classifications, i.e., acute (trout) for cadmium and zinc and chronic (trout) for silver.

The following use classifications, and associated table value standards, have been adopted for these segments:

Recreation - Class 1

Cold Water Aquatic Life - Class 1

Water Supply

Agriculture

E. New Use-Protected Designations; No Change in Numeric Standards

San Juan, Segments 3, 10, and 11j Piedra, Segment 6 ; Los Pinos, Segment 6 ; Animas and Florida, Segments 3, 4, 9, 13b, and 15 j La Plata, Mancos, McElmo, and San Juan, Segments 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7, and 8 ; Dolores, Segments 9 and 11.

These segments all qualify for a Use-Protected designation based either on their present classifications or the existing standards contain three or more of the following metals parameters whose concentrations, based on total recoverable metals, indicate they may be worse than that specified in Table III for the protection of aquatic life class 1 use: cadmium, copper, iron, lead, or zinc. Piedra, Segment 7; Animas and Florida, Segment 13a.

These segments qualify for a Use-Protected designation based upon their classification. Previous standards were based on table values and no new data was presented to indicate new table value standards are not appropriate.

For these segments, acute and chronic table value standards have been adopted for arsenic, cadmium, chromium (III and IV), copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc.

G. Revised Recreation Classification

San Juan, Segments 2 and 6 ; Piedra, Segment 4; Los Pinos, Segment 2b; La Plata, Segment 9

The recreation classification on these segments has been upgraded from Class 2 to Class 1 (whole body immersion is likely) because the stream sampling data indicate that the fecal coliform standard 2 0 0 / 1 0 0 ml is not being exceeded, and conditions are normally considered suitable for swimming or intentional whole body contact. This action was taken in response to a concern raised by the EPA regarding segments not attaining "fishable/uwimmable" uses.

H. Other Revisions

1. Los Pinos, Segments 3 and 5.

Based on stream sampling data for Segment 3, table value standards were established as were ambient standards for cadmium and lead. For Segment 5, ambient standards for cadmium and lead were added; table value standards were added for the remaining metals.

2. San Juan, Segment 9 (Four Corners Area)

Table Value Standards for metals have been adopted for this segment with the exception of total recoverable iron whose 50 percentile value is 2200 ug/1. In addition, the recreation classification has been changed from Class 2 to Class 1 with a fecal coliform standard of 200/100 ml.

0486m/0025m/ 10/89 Rev. WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN 8 TOO LEY, PC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1700 1700 BROADWAY DENVER, COLORADO Ô 0 2 9 0 -I7 0 I TELEPHONE (303) 861-8013 FACSIMILE (303)832-3804

***** FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION *****

TO; C a r IT &AA.i Fax. Phone No . d ~ l t - 3 Q ( T

FROM: \ I I PAGES TRANSMITTED; f (Including Cover Sheet) D A T E : ____ 1^1 TIME: ____ (

ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY:

MAIL: ___ « EXPRESS MAIL:

FEDERAL EXPRESS: O T H E R : ______

NOT SENDING: __

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE TRANSMISSION

PLEASE CALL U. OR DOUG ROLLO AT 303-861-8013

MESSAGE:

0 6 1 7 W 11/09/89 BRADLEY, CAMPBELL, CARNEY & MADSEN LEO N. BRADLEY WILLIAM D. JOHNSON TIM L. CAMPBELL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION O F COUNSEL THOMAS J. CARNEY EARL K. MADSEN 1717 WASHINGTON AVENUE VICTO R F. BOOG WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401-1994 TELEPHONE EARLE D. BELLAM Y It (303) 278-3300 JAMES J. NOLAN THOMAS A, NOLAN JO H N R. JACUS K. PRESTON OADE, JR. JIM MICHAEL HANSEN T. J CARNEY LAURA J. VOGELGESANG S H ELLY M. ROWAN THOMAS E. ROOT TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH JO H N N. GALBAVY LINDA GAVIT August 30, 1990

William C. Robb, Esq. Welborn, Dufford, Brown & Tooley, P.O. 1700 Broadway, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80290-1701

Dear Mr. Robb:

Re: Res-ASAi?CO Joint Venture v. Colorado Water Quality Control C o m m i s s i o n , Civil Action No. 90-CV-23

Pursuant to § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S., enclosed is a copy of the Complaint filed by the Res-ASARCO Joint Venture against the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission). Res- ASARCO seeks judicial review of recent final rule-making by the Commission involving water quality standards for segments 2a and 2b of the Upper Arkansas River.

Please call if you have any questions or would like to discuss this m a t t e r

Very truly yours

John R. Jacus John N. Galbavy

Attorneys for the Res-ASARCO Joint V e n t u r e

E K M ;J R J ;J N G / p a h

First Class Certified Mail

E n c l o s u r e DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LAKE, COLORADO Civil Action No. 90-CV-23

COMPLAINT

RES-ASARCO JOINT VENTURE, Plaintiff,

V.

ofLColoradoTER QUALITY C0NTR0L COMMISSION, an Agency of the State

undAr.r^««/0S"ASAI5CO Joint VonturG ("Res-ASARCO"), through undersigned counsel, complains and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION nnaih« ^ This is an appeal from a final rule of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission ("the Commission"), The rule being S P?Sie?wre-i!fs# toer alia, the water quality standards for segments 2a and 2b of the Upper Arkansas River. 2. The Commission has failed to follow the requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, sections 25-8-10 1, et sea., *h»£ JL*. the Commission's own regulations. The Act requires m-n«* u benefits of the pollution control measures Uiiil i y i® C o m m i s a i°n have a reasonable relationship to the '# * wronTOntalf ener9y# and public health cost« and °i s “ch “easures, and that use classifications and water ¥ standards be set at levels which are economically and i!™? i y attainable. The standards recently adopted by the ission for segments 2a and 2b fail to meet those requirements. JURISDICTION * T£*s CouJrt has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to r t C r J A^inistrative Procedure Act, section 24-4-106, c.K.s., and the judicial review provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, section 25-8-404, C.R.S. ,, 04' ./(,yenue is Proper in this Court pursuant to section «»k? ? C-R-S*' because Res-ASARCO's Leadville Unit and the suc^ect stream segments are located within this Court's district. PARTIES w««+..5* Res“ASARCO Joint Venture is a Colorado-based joint venture of ASARCO Incorporated, a New Jersey corporation with its p r i ncipal place of business in New York, New York, and the Resurrection Mining Company, a Colorado corporation, with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Res-ASARCO owns the Leadville Unit, also known as the Black Cloud mine and mill, which is located southeast of Leadville in Iowa Gulch. Res-ASARCO participated in the rule-making proceeding before the Commission, as well as the precursor triennial review hearing on which the rule-making proceeding was based.

6 . The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is an agency of the state of Colorado and was created in the Colorado Department of Health pursuant to section 25-8-201, C.R.S. The Commission is empowered to adopt water quality standards which describe water characteristics and limit the amounts of specifically identified pollutants in state waters. Sections 25-8-203 and 204, C.R.S.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. The administrative proceeding began with a proposal of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division ("Division") to retain existing water quality standards for segments 2 a and 2 b of the Upper Arkansas River. ASARCO timely sought party status and participated in the proceeding to support the Division's proposal.

8 . The rule-making proceeding with respect to segments 2a and 2b was continued beyond the scheduled November 1989 rule- making hearing due to objectives by ASARCO to the untimely proposal of the Colorado Division of Wildlife ("CDOW") to adopt stringent Table Value Standards ("TVS") for specific metals present in the waters of segments 2 a a n d 2 b.

9. Upon resubmission of pre-hearing statements before the rule-making proceeding resumed in April of 1990, ASARCO first learned that the Division had significantly changed its position, in effect adopting the untimely proposal of CDOW to establish stringent TVS water quality standards for specific metals in s e g m e n t s 2 a a n d 2 b.

10. The April 1990 hearing of the Commission on Water quality standards for segments 2 a and 2 b resulted in adoption of the Division's^ second proposal, that of establishing stringent TVS water quality standards for those segments. The rule-making became effective on July 31, 1990. (A copy of pertinent portions of the final rule as adopted by the Commission, and the related Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose, is attached as Exhibit 1.)

11. The Commission is empowered, pursuant to section 25-8-204, C.R.S., to promulgate water quality standards. Once the Commission has determined what uses of state waters are to be protected, pursuant to section 25-8-203, C.R.S. and regulations at 5 C.C.R. 1002-8, § 3.1.13, it establishes narrative or numeric 2 ? , iaB0Un! °± ifnutanta that can be present in a wat.r rflBfrui *tili protect It« established uses. These llaits or Bognontoi°n° W ' **“ Watar quality «taivtard. for specific .tr.aji

at levels SijT?if>lon *Uf V? U M clM,lflc*tlon> and »tandard*

¿ s x r ■“ *• ^ ^ 13, P 10 Commission adopted revised vater quality standards c«a2iSSHhia ”? 2b. 0 t the Arkansaa Rlver- S t i l t s 2a and 2b £ ~ ! i ! mal? steB of th0 East Fork of the Arkansas River Drain to° the y aboVe lts coniluence with the Leadville with the Lake Fork U e n °e ^ " streaB of the Arkansas River

estabiish(.rth^ ater.quality standards in lssue concern the limits l M d anrt * ious heavy Betals' including cadmium, copper, ata t 1very ™ low , ?'levels. f,or Se9®ents 2a and 2b. Those standards were set

Co®mis8ion arbitrarily adopted TVS standards for tu+nr* i se9®ents 2a and 2b ostensibly to "serve as a goal for cle®n-up, and to provide protection from any new unquant if iabi a fJ*® c.OIunlssion'« action was based solely on i improvements in water quality associated with two nf?h effluent from the yak Tunnel and Leadville Drain, just in <-hl nun,er?us natural and iian-iiade sources of metals present confirm »H Zl s!gments 28 and 2b- The Divisions own witness ,degree of anticipated water quality improvement Moreover'«■*. • A an??cl Blno linage treatment was unknown, oreover, the substantial evidence proferred by Res-ASARCO, such «iim«».«.-!?0B the state's own studies of the area, unequivocally the expert opinion of Res-ASARCO's witness that TVS th» were unachievable in segments 2a and 2b. Accordingly, ° record clearly establishes that TVS standards are in these segments, and the Commission's action to the quality improvements baSed 0n mere sPeculation about future water

FIRST CLAIM TOR RELICT thrnnAh , j*es~«AS*??° incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 verbatim Complaint as if fully set forth herein,

The evidence presented to the Commission as part of the SZ ,establishes that the standards adopted by the Commission »•.'comply with the requirements of section 25-8-102(5), C.R.S., economically and technologically attainable. The ommission s adoption of the standards for Segments 2a and 2b of the Arkansas River vat arbitrary and capricious, in excess of tha Commission's statutory authority, basad on facts that ars clearly erroneous and la unaupported toy substantial evidence vhen the record is considered as a whole* 16. Res-ASARCO is entitled, pursuant to ssction 24*4*106, c.R.s., to have the Commission's actions held unlawful and set aside. Res-A&ARCO is also entitled to have this utter remanded to the Commission and the Comission directed to set standards which are attainable and economically reasonable. m m tot Riuxr WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendant: 1. For a judgment and order pursuant to section 24-4-106, c.R.s. that the standards adopted by the Commission for segments 2a and 2b are unlawful and are set aside, and that this action Is remanded to the Commission for review and revision In accordance with the statutory and regulatory requirements of the Colorado Water Quality control Act and the Commission's regulations, 2. For the Res-ASARCO Joint Venture's costs. 3. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper in this csss. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of August 1990* Respectfully submitted,

BRADLEY,OlUWufil | CAMPBELL,UUuObiiU| CARNEY W W W * « KADSEN Professional corporation

EarlT. Madsen, Ho. 0655 John R. Jacus, No. 14139 John H. Galbavy, No. 18798 1717 Washington Avenue Golden, Colorado 80401 (303) 278-3300 Attorneys for Res-ASARCO Joint Venture Address of the Res-ASARCO Joint Yenturas P.O. BOX 936 Leadvllle, Colorado 80461

4 STATE OF COLORADO WAT! It QUAUTY CONTI 01 COMMISSION 4210 tal llthAvtmrt 0«mr«r, Colorado Ml JO Phortt 003) 33M 525

NOTICI OF FINAL ADOPTION PURSUANT to the provisions o£ Sections 24-4-103(5) and 24-4-103(11)« C.R.S.I NOTICX IS HERMIT GIVE* that th« Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after public hearing on November € and 7, 1969, and April 3, 1990, and complying with th* provisions of 24-4-103(3)« 25-8-401(1)» and 25-8-402(1), C.R.S., amended on June 5, 1990, pursuant to 25-8-202(1)# (a), (b), and (2); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204; C.R.S., and section 2.1.3 of th« Procedural Rul«s, th« regulation titled* "Classifications and Numeric Standards Arkansas River Basin" 3.2.0 (5 OCR 1002-8). Providing for revisions to water quality designations, us« classifications! and wat«r quality standards for several segments throughout the Basin. Also, pursuant to 24-4-103(8) (b), C.R.S., these amendments were submitted to the Attorney General for review and were found to be within the authority of the Water Quality Control Commission to promulgate, and further that there are no apparent constitutional deficiencies in their form or substance. Furthermore, in adopting these amendments the Commission adopted a general Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose in compliance with 24-4-103(4), C.R.S. These amendments will be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services within twenty (20) days after the date of the Attorney General's opinion, pursuant to 24-4-103(8) (d), C.R.S., and to the Secretary of State in time for July, 1990 publication In the Colorado Register pursuant to 24-4-103(5), and (11) (d), C.R.S., and will become effective July 31# 1990. A copy of said amendments is attached and made a part of this notice and will be. incorporated into the full text of said regulation*. Dated this 12th day of June, 1990, at Denver, Colorado •A copy of this regulation WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION is available at a charge of $5.00, purusant to 24-4-103(9), C.R.S

2236m/0185m/cmc

EXHIBIT 1 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

util: c m m u m tira

tUtu fcfrnt hterlytln *** t i M ^ I i*4*? kw«Ire ¿tkii Uu i luiive uè CellefltU h ü i fiifentts treu.

Ik. Wtrtu if tit lut ftri ef tW

First, the Commission has adopted new introductory language for the tables in section 3.2.6. The purpose of this language is to explain the new references to "table value standards" (TVS) that are contained in the Tables. The other changes considered and adopted are addressed below by segment.

A* Itlfq.CUlt 1 with Table _Valuesi__Hew_HlQh_Quality^2 Designations Upper Arkansas segments 12» 13, 15, 16a, 16c, 17a, 17c, 18a, 19, 20, 23, 24 Middle Arkansas segments 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 Fountain Creek segments 4 and 5 Lower Arkansas segments 3, 5b, 6a, 8, 11 Numerical standards for metals for these segments have in most instances previously been based on table values contained in Table ZZI of the Basic Standard« and Ketbodologiee for Surface Water. Table 111 has been substantially revised, effective September 30, 1988. From the Information available, It appears that the existing quality of these segments meets or exceeds the quality specified by the revised criteria in Table XIX, and new acute and chronic table value standards based thereon have therefore been adopted. There are also some of these segments whose previous standards were values based on alkalinity ranges. However# these segments generally have much higher hardness than alkalinity, and the new table values (based on hardness-dependent equations) are now appropriate as standards. Second, in addition to these etandards changes, the use classifications have been revised where n«c«ssary so that each of these segments has the following classifications! Recreation - Class 1 Cold Water Aquatic Life - class 1 Water Supply Agriculture

These classifications are appropriate because the existing quality is adequate to protect these uses. Third# a High Quality 2 designation has been established-for-each of thets--- ••gownts. Th« best availabl« information in each caaa indicata« that tha existing quality for diiaolvtd oxy9«nf pH# fecal collform# cadmium, copper# iron, lead, manganese# mercury, selenium# silver and sine la better than that apacifiad in Tablaa I, II and III of tha Basic Standard* and Mathodologias for Surface' Water, for th« protection of aquatic lif« class 1 and r«creation class 1 uees.

ViXaon Creek, Upper Arkansas segment 23» has b««n reclassified from aquatic lif« cold, class 2 to aquatic lifa class 1, with a High Quality 2 designation. A fi«ld review by th« Division indicates th« pr«a«nc« of aquatic U f a in tha segment including reproducing brook trout. Table valu« standards were adopted because ambient water quality la better than epecifled by the standards at ambient hardness. B. Existing. High Quality 2 segments t_Mew Classifications and Standard« Upper Arkansas segments la, 25 Middle Arkansas segments 22, 23, 24 These segments were already described as High Quality CXaas 2# and available information indicates that the parallel new Bigh Quality 2 designation contlnuee to be appropriate for each. Upper Arkansas segment la la within the Collegiate Peaks wilderness area. Upper Arkansas segment 25 and Middle Arkansas segments 22, 23, and 24 contain an endangered species of cutthroat trout. In addition# the following us« classifications and aasociated table value standards were adopted for these segments! Recreation - Class 1 Cold Water Aquatic Life - Claas 1 Water Supply Agriculture These classlflcatione and atandarde are appropriate based on the best available information regarding existing quality. These provisions would apply in the event that degradation is determined to be necessary following an activity-specific antidegradation review* C. New Use-Protected Designation«! No Chance In Nurooric standards

Upper Arkansas segments Sal, 8*2, 14, 22, 26 Middle Arkansas segments 4, 13# 16 Fountain Creek segments 3a, 6 Lower Arkansas segments 2, 6b, 13 Cimarron River segment 1 Theae segments all qualify for a use-protected designation bated on thslr preaent claaaificationa. Lowar Arkanaaa aegment 6b and Upper Arkanaaa segments Sal, Sa2, and 14 have cold watar elaaa 2 elaaalflcatlona. The remaining segments have v a n watar class 2 classifications. Existing standards art recommended because thaaa sagMnts althar have no eetal atandards or bacauaa no dissolved metals data Is available for thea at this time (Uppar Arkansas segments tal and 8*2). D. Hew Pae-Protected Designationat Ravleed numeric Standard«

Mlddla Arkansas aegaents 3, 7# 6, IS# 17 fountain Craak aegmenta 6 and 7 \ Lowar Arkansas aegaents 1, 4, 7, 9, 14 Cimarron River segment 2 Kiddle Arkanaaa aegmenta 7, 8, 15 and 17; Fountain Craak aegmenta 6, 7; Lowar Arkanaaa aegmanta 1, 4, 7f 9 and 14, and Cimarron River aagmant 2 ara qualifiad for a uae-protected daalgnatlon bacauaa they ara clasaifiad recreation class 2 and aquatic lifa want class 1 or 2. Table value atandarda are adopted for all conetituenta, except aa noted below.

fleonant Conatltuentlsl Fountain Creek, 7 re Lower Arkanaaa, 1 30*, re 1. Wo_Chanoe ln_Deeiqnatlon> Revised numeric atandarda Upper Arkanaaa aegmanta lb, le, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 16b, 17b, 21, 27 Middle Arkanaaa aegmenta 1; 2, 12 rountain Creek segments 3b, 9 Lower Arkanaaa aegmenta Sa, 10, 10a, 12, 12a The principal iaauea conaidered for aegment lb of the Upper Arkansas were the addition of an agriculture claaaiflcation and the aaeignment of ambient baaed atandarda for tine, lead, and copper. Conalderatlon of a uae-protected daalgnatlon was alao diacuaaed but rejected becauae the data waa in total recoverable fora and not dlaaolved. The Commiaaion declined to adopt the agriculture claaaiflcatioo becauae although the quality of the water would aupport the uae, the vatar waa not currently being uaed for this purpoae and waa not likely to be in the future. Table value atandarda were adopted for sine, lead and copper with temporary modifications of 250 ug/1 for tine, 12 ug/1 for lead and 10 ug/1 for copper, each as total recoverable, to expire December 31, 1992. In aetting theae atandards, the Coomlaaion rejected deletion of the runoff data and conaidered adopting aeaaonal atandarda. Seaaonal atandarda ware aot adopted becauae this would reault in apring runoff atandarda aeveral tlmaa higher than the acute criterion. The Commission's action la adopting the temporary modifications and underlying itudirdi for sine, l«adf and copptr on itfatnt lb aiiumi that dissolved data " H I be available for the next triennial review (1991)# and that revisions to both tha temporary nodlflcatlona and tha underlying atandarda, If appropriate« can bo aada at that ties.

On aegmenta 2c and 3 tha Commission haa adoptad temporary modifications and underlying atandarda dua to the Mtala loading froa the Leadville area» I.e. California Gulch and tha Leadville Tunnel. On segment 2c an undarlylng TVS atandard for cadniun vaa adoptad with a 3-year tanporary modification of 2.3 ug/1. Tha sine atandard vaa aat at 118 ug/1 with a 3-year tanporary codification of S65 ug/1. On aegnent 3, an underlying sine standard of 130 ug/l waa adoptad vlth a 250 ug/1 tanporary Modification# the temporary modification only In affact on that portion of the aegnent from Lake Craek to OS Highway 25. On both segments the underlying tine atandard It bated on tha NPA chronic sine criterion for tha average hardneaaee in each aegnent. Thia modification fron Colorado's criterion of 45 ug/1 vat justified by site-specific Division of Wildlife bioassaya In these reaches of the Arkanaas River. The tanporary nodification to tha cadmiun and sine atandarda are based on the 85 percentile values of the dissolved cadniun and sine data available on eaeh aegnent. Zt ia felt that the underlying atandarda will easily be obtained in the next 3 years with the clean-up of the Leadville Tunnel and the Tak Tunnel on California Gulch. Segment 4 la claeeified cold water aquatic life elaaa 1# recreation elaas 1. Table value atandarda are net for all eonatltuents In this segment except total recoverable iron. An ambient atandard of 1,200 ug/1 is adopted for iron and table valuea are adopted for the reet. The water aupply uae claasification waa removed fron Upper Arkanaas segment 9 because the anbient' concentration of sulfate and nanganese in the eegaent are inconsistent with the criteria for water aupply and there ie no exieting or hietoric water aupply usee of segment 9 waters. New tegmenta# tower Arkanaas 10a and 12a were created for Lakee Meredith and Benry, respectively. Lower Arkansas segments 10 and 12# which inelude several plains reservoirs, were designated high quality elass 2 because they have the neceeeary uae claaaiflcations* With respect to Lakes Meredith and Henry, the City of Colorado Springe teetifled that theee two reservoirs are frequently dried up during the exercise of water rights# and thus should not be designated high quelity. Exieting uae classification (Recreation 1, warn water aquatic life 1, water supply, and agriculture) and TVS were adopted for aegments 10a and 12a. Segmenta 10a and 12a were not deeignated high quality 2. Conaideration of atandarda for Upper Arkanaas segmenta 2a, 2b and 6 waa continued until April, 1990 because of concerns that proposed standards were not protective of aquatic life and may be inconsistent with clean-up goals of the Leadville Drain and California Gulch Superfund projecta. Ixieting claaaiflcations remain ia place for all three segmente. For segment 6, all numerical standards except fecal col ifora have been deleted. No party objected to this change. For segments 2a and 2b, the Commission haa adopted table value standards as the underlying numerical standards, with eight-year temporary nodlflcatlona baaed on exlatlng anbient quality. At the time that the original classifications and standard« wars adopted for eegmanta 2a and 2b, in 1962, the Commission concluded that tha prospects for futurs improvement of water quality wsrs "too speculative" to adopt more-’atringent-than-amblent watar quality standards for thssa segments. 81ncs than, tha prospacts for Improvement have changed substantially. Zn view of tha ponding treatment of Leadvllle Tunnal watar and tha Suparfund actions addrassing California Ouleh clean-up, tha Commission now believes that it is appropriate to adopt tabla value standards for thasa segments, to sarva as a goal for futura claan-up, and to provide protaction frosi any naw discharges. There la some uncartainty at this time as to tha praciaa metala levels that will ba achiarad instream following panding claanup actions* Tha eight-year tanporary modifications will not only allow tlaa for substantial olaanup to occur# but will allow two triannial review* to furthar assass tha appropriateness of tha undarlying standards bafora thay go into affact* If battar information available in tha futura indlcatas that diffarant undarlying standards ara approprlata, tha atandarda can ba modifiad at that time* As a mattar of policy, tha Commission doaa not baliava that leaving amblent-quality-based standards in placa as tha sola atiAdards for thasa sagmanta at thia tima is approprlata, sinca that would suggaat that tha exiating quality is accsptabla for tha futura. That raault would ignora tha clean-up actions alraady plannad and would ba inconslstant with tha Watar Quality Control Act policy of improving watar quality whara nacassary and raasonabla* r. fountain Creek. 8aomant_2 1. At tha Woveober 6, 1969, rulemaking haaring, tha Watar Quality Control Division racommandad tha adoption of an Aquatic U f a Class 2 classification for Fountain Craak, Segment 2, bacausa of tha prasanca of propagating fish in tha 50-mile-long straam segment. 2* Tha City of Colorado Springs, tha major dlachargar to tha segment, contandad that tha Aquatic Lifa Class 2 classification was not an attainabla use. Tha Division and Colorado Diviaion of Wildlifa, howavar contandad that tha uaa ia in placa* A Oaa Attainability Analysis (UAA) psrformad by tha City showad thara wara 13 spaclas of fish, in tha minnow, suckar, parch, killifish, sunfish, and sticklaback famillaa, but found only from tima to tima and acattarad ovar tha 50-mila-long raach* At laaat 30 apaclas of aquatic macroinvartabratas wara also found. Tha OAA damonstratad that tha fish population danaity, or abundanca, was vary low* But tha Division notad in its tsstimony, tha dansity waa as axpactad for a plains strasm. Tha OAA included avidanca that both tha high sadimant loading and tha high flooding flowa dua to both natural and anthropogenic causas substantially impalrad habitat for fish, conslstant with tha Claas 2 warmwater aquatic Ufa classification* (Tha impairment waa dua to highly aroaiva soils, a shala and grain sand atraam bottom, significant changa in topographical alavatlon and a history of flaah flooding; tha anthropogenic causaa includad agricultural divareion dams, agricultural activitias, atraam channelisation, and storm watar runoff.) The UAA damonstratad that tha fish above and below tha wastewater discharge point ware the eaaa in quantity and kind despite tha unionised ammonia discharged. Lavals of unionised ammonia ' monitored at downstrsaa a It« a htva reached lavels knowntobeacutely and chronically toxic to wirwittr fiih, according to tin literature. Bower, testimony was uncertain whether any increased toxic effects occurred at any point further downstreaa. The City testified that there would be no increaae in the nuaber of fiah due to the water quality laproveaante because of the habitat impairment. The City urged that the abaence of any value froa the additional treataent justified the conclusion that the Aquatic Life Class 2 was not attainable. The Division expected laproved numbers end kinds of fish in the reach below the diacharge. 3. According to a 0808 report# 93 percent of the total nitrogen load to Vldefield aquifer wae froa the Colorado Springs Sewage Treatasnt Plant effluent in 1982. 4. Because of the conflicting and atrongly diaputed testiaony regarding the attainability of the aquatic life use# the Coaaission conducted extensive daliberations regarding this issue. The importance of this determination waa also reflected by substantial teatiaony froa the City of Colorado springs regarding the cost of additional treataent facilities and the reaulting economic iapact. At the auggestion of the parties, the Coaaission suspended its deliberations for ssveral aonths# to allow discussions among the City# the Division# and KPA# in an effort to achieve a autually acceptable resolution of the issues prssented. These discussions have resulted in a proposal that is acceptable to these three entities# as described below. SPA did not participate as a party and has yet to review or approve a Coaaission decision, but KPA has participated and offered recoonendatlons in discussions on the package of decisions. After review# the Coaaission has deterained that this proposed resolution is appropriats, and is supportable by the facts presented in the hearing. 5. The City agreed not to contest the Aquatic Life Claes 2 classification if a six-year Teoporary Modification is provided to enable approximately a six-year period for construction of required advanced waate treatasnt facilities. These facilities are designed primarily to raaove total inorganic nitrogen (TIM) to protect the Vldefield Aquifer drinking water quality. This goal will also have the added benafit of protecting aquatic life. 6. An underlying standard of 0.1 agft unionised ammonia will be attained at the end of the Temporary Modification. During the Temporary Modification, existing (1989) conditions, as reflected by a 20 ag/L (30-d average) effluent concentration ahall be aaintained. The duration of the Tamporary Modification is based upon the conatruction schedule shown in "Advanced Wastewater Treatment Evaluation and Facility Plan Update,” dated April 16, 1990, by Brown 8 Caldwell# Consulting engineers for the City of Colorado Springs. That achedule requires design work during 1990 into early 1991; first phaae conatruction froa 1991 into 1993; and second phaae construction froa 1993 to the end of 1995. Coopllance with the unionised amaonia standard la expected when the temporary modification expires on July 30, 1996. This schedule aaauoea optimum deaign# scheduling, construction, and start up conditions. This Facility Plan will aeet the total ammonia limit for the purpose of protecting aquatic life, and will reduce TIN for the purpose-of protecting' the drinking water ~ In the Mldsfield Aquifer. A three-year study on the Widefield aquifer ■ay require the construction of additional facilities beyond those presently anticipated. The Division has Indicated that baaed upon this study, the permit may be modified to include a compliance schedule and an interim limit for Til to allow the City b o re time to construct additional nitrogen removal facilities. The justification for the Temporary Modification, as provided In Commission Regulation 3.1.7, Is the time required to construct extensive advanced vasts treatment facilities to implement measures to achieve compliance with standards. The temporary modification will be reviewed at the triennial review in 1994« 7. The Commission concludes that table value standards for ell metals except iron are appropriate since the 85th percentile of ambient dissolved metals data is below a calculated TVS standard at e conservative hardnees of 140 mg/1. The 85th percentile of total recoverable iron Is 3,200 ug/1 and was the basis for that standard. 8. The Water Quality Control Division has indicated that the Colorado Springs discharge permit would be written in the following manner. In lieu of a nitrate effluent limit to protect the drinking water use in the ffidefleld Aquifer, a total inorganic nitrogen (TIM) limit shall be used for permitting purposes. The exact effluent concentration limit will be derived after a City conducted three-year study Is completed concerning the relationship between stream and groundwater concentrations of ammonia, nitrate, and total nitrogen. Onless additional traatment facilities are required as a result of the TIM study, the permit shall require compliance with the TIM effluent limit at the time that the .1 mg/L unionised ammonia standard becomes effective. Recent Colorado Ammonia Model analysis— the assumptions used therein having concensus of support— identified a seasonal ammonia limit of 6 mg/L necessary to protect the .1 mg/L unionised ammonia stream etandard. Both a total ammonia effluent limit necessary to protect the aquatic life standard and a TIM limit to protect the drinking water use in the Wide field Aquifer will be included in the permit. Compliance with effluent limits will be based upon s flow weighted average of the two effluent discharge points for all parameters for which such computation is appropriate. The traatment facllitlee to achieve the presently anticipated standards and effluent limits are expected to cost approximately $20 million. This estimate is down from the original estimate of $42 million for nitrification and denitrification facilities at both the trickling filter and the activated eludge portions of the City of Colorado Springs wastswater plant. The Commission concludes that the permitting approach described above Is consistent with the stream classlflcstions and water quality standarde adopted. 1. AMAX Za c . 2. ASARCO, Incorporated fi Res ABARCO Joint Venture 3. CFfiX Steel Corporation 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife 5« City of Colorado Springs* Water fi Wastewater Divisions 6. Board of Water Works of Pueblo 7. City of Pusblo 5. city of Salida W E L BOP.N DUFPOR.D BR.OWN Û TOOLEY, PC, i* iTTORNBV* A T b f * W • c u t * i ? e e QCNVCq, COLOMADQ IIO IB O - ■r« i-« >u * (acaait M ai-asia *A

■JfO « L*-C. Æ *------"»■ j- r u n w riit-A ( F *k , P hpn* K«i , * \.-C t t L / * L a J c * PAO»« TBAHUMiTvsioa ______< inniuAing Cau*!; > 4 - J k ^ . Ü-t* ^ *9 O T I M E ■ --- I t. CJ— *2*

OKXaZHAb TO FOLLOW AVI MAIL! ______- -- - ■■ B33C:S»K:H3liia M A I L « _ rBDIIRAL I H P A B 0 0 t ______O T H K H i ,, , NOT SIHDZHOi ______•______

XV VOU KAtW XMV MäDtBiMH WXTH THK TRAN0HZB0ION VLBABII dALT. ■m. ______on nowo nobbo a ï aea-8i},

O Î 1 7 W 11/ 09/ao

TRANSMISSION 1EP0RT

THIS DOCUMENT WAS IT (REDUCED SAMPLE AL )

** COUNT PAGES SENT : 09 PAGES STORED: 09 *** SEND ***

No REMOTE STATION START TIME DURATI MODE RESULTS

Brad I ay> Campbe 12-26-90 11 : S G AM 4'2t; EC COMPLETED

NOTE: No = OPERATION NUMBtR EC « ERRO! OT RS * RELAY SEND S&F = STORE & FORWARD G? = CCIT 0E 48 --= A8008PS SELECTED

X E R O X -T h Ißcopior 7 01 7 UMTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Vlfl 999 18th STREET - SUTTE 500 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405

R e f : 8 RC M e m o r a n d u m

TO: Max Dodson, Director water Management Division

Robert Duprey, Director Hasardons Waste Management Division •7 ' FROM: Katharine Teter, y-t>~ Associate Regional Counsel

SUBJECT: Upper Arkansas River Water Quality Initiatives: CERCLA Liability Issues

DATE; September 14, 1990

You asked ¿or a legal recommendation on two matters : 1 i1j Review of HR 2567, Title IT, with emphasis on liability issues raised by the Sureau of Reclamation and the Colorado Department of Health.

ill whether EPA can provide any protection from CERCLA liability to the Sureau, the State and private project participants involved in corrective actions on abandoned mire sites, vhen those actions are taken pursuant to the Bureau’s ’•corrective action demonstration projects’* program or the State's implementation of § 319 of the Clear Water Act.

1 Disclaimer; Given the short turn atrovM time for this analysis (driven by Congress* pending action on HF.2567 ), this memo has not been reviewed by the Office of Feaional Counsel cr our Headcuarters counterparts. I have discussed the recommendations contained in th-s merr.c with O F . C management, eno

I will pass or* tc you any comments I receive B a c k g r o u n d Title II of this piece ol pending legislation authorises the of Reclamation to construct and operate the water

t h e « » w - — - - ______- - Leadvilie Drain/; and to implement ’’corrective action demonstration projects'- in areas impacted by lining and o.her development" in the Upper Aryans** Basin. The bill exempts '’facilities or units which are subject to” ECP.A or CEB-^A the scope of the Bureau's corrective action ÌÌÌ k m TÌ v a savings ciaus-e aimed at preserving existing CE&CLA liab-li-. - . 1 t h e Basin. The Bureau plans to irplement the "corrective action^ demonstration projects'’ program by identifying hou spots in th. Upper Arkansas Basin (mining tunnels, tailings piles, «a^te oil«»*, etc., which have a demonstrated negative affect on sj.fawe vater quality), developing site specific plans for remediation, then implementing the work plans through cooperative ventures with the State, local governments or private parties. Th scop- of remediation is expected to be rs*at*ve-y siru-1 1 , t or examp--, run-cn/run-of f controls, stabilisation and localised capping. ThA Bureau hopes to use the moneys appropriated for this purpose as matching grants to attract state, local and industry dollars (and expertise) to the demonstration project ef.cru.

The Bureaa has expressed concerns about incurring CERCLA liability (for itself or its project partners? as a resul- of tnese remedill activities. Bureau «preséntatlves j w s s e d ©articular concern about the agency s exposure to .hird liability. The Colorado Department oi Health has expressed similar concerns around the mining reriedi&tiW program it as planned to address non-point source? Ci pollution under - 3^9 - t h e CWA. 2 The State plans to proceed in a manner similar t.th. Bureau, using E?A grant funds to finance its remediation projects. In both cases, EPA Region vili water plan to be involved in the development and approval of work p l a n s • "RCLA is broadly drawn, covering releases of "hazardous substances" fro, any ^facility- it, jurisdiction.X *«ch. i n c l u d i n g t h e t y p e s of r e l e a s e s n o r ^ a - l v fvU..d at a*.in-.-n s i t e ^ (*e, leaching of heavy metals from tunnels snd pi C E K C L V s lla&ility is broad, including “generators" ot ha-.ar-„»us =.^.tan;e. ■a. P liable for r*cov*ry cf costs lr.cur.-ed in r*=t.or.se ^ a release

2 The State c£ Montana has expressed similar concerns about its mining reclamation programs. t h a t occurs as a result of their operations, EPA has long interpreted "generators' at mining #ltes to include those engaged in the type«; oi activities contemplated by the Bureau and the Sta*e in thpir remedial actions. Thus, participants in either oi these programs could arguably be held liable lor response costs as a result oi their actions.

Liability and HP. 2567 n ) As presently vritten. HP. 2 5 6 7 dees not provide any explicit protection trow CSF.CLA liability for participants in the Bureau's corrective action demonstration project program. Sh-jld Congress wish to include such sp.ecxfic p.-et«tlen Uhlch I understand nay be Congressional intent), I vould inserting language such as the following in § 207(A). Neither the Secretary nor any person participating in a corrective action demonstration project shall be ^ k l - under § 107 of CERCI.A for costs or damages as a resu.v of actions taken or oinitted in the course or implementing an approved work plan developed under this «-ction. This paraaraph shall not preclude liability for costs or aS the result of negligence on the part of such persons*

Xt „ay also be useful to clarify th«» Provided to thefS»«et«y in § - ■ As ^ast sentence of this paragrapn c„j-a *-* -^•^n »- manv of ♦ he locations the Bureau might wish to reawn. action ».jmany -ne •.j .«.,S1. „ aRd*r cSRCLA is so broad, irmmr.g^pi^iro^vh^ Jere^, >*V4uKct &

I would suggest redrafting this sentence along the .olio „

lineS: Th- Secretary of the Interior shall have no authority under this section at facilities which hav? been U-ted nr rronosed for listing tha Wational Priori^l^ glit" or are subject 'tZ T o x covered by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. ^JSS iOS%SgfJSStSt f f S T S W i S S final point cone.rni«* H? 2561. Under 8 20.. EPA and the

>mpren Act of 1980. S t a te are provided a "review and consultation* role in. the plans for design, operation and maintenance of the Leadville Drain treatment plant. Once such review has occurred, the Bureau is required to notify Congress that the works meet the requirements of the Leadville Drain Federal Facility Agreement & the present NPDE5 permit. Is this language sufficient to provide EFA & the State with appropriate approval authorities under the MOO & the p e r m i t ?

Protection from Liability

v2/ Limited as it is to the Bureau's corrective action demonstration project program in the Upper Arkansas Basin, HR' 2567 (even if amended to include language such as that suggested above) would net provide protection for projects carried out under the State’s S 319 program, or for projects the Bureau may wish to pursue in cthsr basins. There are, however, several defenses (the third party defense, the federally permitted release exemption and the "Good Samaritan" provisions? that project participants could raise to CSFCLA liability, and at least three actions EFA could consider taking to provide participants with more certainty.

First, the defenses. "Generator" liability arises from C E R C L A § l Q 7 i a M 3 ; . 4 Section '.07(b)(3) provides a defense to such liability if the "generator" can prove that the release and damages were caused solely by

An act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of the defendant, or than one whose act or emission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship...if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he exercised duo care with respect to the hazardous substance..-and ib) he took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions...

This provision can be read to provide protection for those whose only involvement with a site is z c remediate conditions arising from a release caused by others. As long as their activities do not make the problem worse, project participants could use this provision as a defense to claims of CERCLA liability.

4*any person who ...arranged for disposal or treatment...of hazardous substances owned or possessed by t^at personshall be liable for [response costs.]”

A A s econd relevant defense is the "federally permitted release'* exemption. CEKCLA exempts iron the definition of ♦'release* any discharge made pursuant to a federal permit. Section 107< j J prohibits recovery toy any person for "response costs or damages.resulting from a federally permitted release,’* wnich is defined* to include CWA § 402 and S 404 permits, CAA permits Car control regulations' issued pursuant to a SIP, and RCRA § 3005 parmits. Some activities at these remediation projects may veil require permits

No state or local government shall be liable.-.for costs or damages as a result of actions taken in response to an emergency created by the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance generated by or. from a facility owned by another person... Although this provision could be read narrowly to apply only to true emergencies, the State could mount a credible argument that the term “threatened release” should be read broadly to include classic abandoned mining problems 'such as catastrophic failures of tailings or sudden surges from mine drainage tunnels.' that can create emergency problems. The legislative history supports this reading . 6 Finally, CSRCLA's "Good Samaritan" clause, S 1 07

5 CEP.CLA S 1 01 ( i 0 ). 6 See Joint Explanatory Statement of the Coinnittee o£ ''cnf»r»nc«( VL 9 9 - 4 9 9 at p a c e s :C?-204, which e^phasites that th* subsection applies not only tc energency actions but more broadi, to releases o£ hazardous substances as well. P r o ject participants {including the Bureau and the State?7 could use this provision as a defense if the worfcplans wore developed, and the work was dene, in accordance with ,the guidelines contained in Subpart H ("Participation by Other Persons”> of the NCP \ 40 CFR *00.700. 55 Ted. Reg. '8853-8859)*. S e c t i o n 3C0.700((c) provides that:

A private party response action will be considered "consistent vith the NC?" if the action, when evaluated as a whole, is in substantial compliance with the applicable requirements in paragraphs (c)(5) a n d ($) cf this section, and results in a CERCLA-quality cleanup...

The Preamble describes a "CERCIA-quality" cleanup as one that satisifies the three threshold CEPCI.A cleanup requirements: the remedy must be protective cf human health and the environment; be as permanent as possible and incorporate treatment or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and meet AP.ARs.9 The referenced paragraphs specify those section® of the NCP that should ba used as -guidance" for private remediation actions. The following appear to be most relevant to these mining remediation activities:

e worker health and safety requirements (300.150) o general guidelines on handling community concerns, emphasisina treatment technologies and encouraging the involvement of industry and relevant experts (300.400(c); o identification of ARARs (300.400(g)) o removal site evaluation standards (300.405) o staxidaras for removal actions ( 300.415' o opportunity for public comment (300.700(6 ) v •

work that, as a whole, substantially complies vith these guidelines would be "consistent vith the NCP" and protected iron private recovery actions under § iQ7'd>(1).

If the Region wishes to provide project participants with areater assurance that activities will be consistent with the m -'**? there are at least three possible approaches to consider. Superfund personnel (experienced mining RPMs or OSCs; c o u l d be

7 C E R C L A defines "persons" to include States and VS governmental agencies, 5 10U21). 8 The Preamble discussion cf Sutpart H can be found at 55 Fed. Reg. 3792-8799. 9 5 5 Fed. Reg. 8793. TO "Substantially equivalent" State requirements for p u b l i c comment can be substituted» i n c luded in th* development ~t workplans, either site specifically or through development of a generic m o d e l or checklist of wc-rkplan requirements. This approach would 7 W e SPA greater assurance that a CSSCLA-quality cleanup would result, and provide* participants with an S?A seal of approval on consistency with the NCP.

The activities c o u l d be brought mere explicitly within the a m b i t cf £!07tdJU> by asking an CSC to approve s i t e specific workplans, «and to direct that the work be done. This approach would require sorr;e additional legal analysis cn the issue of what legal îTieuhanism an CSC would use te "direct* the work.

Finally, Z ï h c o u l d incorporate an a p p r o v e d workplan into an Order or, Cons-sr.t that names {«reject participants, treating these activities as removals under CERCLA.

I hope you find this memo helpful in your discussions on how ^c encourage private remediation cf m i n i n g sites. Please let me know if you have any further questions or issues. cc: Addressees A d d r e s s e e s :

J a c k McGravf DRA v Dale Vodenahl, WMv Rob Walline, WM D o u g Lofstead, WM 'S . Marc Alston, HWM-SR * F l o y d Nichol, HWM-ERB S All ORC Managers */ All H e a v y Metals Attorneys'— S t e v e Golian, OWPE<^ J a c k Winder, OE \S Oov Weitman, OWP Nancy Mangone, OE Roland DuBois, OGC/ Doug Dixon, OGC 'S Charlotte Robinson, Coloradc Tom Eggert, Montana AG ?

%4

AUGUST, ¡9 7 7 , • •• . ' v • «! ' - • •.'

Report by JOHN D. WOODLING

Colorado Department of Health

Water Quaiity Control Division

Frank J. Rozich, Director INVESTIGATIONS OF POINT SOURCES OF ACID METALS MINE DRAINAGE LOCATIONS AND WATER QUALITY EFFECTS IN THE UPPER ANimS RIVER BASIN San Juan County, Colorado August, 1977

INTRODUCTION

In a 1971-72 study "affect of Mine Drainage on the Quality of Streams in Colorado" by Dennis Wentz of the C/.S. Geological Survey, several stream reaches within San Juan

County were listed as "affected" by metal-mine drainage . These'stream reaches are

listed below:

Stream Miles Stream Reach Affected Affected

Animas River From Eureka toMineral Creek 15

Cement Creek Mouth 7

Mineral Creek .Above South Fork to Mouth 10

Middle Fork Mineral Creek 2

South Fork Mineral Creek Mouth 6

Minnie Gulch 3

South Fork Animas River 2 i West Fork Animas River 1

To refine Wentz1s study, personnel of the Water Quality Control Division, Colorado

Department of Health, performed an intensive study of the Upper Animas River in August,

1 9 7 7 . There were several facets to the s u r v e y * First, to attempt• to locate point.source

loadings of metals mine drainage to the Animas River. The second aim was to compare

actual instream measurements to concentrations of various metals which have been proven

to be toxic to different trout species (see Appendix 1) . Finally, an attempt was made

to determine what point sources of metals-mine drainage if treazea would substantially

increase water quality of the drainage . The focus of the field sampling was on four r,

•streams; the Animas River upstream of Silverton, Cement Creak, Mineral Creek, and'the

South Fork of Mineral Creek (see Figures 1-4). The mainstem Animas River below 1

Cunningham Creek-was not included in this survey. Temperature, pH, and conductivity measurements were made in the field at each sampling location . One liter grab samples for metals analysis were preserved with 1 +1 nitric acid and transported to Denver,

Colorado for analysis at the Colorado Department of Health wet chemistry laboratory.

Total metals fractions were determined • '

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The basic conclusions arrived at by Wentz in-1972 were substantiated by the current study . Much of theUpnex^Anlmas^River and.tributaries in the study area was degraded to the point the waters would prove acutely toxic to anu trout-’species.

Comparison of results demonstrates some stream reaches. which were listed by Wentz as

"affected" by. mine-metals discharge in 1972 contained reproducing trout populations and lower metals concentrations in 1977, e.g., Minnie Gulch and South Fork of Mineral

Creek. It may be that different, stream reaches are affected as water level fluctuates due to spring melt or summer spates. The mainstem Animas River was more severely impacted than Wentz reported with concentrations of cadmium and zinc acutely toxic to trout encountered not only from "Mineral Creek to Eureka" but to the very headwaters of the Animas River upstream of Animas Forks •

Although each of the four streams differs to the degree of degradation attributable to mining activities, a general hypothesis concerning the entire study area was formed.

reaches, of the,.four drainage basins studied .z_re_exDased to non-point loading nf acid-metal pollution in the form of tailings piles ..lieinc; In the stream beds or eroding gullies on the hillsides where old mine portals once were located. During spring melt or after a summer spate, runqff_frpm,..these gullied introduces metals loadings tin th* stre a m s . To reclaim this land and improve water guality to a level which would support a diverse, abundant aquatic community would involve prodigous expense and effort.

Entire mountain sides would require revegetation preceded by creation of-a soil layer capable of supporting plant growth. Tailings piles would have to be removed or covered by plant growth. .Such activities would require unlimited 'f i n a n c i n g .

Despite the degraded quality of the study area, treatment of some point sources would significantly decrease total metals loading to the Animas River . Treatment o f ~s the Sunnyside Mine discharge at Gladstone is one such endeavor. Although Cement Creek ...... - ...... 11 „„-a is polluted by non-point metals loading to a level which will not support a viable fish e r y , the Sunnyside Mine increases the zinc level in Cement Creek thirtufold. if the Sunnyside effluent was treated to meet N.P.D.E.S. permit limitations a significant portion of the metals loading to the Animas River would be eliminated. The same affect would occur on the Animas River above Eureka if the discharge from the Silver Wing mine at the mouth of Burns Gulch was treated.

One o f the few .stream reaches in the. drainage which currently contains a viable trout population, the Upper South Fork of Mineral Creek, may he severely impacted by metals-mine drainage if the discharge from the Bandora Mine continues to carry the elevated levels of zinc, copper, and silver found during the August sampling. If work at the Bandora Mine is to continue, a N.P.D.E.S. permit should be issued to address such problems as runoff from clean-up activities and the possible instream increases of various metals contaminants, e.g., silver and zinc, to toxic concentrations.

STATUS OF POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES ATTRIBUTAL TO CURRENT MINING ACTIVITIES

At least four mines located within the study areas displayed signs of activity during the sampling period. These mines were either producing ore or ongoing maintenance and exploratory operations were observed. Locations of the facilities

1 - Currently, legal action is being filed by the San Juan Mining Company (Standard Metals) concerning permit limitations and compliance schedule . and status of applicable N.P.D.E.S. permits are presented below .

1. The Sunnyside Mine is owned and operated by Standard Metals Company. ■

N.P.D.E,S. Permit $CQ-QQ27329 has been issued covering the discharge from the

mine located at Gladstone on Cement Creek . Permit conditions and monitoring

requirements as stipulated in the permit are presented in Appendix 2.

2. The Bandora Mine is controlled by a J. J. Sullivan. A discharge from the Bandora

Mine was reaching South Mineral Creek during the 1977 sampling period. A bulldozer

was operating at the mine located in the upper basin of South Mineral Creek during

the sampling period . There is no N.P.D.E.S. permit covering the discharge of the

Bandora Mine-, nor has application been made by the operators . Continued discharge

from the Bandora may adversely affect the existing trout population in South'

Mineral Creek.

3. The Henrietta Mine discharging to Prospect Gulch, tributary of Cement Creek, is

operated by the San Juan Mining Company . The Company was running a drifting

activity at the mine during the sampling period. No application for a N.P.D.E.S.

permit has been made by the Company.

4. At Burns Gulchv a copper mine, the Silver Wing, owned by Colorado Mines and Metals,

discharges to the Animas River upstream of Eureka. The mine buildings were in i good state of repair and the gate from the county road to the mine locked .. No

application for a N.P.D.E.S. permit has been made to the Water Quality Control

Division. The mine has not been operated since approximately 1969.

CHEMICAL RESULTS

Cement Creek Drainage

Samples collected from this drainage revealed the entire system to contain concentrations of cadmium and zinc which would prove acutely toxic to Rainbow trout within 96 hours, Table 1. At all stations downstream of the iVorth and South Forks confluence of Cement Cre£k, copper also would prove acutely toxic . The most FIGURE I CEMENT CREEK San Juan Co., Colorado significant point source Ou. - metals contamination was the d^Jcharge from Sunnyside Mine portal. The Sunnyside Mine is owned and operated by the Standard Metals Company . The mine portal discharge contained 75 mg/1 of zinc, 0.07 mg/1 copper, and 0,022 mg/1

2 cadmium, all of which exceed TL^q values for Rainbow trout. The Sunnyside Mine was in violation of discharge limitations as set forth in the N.P.D.E.S. Permit #C0-0027529 which stipulates a daily maximum concentration of 1,0 mg/1 zinc, 0*4 mg/1 lead, and a. pH ranging from 6.0 to 9,0. The discharge from the portal increased the iron, lead, manganese, and zinc levels by an order of magnitude in the North Fork of Cement Creek

t in comparison to upstream levels.

Examination of data collected on the South Fork of. Cement Creek demonstrated the

vastness of^ the metals contamination problem within the Animas River basin. Station.AR-8

on the South Fork at an elevation- of 11,200 feet was located upstream of the Big

Colorado Mine. Station AR-8 , located within a cirque formed by Storm Mountain, was

situated, at the base of the stark cliffs leading to the mountain summit. There was no apparent point sources to the stream above Station AR-8 yet detectable levels of

iron, manganese, and zinc, and a concentration of cadmium acutely toxic to salmonids,

.?!??? ing/1, were detected in the sample even at this great elevation. Two possible

non-point sources of these metals were encountered. The South Fork picks up a metals

loading while flowing over tailings piles from abandoned mines upstream of Station AR-S.

In addition, small mine shafts high up on the steep cliffs have eroded out creating'

steep mineralized gullies which during each spring snow melt or after a summer spate

introduce metals loadings to Mineral. Cree*. To eliminate such metal loadings, the

tailings piles would have to be dredged out of the stream beds and an extensive

revegetation project initiated on the entire surrounding mountain slopes. The cost

of such an endeavor could be truly awesome.

2 - ^ £ 5 0 * The concentration of a pollutanttoxic to 50 percent of a test population in a given time 'period, usually 96 hours. FIGURE 2 MINERAL CREEK San Juan Co., Colorado • (

Mineral Creek \...M

Both pH and metals concentrations of Mineral Creek upstream of the South Fork of

Mineral Creek are sufficiently toxic to eliminate .fish-populations from zhe stream.

The pH of Mineral Creek ranged from 6.3 to 3.1 from Chatanooga, Station AR-1, down to

Mineral Creek 0.3 miles upstream of the South Fork of Mineral Creek, Station AR-39,

Figure 2. A p H o f 5.5 or less is usually toxic, to fish species . Cadmium, copper, and

zinc exceeded, the levels which are acutely toxic to trout in the stream segment from

Red Mountain Pass to South Fork of Mineral Creek, Table 2. The two principal sources

of acid-metals drainage water appeared to be the Middle Fork of Mineral Creek and .

inactive mine-drains to mainstem Mineral Creek from Chatanooga upstream to the summit

■fted Mountain Pass, Figure 4 • At one station, AK-*2, on top of Red Mountain Pass, a

discharge from an inactive mine was extremely degraded, pH - 2.3 and zinc - 93 mg/1,

Several other discreet point sources were observed but could not be sampled due to steep

cliffs and slopes of the area . Both o f these regions were heavily mined during the

late 1800*s. Restoration of these stream reaches would require the same extensive

activities as described for South Cement Creek (see Page 5}.

Downstream of the South Fork at Station AR~42, Mineral Creek was of slightly

higher quality although both copper, 0.06 mg/1, and zinc, 0.24 mg/1, could he acutely

toxic to unacclimated Rainbow trout populations .

South Fork Mineral Creek

The South Fork of Mineral Creek is one of the few streams in the study where

trout were o b s e r v e d • Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were noted from Station A8-37

upstream to a series of Beaver ponds just below the Bandora Mine, AR-23, Figure 3.

From below Clear Creek at AR-25 to just downstream of Copper Gulch, the South Fork

Qf Mineral Creek contained 0.002 mg/1 cadmium, a level which could prove toxic to

Rainbow trout, Table 3. The resident Brook trout have evidently acclimated to these

cadmium concentrations. FIGURE 3 SOUTH FORK San Juan .Co.y Colorado Only two point sources of acid-metal or metal mine dr^hage were noted in the

South Fork of Mineral Creek . *An iron bog 0.75 miles upstream of the confluence of

Mineral Creek and South Fork of Mineral Creek introduced an extremely acid (pu - 2.8)

flow to the South Fork of Mineral Creek. The metals concentrations did not appear to

exceed acutely toxic concentrations but no trout were observed downstream of the bog.

The other point source was the Bandora Mine high on the drainage >. Figure 4.

There was considerable activity at the mine on August 31, 1977 . A bulldozer was working in the mine j>ortal. The mine effluent, contained 240 mg/1 zinc., 75.4 mg/1

copper, and 0.851 mg/1 silver. All of these elements are extremely toxic to trout

in minute amounts, Appendix I. Care should be taken to stop this effluent from

reaching and degrading the South Fork of Mineral Creek, one of the few stream reaches'

to contain a viable fish population.

Animas River Above Silverton

Analysis of samples collected in the Animas River mainstem revealed a system more

degraded by acid-metal mine drainage than reported by Wentz, 1972 . Wentz said the ' mainstem from Eureka to the confluence with Mineral Creek just west of Silverton was

affected by mine drainage. Samples from the current study indicated the Animas River

from headwater creeks to the confluence with Mineral Creek to be impacted by mine

drainage. Figure 4 .

.Intensive mining activities during the boom period of the 1800’s in the headwater

tributaries (i.e., California Gulch and" BurrowsCreek) upstrs&mof Animas Forks have

resulted in background cadmium and zinc concentrations acutely toxic to trout in the

soft waters of Stations -AR-19, AR-26, and AR-27, Table 4. Cadmium ranged from 0.003—

0.009 mg/1 and zinc from 0.49-1.8 mg/1. The presence of toxic concentrations of metals

in these scattered subalpine tributaries to the Animas River in the vast tundra valleys

above timber line is an indication of how widespread both, point and non-point acid-metals UP ER ANIMAS R IM R San Juan Co., Colorado loading is to the Animas River. These feeder streams far above timber line probably could not support a trout fishery due to winter kill even if all abandoned mine portal discharges and spoils piles were either chemically treated or removed. This water flowing in the Animas River downstream of Animas Forks, a location where the physical habitat would probably^support aquatic communities, would prove chemically toxic to trout populations. Examination of the Animas River substrate 2.0 miles south of

Animas Forks revealed a bottom fauna to be absent from the stream . The aquatic community normally present in a Rocky Mountain stream is absent from the upper reaches of the Animas River due to metal-mine runoff.

Between Animas Forks and Eureka Gulch, three tributaries, Cinnamon ¡and Grouse

Creeks and Picayne Gulch, which entered the Animas River contained no detectable metals concentrations. These tributaries would dilute the metals concentrations in the Animas River. Mayflies and midges were present in all of these tributaries indicating the presence of "high" quality water throughout the year*

Any increase in water quality in the Animas River attributable, to Cinanan'and

Grouse Creeks and Picayne Gulch was offset by Burns and Eureka Gulches and the Silver

Wing Mine discharge at Burns Gulch, Figure 4. Both Burns Gulch„Aa<$ Eureka Gulch contained concentrations toxi&»tQ~trout^.pf_ both cadmium, 0.004 and 0.006 mg/1, respectively, and z^Ct^OtJX^d^l^J^mg/l^, respectively. The mine effluent, an inactive copper producing work, discharged to the Animas River.at Burns Gulch contained the highest concentrations of metals measured at any sampling location on this stream segment. Station AR-32 • Concentrations of copper, 14,6 mg/1} cadmium, 0.017 mg/lt and zinc, 3.9 mg/X were being discharged directly to the Animas River. The affect of this mine discharge on the Animas River was to raise the copper concentration to a totfic 0.16 mg/1 in the Animas River just above Eureka Gulch. The.Colorado Water. Quality Control Division maintains monitoring station, H.P.S,

#52, on the Animas River upstream of Silverton, Colorado but downstream of Cunningham

C r e e k . Historic, data concerning metals concentrations at this station was tabulated,

Table 5. Copper and ainc were present occasionally in concentrations which would prove acutely toxic to Rainbow trout even at the total hardness levels greater than

200 mg/1. The presence of fishermen on this stream segment during the August~~sampling * period indicates some salmonids may have become acclimated to the metals concentrations in the Animas River although no fish were observed . T h e pH levels of less than 6.0 encountered during March sampling of 1975 and 1977 may well force any trout out of this stream segment perhaps to Cunningham Creek or Minnie and Maggie Gulches . this stream reach does not'appear to currently' present a year round habitat required for permanent salmonid colonization. ' ..... “ Upper Animas Metals Point Source Survey August, 1977

' Cadm. Copper Iron Lead Mang. Zin T e m p . Conduct. Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Zn Station Location Date p H ° C umhos mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 m / i mg/

South Fork Cement 8-30-77 5,5 7 165 ' 0.002 0. 0.18 0 0.06 0.0 Creek just above Big Colorado Mine AR-8

Big Colorado Mine 8-30-77 5.5 7 1190 0.004 0.06 26.0 0 1.9- ' 0.7 Effluent across Cement Creek from BldgJ AR-9

Middle Fork at Mouth 8-30-77 6.5 8 260 0.002 0 ' 0.18 0 0.04 0.5 of Cement Creek AR-10

Minnehaha Creek at 8-30-77 7.5 3 135 0.003 0 0 0 0.03 0.1 Mouth AR-11 North Fork of Cement Creek above 8-30-77 4.1 9 240 0.014 0.37 0.27 0 0.96 2.8 Sunny'side Mine Portal AR-12

Surmyside Mine Portal 8-30-77 5.6 14 1850 0.022 0,07 11,5 0.415 13.0 75,i Effluent AR-13

North Fork Cement Creek- 8-30-77 5.4 15 : 1360 0,005 0.17 9,3 0,291 9.8 61, í 900 Yds. below Sunny- side Mine Disch. AR-14

Cement Creek below 8-30-77 5.8 15 1010 0.004 0.11 7,8 0,159 6.7 3.2 Confluence of'North and South Forks of Cement Creek AR-15

Prospect Gulch at 8-30-77 2.7 11 730 0.007 0,63 14.4 0.022 1.1 2.4 Confluence with Cement Creek AR-16

Effluent from Aban­ 8-30-77 6.5 18 1550 0.002 0 1.8 0 ■ 0,98 0.1. doned Mine by Fair- view Gulch West Side • of Cement Creek ■ AR-17

Cement Creek in Sil- 8-30-77 3.6 15 940 0.008 0,09 5.7 0,066 ■' 3,0 1,9 'verton just above Confluence with Animas River AR-18 TABLE 2 • • Upper Animas Metals Point Source Survey August, 1977

Cadm. Copper Iron Lead Mang. Zinc Temp, Conduct. Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Zn Station Location Date o c PH umhos mg/ì mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 Mine Pond Drain at the 8-29-77 2.3 19 2600 0 26.75 73 0 13.5 93 Top of Red Mountain Pass to Mineral Creek AR-2 * "s Mineral Creek at the 8-29-77 6.6 18 80 . 0.003 0.024 2 0 Top o f Red Mountain 0.23 - 0.66 Pass AR-3

Porphyry Gulch just 8-29-77 7.7 16 70 0.002 0 0.16 0 above Mineral Creek 0 0.09 AR-4 ----- ..

Mineral.Creek at 8-29-77 3.1 305 0.002 1.3 3.2 Chatanoga AR-2 0il83 0.87 3.6

Old Mine Seepage into 8-29-77 7.3 515 0.002 0 0.58 0 Mill Creek at 0.94 0.11 Chatanoqa -AR-5L -

Mill Creek at 8-29-77 7.1 12 430 0.001 0 0 0 0 Chatanoga above 0.04 Mine Seepage AR-6

Mineral Creek 0.1 Mile 9-1-77 6.3 16 ’ 0.005 0.27 0.55 0.03 0.38 above Middle Fork of 1.2 Mineral Creek AR-43

Middle Fork of Mineral 8-29-77 4.0 14 925 0.002 0 8.2 0 Creek just above i 0.91 0.12 Brown's Mine AR-7

Mineral Creek 0.3 Mile 9-1-77 3.8 10 620 0.003 0.17 4.0 0.021 above South Fork 0.69 0.7 Confluence AR-39-

Mineral Creek 150 Yds. 9-1-77 5.6 12 370 0.002 0.07 2.3 below South Fork o f 0.015 0.33 0.33 Mineral Creek AR-41

Mineral Creek 0.1 Mile 9-1-77 6.8 13 350 0 0.06 2.0 0 above Animas River 0:27 0.24 AR-4 2

* Nickel Ni «P/l • i TADLh ¿ * Uppe .\nimas Metals Point Source Sui- August, 1977

Cadm, Copper Iron Lead Man g . Zinc T e m p . Conduct. Cd Çu - ■ _ F e .... Pb . Mn Zn Station Location Date PH ° C umhos mg/1 m / i m$/l B 2 ¿ L m / i mq/1 Nine Pond Drain at the 8-29-77 2,3 19 2600 0 ‘ 26,75 73 Ô . Top of Red Mountain Pass 13.5 93 to Mineral Creek AR-2 *

Mineral -Creek-at the -'---- n 8-29-77 G~i6 t8-'.. - - 8 0 ... 0 ,003 ~0T0 Y4 7 2 “ Top o f Red Mountain • 0 0,23 ~~ 0,66 Pass A X - 3

Porphyry Gulch-just ------8-29— 7 7 ~-7,7 "16------7 0 "0,002 0 above Mineral Creek ■ 07l6" ~0 0 ' 0~,09 A X - 4 - - ~

M i n i m i Cr/ank at-...... 8-29-77"-3rl- 305 " ‘07002 173 Chatanoqa AR-1 3,2 0,183 0,87 3,6

Old Mine 'Seepage into 8-29-77 7,3 515 0,002 0 Mill Creek at’ • — . °.\5 8 .. 0 0,94__ 0,11 Chatanoqa AR-5

.‘•rill Creek at 8-29-77 7,1 12 ■430 0,001 0 0 Cha tanoga- above- — ------0 0 0,04 Mine Seepaqe AR-6 .

Mineral Creek 0,1 Mile 9-1-77 6.3 16-: 0,005 0,27 0.55 above Middle Fork- of ..... 0.03 0.38 1,2 Mineral Creek AR-43

Middle Fork of Mineral 8-29-77 4,0 14 925 0,002 0 8,2 Creek just above .. — . . - 0 0.91 0,12 Brown's Mine AR-7 ' iMneral Creek 0,3 Mile 9-1-77 3,8 10 620 0,003 0,17 . 4,0 0,021 above South-Fork — ...... - 0,69% 0,7 Confluence AR-39

Mineral Creek 150 Yds, 9-1-77 5,6 12 370 0,002 0,07 2,3 0,015 0,33 Mineral Creek AR-41 ,

Mineral Creek 0,1 Mile 9-1-77 6.8 13 350 0 0,06 . q_ _ _ 0 _ ___ zbove Animas River 2 0.27 .. 0,24 AX-42

■ Nickel Ni - m / i Upper Animas Metals Point Source Survey A ugust, 1977

• Cadm. Copper Iron Lead Mang. Zinc Temp. C o n d u c t . Cd Cu Fe Pb Mn Zn Station Location Date pH 0 C umhos mq/1 mg/1 mg/1 m / i mg/1 mg/1

West Fork of Animas ' 8t 30— 77 3.8 13 280 0.009 0 0.18 0 9.3 1.8 River 0.1 Mile above Placer Gulch AR-19

West Fork of Animas 9-1-77 4.5 7 210 0.007 0.07 0.22 0.015 5.1 1.8 River at Animas . Fork AR-26

North Fork o f Animas 9-1-77 6.3 7 85 0.003 0 ' ? ■'0 0.015 0.23 0.49 River at Animas Fork AR-27

Cinnamon Creek at 9-1-77 7.4 7 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 Confluence to Animas River AR-28

Grouse Creek at Con­ 9-1-77 7.4 8 16.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 fluence to Animas River AR-29

Picayne Gulch at Con­ 9-1-77 7.3 9 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 fluence to Animas River AR-30

B u m s Gulch at Con­ 9-1-77 6.5 9 140 0.004 0 0 0 0 0.71 fluence to Animas River AR-31

Mine Effluent at Burns 9-1-77 5.8 13 660 0.017 14.6 10.3 0.017 3.3 3.9 Gulch at Confluence to Animas River AR-32

Animas River Immediately 9-1-77 6.5 11 300 0.003 0.16 0.24 0 1.3 0.9; above Eureka Gulch Confluence AR-33

Eureka Gulch 0.05 Mile 9-1-77 6.4 11 170 0.006 0 0.11 0 1.5 1.4 above Confluence to i ■_ Animas River AR-34

Minnie Gulch at Con­ 9-1-77 7.3 10 230 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 fluence to Animas River AR-35

Maggie Gulch at Con­ 9-1-77 7.5 11 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 fluence to Animas River AR-36 TABLE 5 / I RPS 82 ANIMAS RIVER NEAR SILVERTON, COLORADO

ter Total Total . Cadmium Copper Iron Manganese Lead Zinc mpe Dissolved Hardness Cd Cu Fe Mn P h Zn p H Solids mcr/1 CaCOs Taq/1 UC7/1 Uq/1 uq/1 uq/1 uq/1 ug/1

15 7.80 * 296 192 ■ 0 750 700 0 830 "i 4 9.00 145 107 0 ' 0 450 350 0 0 3 8.70 125 91 0 0 100 300 0 290 3 6.30 467 308 0 0 200 200 50 1180 15 7.50 378 248 2 0 100 1200 0 950 :> 4 7.60 406 ■ 294 3 0 12001100 0 950 ' o 6.80 529 356 4 0 63001500 60 1000 '! 2 5.60 494 353 4 100 5000 1300 115 1370 '■ 7 6.80- 151 106 0 0 1600 '500 250 940 ' *Z2 7.50 134 87 0 140 2800 5000 1000 1300 21 7.50 85 50 0 0 700400 60 400 10 278 214 0 0 2000 400 80 200 4 7.00 425 | 297 0 40 3600 1400 no 2100 O 483 302 0 0 200 0 20 0 O 520 32 8 0 60 4600 1300 40 930 i Ô 6.50 • 360 2 4 0 ; 0 .4800 710 20 450 9 7.50 90 63 ' 0 34 550 i ‘210 18 140 11 7.40 210 . 150 0 99 1600 20 4 7.50 280 190 0 190 2300 29 O 510 320 150 6000 1300 60 910 O 5.30 560 376 0 45 190 1590 6 960 * 2 .180 123 0 7 7.60 330 172 0 3300 22 600

>m£t were never detected at t h i s loc a t i o n .

o i .f i Acute 96-hr. toxicity results and lethal threshold values ior various metals and Rainbow trout (intermittent flow-through toxicity tests as performed by Colorado Division of Wildlife rpersonnel .r‘

96-hr. Lethal ^ Exposure Water Water Fish LCso* threshold,; period, hardness/ temperature, length, . mg/1 m q / 1 days mg/1 °C m m 0* • - Zinc 1.19 20% ■'* 0.80 4 312 15 55 . 4.52 10% 0 3.6 „ 4 312 15 220 7.21 , 20% 0 3.2 ' r ^ 314 . 15 . 110 —

1.00 '50% 0 0.99 4 102 8 190 0.80c 20% 0 0.43 10 98 14 .200

0.24 30% 0 o . i r 4 22 14 70 0.56 'lO% 0 0.13 4 23 15 140 0.83 10% 0 0.34 4 30 6 179

Copper 0.052 10% 0 0.022 5 36 6 160- 0.056 20% 0 0.029 7 100 14 167 0.150 20% 0 0.080 7 350 16 176

Lead - 1.17d . 20% 0 0.190 is * 34 10 145 0.20 20% 0 0.067 14 30 7 160 — 1.32e 30% 0 0.79 : 4 385 14 85 (Dissolved)1<,. 542e 30% 0 540 i (Total) r i‘ z r* 1.478 S0% 0 ¿.26 ^ r 7 r *290 .- . i- r ' 7 - ■ 130 (Dissolved)

471e 50% 0 470 - (Total) I mm > w •* f* tm- r*.- Silver 0.0062 10% 0 0.0018 V , -4 i; 20 . 11 .. 145 0.0081 10% 0 0.0068 ' 4 26 14 A175 i ^ 0.0130 15% 0 0.0110 350 15 165 •

Cadmium 0.0030 40% 0 0.0024 4 14 16 40 0.0030 4% 0 0.0015 5 31 12 135

- LC 50 “ Concentration that is toxic to 50% of the test organisms within the test period . Lethal threshold is lowest concentration that killed fish during test. 240-hr. L C S 0 . 336-hr. LC50. Static toxicity tests. S u imyside Mine Effluent Limitations

' • . . Permit C0-0027529

During the period beginning July I, 19 77* and lasting through March 3lf 1982, the permittee Is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 0 0 1

I. Effluent Limitations

Effluent Parameter Discharge Limitations

Maximum Weight Maximum Concentration kg/day (lbs/day) mg/1 mg/1 30-day av

Flow - mVoay(MGD) N/A N/A N/A

Total Suspended Solids N/A 2 0 30 » Total Copper N/A 0.05 0.10

Total Zinc N/A. . 0.5 1.0

Total Lead N/A 0.2 0.4

Total Mercury N/A o.oot 0.002 The p H shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units c/

iere shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam In other than tracé amounts.

a/ This limitation shall be determined by the arithmetic mean of a minimum of three (3) consecutive samples taken on separate weeks In a 30-day period (minimum total of three (3) samples); I r b/ This limitation means.the total' discharge by weight during any calendar day,as determined by an 8-liour composite sample. * . » t c/ This limitation shèll be determined by a single properly preserved sample as required \ under monitoring requirements - Sample Type. EC H O BAY MINES, INC.

CHANGED ITS CORPORATE NAME TO ALTA GOLD COMPANY

(ALL CORRESPONDENCE, DOCUMENTS, FILES, ETC. , SHOULD NOW REFLECT THE NEW CORPORATE NAME) ‘ W e & tentt s4 qu a tic& ,

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS P. 0 . Box 546 Laramie, Wyoming 82070 Telephone: (307) 742-7624 USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

Prepared for

Standard Metals Corporation P.O. Box 247 Silverton, Colorado 81433

Prepared by Western Aquatics, inc. 203 Grand Ave. P.O. Box 546 Laramie, Wyoming 82070

January 22, 1985 List of Tables

List of Figures

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

MATERIALS AND METHODS STREAM STUDY SITES AND SAMPLING SCHEDULE

HISTORICAL DATA

WATER QUALITY

PHYSICAL DATA BIOLOGICAL DATA

RESULTS HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

WATER QUALITY

PHYSICAL HABITAT

BIOLOGY

USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS PRESENT USES OF THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER POTENTIALLY ATTAINABLE USES OF THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

CAUSES OF IMPAIRED USES WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

LITERATURE CITED 1984 field sampling schedule for the SMC upper Animas River basin study.

survey31 parameters analyzed for the 1984 stream

Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation form.

WRRX Trout Cover Rating form.

Stream habitat attributes used in the Habitat Quality Index.

HQI model I calculation sheet.

HQI model XI calculation sheet.

Selected taxonomic references used in identifying benthic macroinvertebrates from the upper Animas River basin.

Water quality analyses for study site AR-1, Animas Forks, 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site AR-2, below Eureka, 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site AR-3, Howardsville, 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site. AR-4, Lackawanna Bridge,.1984.

Water quality analyses for study site AR-5, Animas River below Cement Creek,- 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site AR- 6, Animas River at the D.S.N.G. Bridge, 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site AR-7, Animas River at Elk Park, 1984.

Water quality analyses for study site EG-5, Eureka Gulch (South Fork Animas River), 1984. Water quality analyses for study site CC-5 Cement Creek at Silverton, 1984. Page 39 Colorado Department of Health water quality standards for Class I Waters, Cold Water Aquatic Biota.

Segments of the upper Animas River that would 40 have exceeded CDOH water quality standards during 1984 for Class I streams, Cold Water Aquatic Biota.

Historical water quality data for study site 41 AR-2, below Eureka, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 42 AR-3, Howardsville, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 43 AR-4, Lackawanna Bridge, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 44 AR-5, below Cement Creek and above Mineral Creek, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 45 AR- 6, D.S.N.G. Bridge, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 46 EG-5, Eureka Gulch (South Fork Animas River), 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Historical water quality data for study site 47 CC-5, Cement Creek at Silverton, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented.

Percent of total metal present as dissolved 49 metal in the upper Animas River, April 24, 1984.

Mean monthly discharges for recent years at 51 U.S.G.S. Gage Station #09357500, Animas River at Howardsvilie, Colorado. /r? - List of Tables (cont'd) ('■ i Ci No,' n £225. 29. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 52 AR-1, Animas Forks.

1°* Physical habitat characteristics for study site 53 AR-2, below Eureka.

31. Physical habitat■characteristics for study site 54 AR-3, Howardsville.

32. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 55 AR-4, Lackawanna Bridge.

33. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 55 AR-5, below Cement Creek.

34. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 57 AR- 6, D.S.N.G. Bridge.

35. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 53 AR-7, Elk Park.

36. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 59 EG-5, Eureka Gulch (South Fork Animas River).

37. Physical habitat characteristics for study site 50 CC-5, Cement Creek at Silverton.

38. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability 51 Evaluation (SRI/CSE) ratings by attribute and study site.

39. Habitat Quality Index (HQI) ratings by attribute 62 and study site.

40. IFG weighted usable area of habitat at study 54 site AR-2 by life stage and species.

41. Fish collected during upper Animas River study. 55 42. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling from 9 57 July to 14 July, 1984 in numbers per square meter and percent composition.

43. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling from 26 59 August to 29 August, 1984 in numbers per square meter and percent composition.

44. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling from 7 72 October to 10 October, 1984 in numbers per square meter and percent composition. 45. Selected brook trout and rainbow trout acutely toxic values (mg/1, total recoverable- metal) for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc. Selected brook trout and rainbow trout chronic toxicity values (mg/1# total recoverable metal) for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for selected metals. List of Figures No. Page

1. Upper Animas River basin, San Juan Co., Colorado. 2 2. Downstream trends in six chemical parameters measured in the upper Animas River in 1984. 37 ■ SUMMARY

The extensive mineral deposits of the upper Animas River basin have been intensively exploited for over a hundred years.

Abandoned mines, mine tailings, and acid mine drainage are present throughout the watershed. Only a few active mines remain.

Past mining activities have had a large impact on the Animas

River and many of its tributaries. As a result, fish are largely absent from the river. At the request of Standard Metals Corporation, Western

Aquatics, Inc., conducted an extensive set of physical, chemical, and biological studies of the river to determine its potential for higher quality uses, especially a cold-water fishery.

Parameters studied included hydrology, physical habitat, fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and water quality. Data were collected during July, August, and October, 1984, at seven sites on the Animas River and one site each on Cement Creek and Eureka

Gulch. The Animas River above Elk Park, Eureka Gulch and Cement

Creek are currently unclassified by the Colorado Department of

Health (CDOH). However, the CDOH has suggested that the Animas

River may be classified for aquatic life, water supply, and agricultural use. At present, actual uses of the Animas River above Elk Park are limited to livestock watering, some wading and some very limited fishing. The river has been characterized as having only poor fishery value by the Colorado Department of Wildlife iCDOW).

Water quality standards for Class 1 Waters, Cold Water

Aquatic Biota are presently exceeded in the upper Animas River

for cadmium, copper, zinc, lead, iron, manganese, ammonia and pH.

Cadmium, copper, lead and zinc are present at concentrations in

the Animas River that could be chronically toxic to rainbow

trout. Cadmium, copper, and zinc are also present at concentrations that could be chronically toxic to brook trout.

Metals present at potentially acutely toxic concentrations for rainbow trout included cadmium, copper and zinc. For less sensitive brook trout, only cadmium was present at potentially acutely toxic concentrations. It is likely that the combined toxic effects of the mixture of metals present in the river are additive or synergistic.

In Cement Creek, concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead and zinc approached or exceeded acutely and chronically toxic concentrations for both brook and rainbow trout. In addition pH levels would also be chronically and acutely toxic to both species.

From an overall habitat perspective, the most critical factor limiting the trout population of the Animas River is the virtual lack of primary productivity on the channel bottom.

Analysis of study results indicate this lack of production is not a result of physical factors, but rather water quality.

From primarily a physical habitat standpoint, trout fishery potential is greatest at sites AR-3, AR-4, AR-7, and EG-5, and least at CC-5 and AR-5.

Analyses using the Stream Reach Inventory and Channel

Stability Evaluation method and WRRI Cover Rating method indicates that the physical habitat available through the study area is generally capable of supporting low to moderate trout population levels ranging from 1000 to 2400 fish per mile,

Channel stability and available cover are not critical limiting factors for the Animas River fishery.

Predictions of trout standing crops using the Habitat

Quality Index indicate the Animas River habitats are capable of supporting relatively low population levels. Model I predictions averaged 21.4 lbs/acre, while the mean for Model II was 9.5 lbs/acre.

Analyses of Weighted Usable Area indicate that the physical spawning habitat potential for brook trout is very limited, while the availability of nursery and rearing habitats for rainbow trout is also low.

Electro-fishing surveys indicated that fish were only present in limited numbers at two sites on the Animas River. Both of these sites were immediately downstream of tributaries that apparently created refuges in the river by diluting toxic metal concentrations. A total of six brook trout and one rainbow trout were collected.

Densities of benthic macroinvertebrates present in the river were very low at all sites. The numbers of taxa encountered ranged from very low to moderately high.

The presently limited fish and benthic invertebrate communities of the upper Animas River are a direct result of the presently poor water quality of the river. For example, the benthic invertebrate community of the river would only be capable of supporting a,very limited trout population; however, if the water quality of the river was significantly improved the river would develop a much more productive and diverse benthic invertebrate community that would be capable of supporting at least a moderate trout population.

Our analysis demonstrates that the use of the upper Animas

River for a self-sustaining cold-water fishery is presently precluded by the high ambient levels of toxic metals in the river. Establishment of such a fishery in the river would require that ambient concentrations of these metals be reduced below levels chronically toxic to trout. In addition it would require that the potential for short-term acutely toxic pulses of metals be eliminated. Such pulses may occur during snowmelt or following large rainstorms when large amounts of toxic metals may be washed into the river. As previously discussed, the primary sources of these metals are drainages from the numerous abandoned mine portals throughout the entire upper Animas River watershed, and mine tailings that have been discharged or washed into the streams. Both 1984 and historical water quality data for the upper Animas River show that high levels of metals are present throughout the length of the river and inputs of metals to the river occur throughout its length. Controlling these numerous non-point and point sources of metals would be a very difficult and costly task. It would require that virtually all of the ■■ < D O

abandoned mine portals having contaminated drainages be plugged

and that tailings leaching metals to surface waters be removed.

From a practical and economic viewpoint, completion of such a

task may not be acheivable. The CDOH reached the same conclusion

in a study of the upper Animas River in 1977. Therefore, these

man-induced sources of pollution may be largely irreversible.

Appropriate water quality criteria for the upper Animas

River depend on the potentially attainable uses of the river that

may be proposed. Establishment of a Class 1, Cold Water fishery

would require the highest water quality. To create a "blue

ribbon" Colorado cold-water fishery consisting of reproducing

populations of two or three salmonid species (e.g., brook trout,

rainbow trout and brown trout), and a diverse, productive benthic

invertebrate community, would probably require that the water

quality of the upper Animas River meet or approach the standards

proposed by the CDOH and EPA for such waters. Such standards

would be exceedingly difficult., if not impossible, to acheive in the upper Animas River because of the large number of abandoned

mines and mine tailings in the watershed that contribute toxic

metals to the river. However, somewhat lower but possibly more

acheivable water quality may be capable of supporting a lower

quality fishery that would not be dependent on natural

reproduction, but that could be maintained by stocking. To

establish such a fishery would require that metal concentrations

in the river be reduced to levels that would permit the survival

of stocked trout. However, it would be difficult, if not

impossible, to a priori predict from existing toxicity data such .'i . / concentrations for a complex mixture of metals such as is present in the upper Animas River. The best method for accurately determining concentrations of these metals that would be non-toxic to stocked trout would be to conduct on-site bioassays with trout using ambient Animas River water. INTRODUCTION

The upper Animas River basin near Silverton, Colorado

(Figure 1), has extensive mineral deposits and historically intensive mining activities. Mining for both precious and base metals over the past century has left the remains of literally hundreds of abandoned mine sites. A few active mines remain.

Mine tailings, drainages, and wastes are present throughout much of the watershed. As a result of the acid mine drainages, and the erosion and leaching of mine tailings many streams in the area contain elevated concentrations of toxic metals and acidity. These conditions have produced low quality aquatic habitats. Such effects plus the additional stress from long winters and short growing seasons have resulted in fish being scarce or absent in many streams. Poor stream conditions were reflected.in the original

Colorado Stream Classifications for four streams in the upper

Animas basin. The upper Animas River, South Fork of the Animas

River, Cement Creek, and Eureka Gulch were left unclassified.

Subsequently, however, the Colorado Department of Health (CDOH) has suggested that these streams may be classified and designated for aquatic life, water supply, and/or agricultural uses.

Whether water quality .in these streams can potentially be Figure 1. Upper Animas River basin, San Juan Co., Colorado. G ' € ■■ upgraded to support higher quality uses is uncertain. It will depend on the ability to correct or mitigate the adverse conditions now present. Ultimately, it will depend on the practicality and economic feasiblility of correcting the adverse conditions present throughout much of the upper basin.

In 1984 Standard Metals Corporation (SMC) contracted Western

Aquatics, Inc. (WAI) to collect, analyze, and evaluate physical, chemical, hydrological, and biological data on the upper Animas

River, Eureka Gulch (South Fork of the Animas. River), and Cement

Creek to help determine:

(1) Present, past, and potentially attainable uses of the

streams.

(2) The present status of these streams, emphasizing

especially their fisheries.

(3) The present most appropriate use classifications for

the stream segments. (4) The importance of chemical and physical pollutants from

human disturbances versus natural factors in limiting

potential uses, especially fisheries.

(5) The potential for realistically upgrading the

classifications for these streams.

(6) Water quality standards for the upper Animas River. ('tP-. V_-/

MATERIALS AND METHODS

STREAM STUDY SITES AND SAMPLING SCHEDULE Stream surveys were conducted at nine study sites in three stream segments of the upper Animas River Basin: Segment 1: Mainstream of the upper Animas River from Animas

Forks to the confluence with Elk Creek,

o Site AR-1 — Immediately below Animas Forks,

o Site AR-2 — Immediately below confluence of Eureka

Gulch (South Fork Animas River) at Eureka.

o Site AR-3 — Immediately below Howardsville at County

Road 110 bridge,

o Site AR-4 — At Lackawanna bridge crossing above

Silverton.

o Site AR-5 — Below confluence with Cement Creek and

above confluence with Mineral Creek,

o Site ar-6 — Below confluence with Mineral Creek at D&SNG railroad bridge,

o Site AR-7 — Above confluence with Elk Creek.

Segment 2: Eureka Gulch (South Fork of the Animas River)

above its confluence with the Animas mainstream. o Site EG-5 — Above confluence with Animas mainstream at

Eureka.

Segment 3: Mainstream of Cement Creek immediately above its

confluence with the Animas River-

o Site CC-5 — Mainstream Cement Creek in Silverton, above

confluence with Animas River.

Data for the 1984 stream surveys were collected on July

8-15, August 26-29, and October 7-10. The types of data collected during each sampling period are listed in Table. 1.

HISTORICAL DATA

Available historical data on the physical, chemical, hydrological, and biological characteristics of the three stream

segments were collected for WAI by SMC.

WATER QUALITY

All 1984 water quality data used in this study were from

samples collected by SMC and analyzed by Grand Junction

Laboratories, Grand Junction, Colorado. Parameters analyzed are

listed in Table 2. Data presented in this report are from

samples collected on April 24, July 12, August 30, and October

16, 1984.

PHYSICAL DATA

Physical habitat composition and structure were evaluated at

each of the nine study sites at three discharge levels? early r\

Table 1. 1984 field sampling schedule for the SMC upper Animas River basin study.

Parameter July Auqust October

Flow regime characterization X

Field discharge measurements X XX

Channel morphology and pattern X

Channel stability evalution X (SRI/CSE)

Cover Rating XX X

Habitat Quality Index Analysis X

IFG PHABSIM Analysis X X X

Fish Population Sampling X X X

( Table 2. Chemical Parameters Analyzed for the 1984 Stream Surveys,

Acidity Alkalinity, total Aluminum, total Ammonia (as N) Arsenic, total Cadmium, total Carbon, total organic Conductivity Copper, total and dissolved Cyanide (as CN) Hardness, total Iron, total Lead, total and dissolved Manganese, total Nitrate (as N) Oxygen, dissolved pH Selenium, total Silver, total and dissolved Solids, total dissolved Solids, total suspended Sulfate, total Zinc, total and dissolved summer runoff, late summer post-runoff,and fall low flows. Field sampling focused on collecting data necessary to assess the physical habitat of each site by means of (1) temporal and spatial comparison of hydraulic conditions? (2) the Stream Reach

Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation (SRI/CSE) system? (3) the WRRI Cover Rating (WCR) method; and (4) the Habitat Quality

Index (HQI) procedure. In addition, at one Animas River site

(AR-2) the weighted usable area of trout habitat was measured at three flow levels using the Instream Flow Group's (IFG) Physical

Habitat Simulation Model (PHABSIM).

Assessment of Hydraulic Conditions

Each study site was approximately 10 channel widths in

length. To assess hydraulic conditions at each site during each

sampling period, five cross-channel transects (spaced at two

channel width intervals) were selected, permanently marked with

survey stakes, and monitored. Parameters measured along each

transect included stream width, water depth (measured at 15 to 20

locations across each transect), mean water velocity,

cross-sectional area, and substrate composition. Discharge at

each study site during each sampling time was measured at one of

the five transects using the Mid-Section Current Meter Method

developed by the 0. S. Geological Survey (Buchanan and Somers

1969). Water velocity was determined using either a Price AA or a

Marsh-McBirney current meter. Once the discharge was determined

for the site, the mean velocity (V in ft/sec) for each of the

remaining four transects was determined by the equation, V=Q/A> wh e n Q equals discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs) and A equals the cross-sectional area determined by multiplying the stream width (ft) by the mean depth (ft). Substrate composition was determined at 15 to 20 locations along each transect using the ocular technique and classification system described by

Wesche (1980).

The water surface slope through each study site at each sampling time was determined by measuring the drop in water surface elevation from the upstream site boundary to the downstream boundary.using a standard surveyors level and rod.

The change in elevation (ft) divided by the length of the site

(ft) yielded slope, expressed as a percent. The sinuosity ratio was determined by dividing the length of the thalweg line (ft) through the study site by the length of the valley floor.

Stream Reach Inventory and-Channel Stability Evaluation

The stability of each study site was assessed using the

SRI/CSE procedure developed by Pfankuch (1975). This ocular system involves the numerical evaluation of 15 hydraulic indicators found within three major stream zones: upper banks, lower banks, and channel bottom. Basically designed for application on second to fourth order streams, the procedure is flexible in that it can be used in the physical evaluation of stream reaches of various lengths.

Scoring is based on four stability categories — excellent, good, fair, and poor — with a numerical value assigned to each of the 15 indicators within each category. The total reach score is found by summing the values recorded under each category. The reach score is then compared to a series of numerical intervals,

thereby determining the reach to be either excellent, good, fair, or poor, in terms of hydraulic stability. A copy of the standard

SRI/CSE rating form is presented in Table 3.

For the purposes of this study, an initial SRI/CSE rating was done at each site during the July sampling. At each

subsequent sampling period, these original scores were then

adjusted as dictated by the improved observation conditions

resulting from lowered streamflows.

WRRI Cover Rating (WCR) Method

It originally had been planned to apply the ocular Aquatic

Habitat Survey technique of the U.S. Forest Service (Cooper 1976)

in conjunction with the SRI/CSE procedure. However, given the high water/poor visibility conditions encountered during the July

sampling period, it was necessary instead to apply the WCR

method, thereby allowing the collection of consistent, accurate

habitat data between sampling periods and study sites.

The WCR is easily applied to assess the availability of

instream cover, an important component of trout rearing habitat.

Based upon the field measurement of water depth, substrate

composition, stream width, study site length, and the amount of

overhead bank cover present, cover ratings allow comparison of

available physical habitat both among study sites and among flow'

levels at the same site. A WCR form, indicating the exact data

requirements and the equations used, is provided in Table 4. TABLE 3 STREAM REACH INVENTORY AND CHANNEL STABILITY EVALUATION FORM SOURCE: Pfankuch, 1975, U.S. Forest Service

i-i «IK»» »act jirm TrH pm « (ataarvH ar m m w i I * i » l a t o n ) >uci tocifioii ku. «1— Oh«.. I t m a «UU>_ f l . l f U tw.l«ltcltf >/«»__ » a , » U l. lu c k lU ta a Mlillf l l i u t tlaMallr r.a.l. C r a J t a a l_____< M i r __. Uvil . ii*«a Rail* _ l/lh. - - - SUM* TSW; * u _ . C lM n .

SiiUlllLjy $s| |ga. iattnn IrtlH an fr g ltm t «» bctTura. ______can ______fiit- _ .SSL X alor* »nJU»l * %f. h d »!»» MUl^ t ± feanl a la f* «w4»J b aiWaaca »1 ( t i l • ( t« | M n f n u t »«¡/m »a*J w i u Se4*«*ta lir)M K | 4 llu , riatmal M 1U|I. M*tH («(«•11*1 f»( |«tw< u x tM lll M ilH toK. I m •1U aaa* !>• arota ato4«l (») >*4l**«l M u lf |ia ti« f| M »Mtlll ¿»if tgisr».g<«elUlt...... JB ll (»■••llmi ¿¿•704 ItMtli. HNr »liar < ¥ & 4«M ltf ,»•* !••** ••4 «atlatf aofiaala • afaclaa er IM I «l|ai •«4 » till l«M t ip till ( 9 ) >(««•* 'IfN I«41* in r, la u i, aatl kl(4W> auei’ala • laaa itti* a» h i« a h m im I ahatla* and cat* pat, iliu M lN * ial »till«» root wm. tool w itlt 1?» H l!i _____ „ — ■ alaeomlKMCni roc« a»«. itiiTTtf fcwM ii«« it« U ifatU . (naiUnl liaaa lu « l| cmU1«( Inadatvata. OurMi lla« lok (!••« «»- rata. IMU la {«/») l« a *a . CetiMlMl ••«(<■«> EMNt, l/D rail* * i) ( (*) ratla > t* H. 14-tt__ £><• *lik Q ta M . m i i Ii m U U IKI « IQS rack ( m « a « U M tt>a V 6 * H a — I*» «1* bcu'i«i‘!iri>|i linll ! n < pautl, cM itiy a tttln M u tltlf lm «w l, M4ar- rn tm i ahu«ctl**a «4 iiUUil, flu (4lt»ra »111 cieia tw n tll *ad *la*f | m I i t a l j m UU i tU U tcll«« la f lactara w m i laak w»> tla* f*v l*c |. $*4l***t Ml H I (||| W 4af«*IO**. (*) ruu«c. Oteln«U*aa *<4 W 4 4«lltcl*ra as«* a ll* W»f C*J fool a tal ttiflaa au*l*. M I« c U ia h h c « « I l t M ■ H I cao«l«4 teak (u lltc i t r a p C o lt, cuaaaa l Im lla « at< O f f « - . ■■ ------Hill* W k m a«Ma»U S aaa,U unltM llf al il«M l cvatlM M call, («a Uak» ItM (•>) oalearvta and c o a a lile tlo a a . MMik. |b . I mI | *«1 a x tM iy « i**a 4««r I«* *>!<»• •*> !• !tiS ¿2_ill5-61i5UliI« ___ In >»!>« m k «1 H flw H I U llla it M M lttliM It Seaa Ha litn iM la lax ra.ss5!£fi&=i el (u u it ar p iltl Ura. M raiattlaa. aaaltf It«** p tiil 4 c**r*a a«*4 *• laaltaalll H m J * r t l l » i t ta n iiria lu . * >^ a r t i» w m « ta r*« licealanIM tat ii-irf il(ii aid oiM n, I«ueda4 (M M N *ol M |« ( f»r«tn 4 aJje* «all l«w t O il m rdH U all •»•«** w rftm «aooth H f HJi 1;» . i l t M , -- tarlicw iulla ai «»ally 4*1)» M l •»! M 'i II •tilw i. JO-JS ta li a>4 rradealaantalf tct«*^a - lS-Xi-i£l£5Lli£££8£S fcrU M . ± I t f la . »Tf"«*4 ff *’*f**g»«« tiiM lM «Ua* lljiilli «aiaratali Hck«* *IU «calif • I«om »M U M «! M avilaal. Uca* II ■ *ti> no m n»r«Rl »««t i n . m ifU n l. aaal. M cM«|«. StiU f M itfi«!» lo-ltj"*. $utla aafaflala . amiijamitii Siatla « illrtll» U aa I M t * # a ( Ifca fealUa >KuT*(itcW 4. Xcaar *1 yt y i a fftclti. Ufoalu lo t« U a a v s t I M l a l l M 1« illu M toy ttnti<4 «4 MMIiIcIIm * Ml «Ml« ( I t ) 4 k m *1 «U liw lliM , la * * 1* 1* af (lu n (H) (r*4«a alM|«*> *«H c * r a lr lc t l* a a . a«4 la «4». cku«« » u l f 4EisiU lsa.la.iat!- S o x c f ro*U. _ ClMII Cewca. U |tl In n fliu a l fail l|»U f, «N tl| r«r*««ui lit«* K « w « {*) I t M it’ llti, <«rk «[«•■« far* M h IkII| 4 fo*l H tu. **a a w 1« t i c l u l a r i t * * * . Saaa*. aU*a|. ifU«*-|nl», «Ml mr|>l. la i»lfl u lc{ ¡¡{j K W lo * . . . «1 M iaat **fca roc** «Me* UCfUjiff'&tuM lO ttt _____ a c o CU4iM tUIU B tt COUWTulu^ [u i cu»"* roiit— IM oalua* i* «act calaaa u l IK ort 1« tpUM Ulo« A44 n l u M *c 11«« eoa*o»HI»a af l . lU a ___ t.ti| ta IKll I. » c. . f, « f. . ttUt Iwck Scota. I. lip M l *ed/ocl...... j. feUl nUl*. r ***•••«■- ¿«JacllM m W **«jS*ac*n*at. J9-76-C^4. ? M lW a lf, I. Lari* lunltan, )'« I. Cawaa l’*f« •(ica n l «to«« u ; la tpcallj aJ>taU4 If fafaal Hpuoloflat} ). fu ll l«iM in, >. fiaa p*«al. O .l-l* ..------«. bai, «111, (U |, M K l.w ^ ll'fa ii iJOO-JA la>.l-7) IM ta 4. I*r|* ««Mia. ¿*-11“ r

TABLE 4 WRRI TROUT COVER RATING FORM SOURCE: Wesche, 1980, WRRI

WRRI TROtJT COVER RATING FORM

Straaa Locaeion ...._ ...___ flow (cfa) ______Avaraga Oiacharga Ccfa) _ _ _ _ _ Data ____ Salsonld Spaciaa , ...... Mon-Salaonld Spaciaa ---- Standing Crap lba/acra ___ #/acra Conaanta ______Flald Data Collactad by .. - ' ______Offiiea Calculations by - ___

tfatead R-8 Langtb Sutfaca Ara* Top Caver of Rapraaancad K*3 Covar Araa Width Width Saatios (aq ft) (aq ft) Transact f (ft) (ft) (ft) (TV* U (Covar tf/TUI * SA * ♦

•

TOTALS

* - -tf (rr=bc> * T T whara CR • covar racing PFobc « 0.75 (>6.0M) and 0.50 (<6.0M1 Prc-6 • 0.23 (>*.QH) and 0.50 {<6.0'*) Lobe * Ungch'~availabLa ovarhaad bank covar (ft) Lc ■■ langtft ehalwag (it) “ Ar«b • rubbla-bouldar aria (sq ft) ■ SA • total aurfaca araa (aq ft) ■ a(<6.0") - _ _ CR(>*.Q**) • _ _ CR(n*an)

Cover ratings were made for each of the study sites at each sampling period- Data collection was closely tied to the methods described above for the assessment of hydraulic conditions.

Habitat Quality Index

The HQI procedure was applied to each of the nine study sites during the late August sampling period in accordance with the guidelines given by Binns (1982). Developed by the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department, the HQI is designed specifically to quantify aquatic stream habitat and predict trout standing crop potential. Table 5 lists the' 11 stream attributes measured for an HQI evaluation and also presents the rating characteristics for each attribute. Table 6 contains the calculation sheet for HQI Model I, while Table 7 .provides the calculations necessary for Model II. To provide SMC with the most thorough analysis possible, both Model I and Model II were applied to the data from the nine study sites.

IFG-PHABSIM As requested by SMC, a study to determine the weighted usable area (WUA) of trout habitat was conducted at one study site over three flow levels using the IFG Physical Habitat

Simulation Model. Due to the relative quality of the habitat and our need to wade the entire reach during the July runoff sampling period, site AR-2 was selected. Rating Characteristics

Attribute Symbol

Late summer x l Inadequate to Very limited; Limited, CPf streamflow support trout potential for may severely (Critical trout support limit trout period flow is sporadic stock every < 10% average (CPF 10-15% few years discharge) AD) (CPF 16-25% AD)

Annual stream x 2 Intermittent Extreme Moderate flue-1 flow variation stream fluctation, tuation, but but seldom never dry; dry? base flow base flow very limited occupies up to 2/3 of channel

Maximum summer x3 <6 or 6-8 or 8.1-10.3 or stream temp. >26.4 24.2-26.3 21.5-24.1

Nitrate x4 <0.01 or 0.01-0.04 or 0.05-0.09 or nitrogen (mg/1) >2.0 0.91-2.0 0.51-0.90 Fish food x5 <25 26-99 100-249 abundance» (no./0.1m ) Fish food x 6 <0.80 0.80-1.19 1.20-1.89 diversity (Ds)a

Cover (%)b x7 <10 10-25 26-40

Eroding banks x 8 75-100 50-74 25-49 (% ic Substrate x9 Submerged L ittle SAV Occasional aguatic veg­ patches of etation (SAV) SAV lacking

Water velocity xlO <0.25 or >4.0 0.25-0.49 or 0.5-0.99 or (ft/sec) 3.5-3.99 3.0-3.49

ream width x l l <2 or >150 2-6 or 75-149 7-11 or v t ) e 50-74 fr’5>ble 5 (cont'd). Stream habitat attributes used in the Habitat Quality Index (Sources Binns 1982).

Rating Characteristics

Attribute Symbol 3 4

Late summer x l Moderate; CPF Competely, ade­ streamflow may occasion­ quate; CPF ally limit very seldom trout numbers limiting to (CPF 26-55% trout (CPF >55% AD) AD)

Annual stream x 2 Small fluctu­ Little or no flow variation ation, base fluctation. flow stable

j Maximum summer x3 10.4-12.5 or 12.6-18.6 stream temp, 18,7-21,4 (C)

trate x4 0,10-0.14 or 0.15-0.25 „--trogen (mg/1) 0.26-0.50 Fish food x5 250-500 ' >500 abundance. (no,/0.1m )

Fish food x 6 1.90-3.99 >4.0 diversity (Ds)

Cover (%)b x7 41-55 >55

Eroding banks x 8 10-24 <10 (%>c Substrate x9 Frequent Well developed patches of and abundant SAV SAV

Water velocity xlO 1.0-1.49 or 1.5-2.49 (ft/sec) 2.5-2.99

Stream width xll 12-17 or 18-22 (ft)e 23-49 For the purpose of the HQI, diversity score (Ds) is defined as follows; Ds ® anti-log /D/, where D is calculated for each taxon from the formula: Ds = Pi loglOPi. When Pi is defined as 1/n, and n is the_number j of organisms, then the formula reduces to D = loglOn, as discussed in Watt (1968), /D/ is the mean of all the D values for the sample.

% cover =* total amount of cover/total area in study section.

% eroding banks ■ total length of eroding stream banks (both sides) in section/total length (one side) of study section.

time of travel water velocity, using fluorescent dye. Velocity = thalweg length/time required for dye to traverse section. width of water surface,' less width of any islands. TABLE 6 HQI MODEL I CALCULATION SHEETS SOURCES Binns, 1932, Wyoming Gama and Fish Department

MODEL X Habitat Quality Index Calculation Sheet

Stream Date Study Site # Transect Location Calculations by HQI

p - (X4) p - ______

Los10(1+Xl) “ L0810 ■ ------— Log10a+X2) " L °81 0 ’ — ------— Lo 810(1+X3) “ L°S1 Q ------Log10(l+P) - Log10 “ ------Log10(HQX+l) - [(-1.182S7)+(.97329)Log10(l+X1)+(1.6582«)Logl0(l+S2)+ (1.4A821)Log1Q (l+X3)+(.30762)Log10Cl+P)]

Log 0(HQX+1) - [(-1.18257)+(.97329)( )+(l.65324)( ) + (1.44821)( >+<.30762)( )] * A

Antilogy A «• [____ .1

HQI - C - 1.0 - HQI x 9g Habitat Value * H s - ( )(1.19) H.U.

where H.U* Habitat units 9 Habitat unit coefficient for trout s 3 ■ 1.19 ■ value of one habitat unit H * Habitat value for a trout stream HQi - Habitat Quality Index score (predict crop) TABLE 6 (continued) HQI MODEL I Calculation Sheet

Rating

m Late Summer Streamflow * *1 m Annual- Streamflow Variation * *2 ■ MavfTmTm Sumner Stream Temperature X3 P - (X4)(X3)(X6)(X7)(X8)(X10)(XU ) - - Nitrate Nitrogen - X4

m fish Food Abundance " X5 - Fish Food Diversity - X6 Xy ■ Cover * X. » Eroding Stream Banks - o X^q - Water Velocity * X ^ ■ Stream Width ■ TABLE 7 HQI MODEL CALCULATION SHEETS SOURCE: Blnns, 1982, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

MODEL II Habitat Quality Index Calculation Sheet

Stream _____ Date _ _ _ _ _ Study Site # Transect r Location ___ Calculations by

HQI - H s -

F- ( )( )( X ) - S - ( )( )( ) - ______* 2 “ X3 "

Lo810<1+Xl) ■ ^® X 0 “------tO8X0(1+X2) " ^ l O ’------X.og1 Q (l+X3) - Log10 ------tog10(l+F) - Log1Q ------Log1Q(l+S) - Log1Q - ______Log10(HQX+l) - [(-.903)+(.807)Log10(l+X1)+(.877)Log10(l+S2)+ (1.233)I.og1Q(l+X3)+(.631)Log10(l+F)+(.182)Log10(l+S)] tog10(HQI+l) - [(-.903)+(.807)( )+(.877)( )+ (1.233)( )+(.631)( )+(.182)( )] • A

Antilogy A « [______1 * C _

HQI - C - 1.0 - ______Habitat Value - Hg - HQI x 8g - ( )(1.08) - ______H.U. where H.U. ■ Habitat units 0 * Habitat unit coefficient for trout streams s * 1.08 * value of one habitat unit H - Habitat value for a trout stream HQÎ « Habitat Quality Index score (predicted trout standing crop) TABLE 7 (continued)

HQX MODEL IX Calculation Sheet

Rating

X^ * Late Summer Streamflow • _

X, - Annual Streamflow Variation « ' ___

“ Maximum Summer Stream Temperature • _

F - Food Index - <*3) (X4) (Xg) (X^) - ______

S “ Shelter Index “ (X^) (XQ) (X^) ■ . _. . .

X^ - Nitrate Nitrogen “ .

X7 * Cover “ ______Xg * Eroding Stream Banks ■ _____

Xj “ Substrate ■ ______

X^q " Water Velocity " ______

X ^ ■ Stream Width “ __ Field data collections were made during each of the three sampling periods in strict accordance with the guidelines established by the IFG (Bovee and Milhous 1978, Bovee 1982).

Weighted useable area calculations were made using the PHABSIM software. The calculations were made by Mr. Pat Nelson of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Instream Flow Group (IFG).

Computer application and analysis followed the IFG guidelines provided in Milhous et al. (1981).

Analysis of WUA at AR-2 was carried out for two salmonid species, rainbow trout and brook trout. For rainbow trout, analysis involved four life stages: embryo, fry, juvenile, and adult. Due to a lack of sufficient habitat requirement data in the IFG computer files, WUA could only be calculated for two brook trout life stages, embryo and adult.

BIOLOGICAL DATA Fish and macroinvertebrate populations present in the three stream segments were sampled at each of the nine sampling sites during all three sampling periods. Sampling at each site extended over the entire section of the stream from which the physical data were collected.

Resident Fish Populations

The fish populations present at each site were sampled using electro-fishing equipment. All collected fish were temporarily, held in on-shore containers until they were identified, weighed, and measured. Common and scientific names used in this report (T follow Robbins et al. (1980), After measurement, all fish were returned to the stream section from which they were collected.

Resident Macroinvertebrate Populations

Macroinvertebrate populations were made by dip net {"kick net") collections at each site. Samples were taken at the upper, middle, and lower end of each station having a homogeneous nature. When diverse habitats were present through the station

(e.g., riffles, pools, undercut banks, backwater areas, etc.), each habitat type was sampled- at least once, with a minimum of three samples.from each station.

For each dip net sample, an approximate 1/3 square meter area upstream of the dip net was thoroughly disturbed by hand mixing and/or kicking to dislodge all organisms. All materials collected in the dip net were examined, and larger rocks, sticks, and other debris discarded after any “»attached macroinvertebrates were removed. The substrate and organisms remaining in the net were placed in glass jars, covered with water, and preserved with sufficient formalin to make a 5 to 10% solution. Each dip net sample was preserved separately and labeled to indicate appropriate collection site.

In the laboratory each sample was rinsed? placed in a shallow, white-enamel pan? and examined. Organisms were sorted into major taxonomic groups and placed into separate vials.

Sample vials were filled with 70% ethanol, sealed with paraffin, and labeled with sample location, date, name of organism, number of organisms, and analyst's names. Vials will be maintained for at least three years by WAI.

Taxonomic identifications for collected macroinvertebrates were based on common taxonomic references (Table 8). For any taxonomic problems, Drs. George Baxter or Thomas La Point were consulted. Both are aquatic invertebrate specialists at the

University of Wyoming. Table 8. Selected taxonomic references used in identifying benthic macroinvertebrates from the upper Animas River basin.

Baumann, R. W., A. R. Gaufin, and R. F. Surdick. 1977. The stoneflies (plecoptera) of the Rocky Mountains, American Entomological Socitey Number 31. 208 pp.

Baxter, G. T. 1981. Key to the aquatic macroinvertebrates of southeastern Wyoming.

Edmondson, W. T., ed. 1959. Freshwater Biology. J. Wiley and Sons, New York. 1248 pp.

Edmunds, G. F., S. L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central America. University of Minnesota. 330 pp.

Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummings, ed. 1978. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall-Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 441 pp.

Pennak, R. W. 19 78. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. J. Wiley and Sons. New York. 803 pp.

Usinger, R. J., ed. 1956. Aquatic insects of California with keys to North America genera and California species. University of California, Berkeley, California. 508 pp.

Wiggins, G. B. 1977. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera). University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 401 pp. RESULTS

HISTORICAL STUDIES ON THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

Water quality problems in the upper Animas River basin were first studied by Wentz (1972, cited by Woodling 1977). Wentz found that both the Animas River from Mineral Creek to above

Animas Forks, and Cement Creek were affected by metal-mine drainages. In the summer of 1972, Woodling (1977) conducted a followup study on the upper Animas River basin. He reported more extensive degradation than found by Wentz (1972). Woodling concluded that the Animas River from Cunningham Creek to its headwaters, and Cement and Mineral Creeks were severely impacted by past and present mining activities. Zinc, copper and cadmium were found to be present at acutely toxic concentrations and fish were absent from these streams. The sources of contamination included a few point sources and numerous non-point sources such as tailings and abandoned mine portals. Woodling concluded that the Animas River "does not currently present a year-around habitat required for salmonid colonization." And, "to reclaim this land and improve water quality to a level which would support a diverse, abundant aquatic community would involve prodigous expense and effort."

During October, 1976, the Colorado Division of Wildlife

(CDOW) conducted fishery and habitat evaluations of streams in

the upper Animas River basin. From Mineral Creek at Silverton downstream to Baker's Bridge, the Animas River had average fishery value; however, the DOW survey included no fish sampling along this reach. Below Elk Park rainbow trout have been stocked into the river but the last stocking record is for 1980. From

Mineral Creek upstream to Animas Forks, the survey indicated the river has poor fishery value. Mining pollution, erosion and siltation were cited as the causes. All of the stream was found to be physically damaged from mine tailings. Until 1976 this section of the river received annual stockings of rainbow trout and the 1976 survey collected three rainbow trout from the section. There are no reported stockings of the river above

Silverton since 1976.

Above Animas Forks, the South Fork .of the Animas River was determined to have no fishery value as a result of mining pollution, siltation, high gradient, low winter temperatures and high runoff. The North Fork was determined to have poor fishery value but a few rainbow trout were collected. Mining pollution was the factor that limited the stream's fishery value.

Of the other tributaries to the river above Silverton, only

Cunningham Creek was reported to have any fishery value.

Cunningham Creek was found to have both rainbow and brook trout.

Eureka Gulch, another major tributary, had no fishery value as a

result of mining pollution, high gradient and siltation.

WATER QUALITY Tables 9 to 17 present the 1984 water quality data for the

seven Animas River sites, Eureka Gulch, and Cement Creek. During ible 9. Water quality analyses for study site AR-1, Animas Forks, 1984 (all units are in mg /1 except where noted).

Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Aug 30 Oct 16 Averaqe pH (units) 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.6 Total alkalinity 19.2 38.4 19.2 ' 25.6 (as CaC02) Total hardness 29.2 68.9 65.0 54.4 (as CaCO^)

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 130.0 150.0 130.0 136.6 Total diss. solids 100.0 64.0 70.0 78.0 Total susp. solids 14.0 3.2 132.0 49.7 Total organic carbon 2.5 0.50 1.1 1.37 Dissolved oxygen 7.2 8.0 7.9 7.7 Ammonia (as N) 0.16 0.20 0.36 0.24 Nitrate (as N) — 0.10 0.08 0.09 Sulfate 30.0 52.5 42.0 41.5 Aluminum, total 0.22 0.05 0.065 0.112 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. 0.026 0.009 Cadmium, total 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.004 ■admium, dissolved — -- — Jopper, total 0.018 0.032 0.039 0.030 Copper, dissolved — » —» — Iron, total 0.32 0.33 0.350 '0.333 Lead, total 0.005 n.d. 0.005 0.003 Lead, dissolved ------— Manganese, total 0.005 2.09 0.563 0.886 Selenium, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Silver, total -- n.d. n.d. n.d. Silver, dissolved — —--— Zinc, total 0.534 0.935 1.03 0.833 Zinc, dissolved

n.d. ** not detected c

Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Auq 30 Oct 16 Averaqe pH (units) 6-75 6.9 7.0 6.88 Total alkalinity 7.68 34.6 28.8 23.69 (as CaCO^)

Total hardness 45.9 81.5 129.0 85.46 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 140 195 190 175 Total diss. solids 112 106 118 112 Total susp. solids 2.6 1.6 7.2 3.8 Total organic carbon 1.0 .7 1.2 0.967 Dissolved oxygen 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.27 Ammonia (as N) 0.26 0.02 0.98 0.42 Nitrate (as N) — 0.04 0.09 0.065 Sulfate 37.5 56.3 73.0 55.6 Aluminum, total 0.050 0.065 0.220 0.112 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Cadmium, total 0 . 0 0 1 0.002 0.005 0.003 r ’mium, dissolved — — -- — per, total 0.014 0.037 0.063 0.038 Copper, dissolved —— -- — Iron, total 0.57 0.26 0.580 0.47 Lead, total 0.01 0.002 0.014 0.009 Lead, dissolved — — — Manganese, total 0.453 0.834 0.920 0.736 Selenium, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. ¿ilver, total — n.d. n.d. n.d. Silver, dissolved -- -- Zinc, total 0.481 0.522 0.974 0.65? Zinc, dissolved MM mm M M n.d. = not detected €

Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Auq 30 Oct 16 Average pH (units) 5.5 6.78 7.15 7.25 6.66 Total alkalinity 31.5 17.1 32.6 38*4 29.90 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 132.0 54.3 96.1 124.0 101.60 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 278 145 225 230 219.5 Total diss. solids 212 118 124 140 148.5 Total susp. solids 6.8 4.2 1.8 2.6 3.85 Total organic carbon 4.29 3.3 0.6 1.33 2.38 Dissolved■oxygen 5.7 7.35 7.2 6.4 6.66 Ammonia (as N) 2.06 0.21 0.140 0.34 0.68: Nitrate (as N) — 0.07 0.08 0.07! Sulfate 97.5 37.5 58.8 70.0 65.95 Aluminum, total — 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.04. Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Cadmium, total 0.002 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 0.002 0.00 Cadmium, dissolved -- —— — o O CM Copper, total 0.033 0.019 . 0.013 ■ 0.02 Copper, dissolved 0.005 — —— 0 .0 0 Iron, total 1.18 1.50 0.46 0.390 0.88 Lead, total 0.034 0.042 0 .0 0 1 n.d. 0.01 Lead, dissolved n.d. — n.d. Manganese, total 0.534 0.375 0.512 0.487 0.47 Selenium, total n.d. 0.006 0.004 n.d. 0.02 Silver, total 0 .0 0 1 <0.001 n.d. <0.00 Silver, dissolved n.d. ------n.d. Zinc, total 0.724 0.459 0.397 0.537 0.52 Zinc, dissolved 0.629 — — -- 0.62 n.d. = not ¿etected ( ' c X ;_-

Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Auq 30 Oct 16 Averaqe pH (units) 6.0 6.85 7.3 7.35 6.88 Total alkalinity 33.5 19.2 42.2 36.5 32.85 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 129.0 54.3 129.0 135.0 111.82 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 310.0 150.0 275.0 280.0 253.75 Total diss. solids 180.0 106.0 144.0 194.0 156.0 Total susp. solids 56.0 1.4 1.6 3.0 15.5 Total organic carbon 3.57 1.0 0.70 2.0 1.82 Dissolved oxygen 5.1 7.2 6.8 6.2 6.3 Ammonia (as N) 0.47 0.20 0.22 0.625 0.118 Nitrate (as N) — 0.09 0.255 0.172 Sulfate 113.0 36.0 78.8 80.0 76.95 Aluminum, total — 0.03 0.06 0.025 0.038 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.002 <0.001 Cadmium, total 0.005 <0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 Cadmium, dissolved — — — -- ■opper, total' 0.035 0.009 0.015 0.010 0.017 Copper, dissolved 0.006 — -- 0.006 Iron, total 7.25 0.380 0.42 0.30 2.08 Lead, total 0.137 0.013 0.012 0.052 0.054 Lead, dissolved n.d. — n.d. Manganese, total 1.12 0.259 0.554 0.557 0.622 Selenium, total 0.004 0.001 0.002 n.d. 0.002 Silver, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Silver, dissolved n.d. —— _ _ n.d. Zinc, total 0.855 0.366 0.373 0.542 0.534 Zinc, dissolved 0.659 _ _ 0.659 n . d. ■ not detected Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Auq 30 Oct 16 Average pH (units) 6.1 6.45 6.15 6.65 6.34 Total alkalinity 33.5 7.68 17.3 21.1 19.90 (as CaCO^)

Total hardness 192.0 96.0 259.0 260.0 201.75 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 390.0 250.0 510.0 470.0 405.0 Total diss. solids 302.0 168.0 366.0 330.0 291.4 Total susp. solids 42.2 8.67 18.4 22.0 22.87 Total organic carbon 2.14 1.0 0.50 1.67 1.33 Dissolved oxygen 6.4 7.3 7.2 6.0 6.72 Ammonia (as N) 0.45 0.62 0,28 1.26 0.65 Nitrate (as N) -- — n.d* 0.04 0.02 Sulfate 170.0 119.0 215.0 200.0 176.0 Aluminum, total — 0,220 n.d. 0.585 0.26 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n . d . n.d. Cadmium, total 0.004 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.00 Cadmium, dissolved -- — .. — — -- Copper, total 0.050 0.053 0.058 0.045 0.05 Copper, dissolved 0.003 — ~— —— 0.10 Iron, total 82.0 . 1.50 5,3 3.8 23.15 Lead, total 0.163 0.020 0,026 0.044 0.06 Lead, dissolved n.d. — -- -- n.d. Manganese, total 1.50 0.806 2.0 1.91 1.55 Selenium, total 0.002 0.001 0,002 n.d. 0.00 Silver, total 0.001 — n.d. n.d. <0.00 Silver, dissolved n.d. — — -- n.d. Zinc, total 0.897 0.698 1.83 1.34 1.19 Zinc, dissolved 0.788 «0 — 0.78

n.d. » not detected Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Aug 30 Oct 16 Average pH (units) 5.0 6.75 6.9 6.22 Total alkalinity 55.7 32.6 19.2 35.83 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 66.8 144.0 150.0 120.27 (as CaCO^J

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 190.0 320.0 350.0 286.66 Total diss. solids 114.0 170.0 248.0 177.33 Total susp. solids 7.7 10.8 33.0 17.19 Total organic carbon 3.1 0.90 1.0 1.67 Dissolved oxygen 7.6 8.0 6.0 7.20 0.50 Ammonia (as N) 0.150 0.18 1.18 Nitrate (as N) 0.135 0.03 0.082 116.33 Sulfate 85.0 116.0 148.0 Aluminum, total 0.10 n.d. 0.545 0.215 0.006 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. 0.2 Cadmium, total 0.001 0.002 0.035 0.002 Cadmium, dissolved per, total 0.022 0.036 0.138 0.065 )per, dissolved wmmm —— — — 1.05 1.54 8.4 3.66 iron, total 0.015 Lead, total 0.01 0.013 0.022 Lead, dissolved ... —— —— Manganese, total 0.420 0.656 0.982 0.686 Selenium, total n.d. 0.003 0.002 0.002 < Silver, total <0.001 n.d. 0.001 Silver, dissolved —— — 0.559 Zinc, total 0.343 0.490 0.844 Zinc, dissolved MM

n.d. * not detected n .

Concentration Parameter April 24 ruly 12 Auq 30 Oct 16 Averaqe ?H (units) 7.1 6.6 7.1 6.93 Total alkalinity 21.1 26.9 28.8 25.6 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 29.4 129.0 167.0 108.46 (as CaCOj)

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 152.0 290.0 320.0 254.0 Total diss. solids 88.0 124.0 212.0 141.33 Total susp. solids 7.2 8.0 10.4 8.13 Total organic carbon 10.0 1.1 1.67 4.25 Dissolved oxygen 9.2 8.0 5.9 7.7 Ammonia (as N) n.d 0.22 0.60 0.27 titrate (as N) -- 0.07 0.03 0.05 Sulfate 43.5 106.0 128.0 92.5 Muminum, total n.d. n.d. 0.540 0.18 iVrsenic, total n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. Cadmium, total 0 . 0 0 1 0.002 0.002 0.002 Caesium, dissolved fr, total 0.019 0.034 0.033 0.029 -o^er, dissolved Iron, total 0.960 1.31 2.1 1.46 U e ad, total 0.009 0.016 0.01 0.012 Lead, dissolved Manganese, total 0.319 0.624 0.754 0.566 Selenium, total n.d. 0 . 0 0 1 -- <0.001 Silver, total n.d. n.d. n.d.

Silver, dissolved iH 1 • 1 rj* o 2inc, total 0.479 1.49 1.12 Zinc, dissolved — ** w mm n.d. * not detected

Total hardness 45.9 107.0 120.0 90.9 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 145.0 230.0 280.0 218.0 Total dissolved solids 100.0 126.0 198.0 141.0 Total susp. solids 9.8 62.5 9.2 27.2 Total organic carbon 2.0 n.d. 0.30 0.76 Dissolved oxygen 7.6 7.9 6.4 7.3 Ammonia (as N) 0.8 0.20 1.8 0.69 Nitrate (as N) -- n.d. 0.3 0.15 Sulfate 39.0 83.8 88.5 70.4 Aluminum, total 0.045 0.045 0.105 0.065 Arsenic, total n.d. n.d. 0.001 <.001 Cadmium, total < 0.001 0.003 0.007 0.004 Cadmium, dissolved — -- -- Copper, total 0 «022 0.01 0.035 0.022 ?per, dissolved — -- **on, total 0.38 0.33 0.7 0.470 Lead, total % 0.009 0.009 0.035 0.018 Lead, dissolved .... _ _ Manganese, total 0.645 1.56 1.99 1.40 Selenium, total n.d. 0.002 n.d. <0.001 Silver, total — n.d. n.d. n . d . Silver, dissolved —— __ Zinc, total 0.543 0.373 1.73 0.88 Zinc, dissolved -- -- — _ n.d. * not detected r

Concentration Parameter April 24 July 12 Aug 30 Oct 16 Average

.pH (units) 3.4 3.65 3.6 3.2 3.46 Total alkalinity n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d n.d. (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 318.0 146.0 380.0 433.0 319.25 (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm; 740.0 455.0 800.0 810.0 701.25 Total diss. solids 604.0 344.0 536.0 652.0 534.0 Total susp. solids 36.4 20.8 24.4 17.2 24.7 Total organic carbon 5.5 .90 .70 1.0 2.02 Dissolved oxygen 6.0 7.4 7,9 6.1 6.85 Ammonia (as N) 2.1 .150 .72 3.2 1.54 Nitrate (as N) .065 n.d. .032 Sulfate 413.0 215.0 325.0 438.0 316.0 Aluminum, total .49 .350 .875 .57 Arsenic, total .002 n.d. n.d. .005 .002 Cadmium, total .006 .005 .008 .009 .007 Cadmium, dissolved ipper, total . 1 1 1 .146 .083 .110 .112 .ipper, dissolved .104 .104 Iron, total 16.0 3*35 2.50 6.96 7.2 Lead, total 0.77 0.31 0.43 .054 .05 Lead, dissolved .051 .051 Manganese, total 2.88 1.95 3.47 4.60 3.22 Selenium, total n.d. .005 n.d. n.d. .001 Silver, total n.d. n.d* n.d. n.d. Silver, dissolved n.d. n.d. Zinc, total 1.61 1.31 2.34 2.16 1.85 Zinc, dissolved 1.54 1.54 n.d. » not detected 1984, several metals, including cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, were found at potentially toxic concentrations. Sulfate, aluminum, iron and manganese levels were also consistently high though generally below toxic concentrations. Except for Cement

Creek, pH levels were slightly below neutrality. The pH of Cement

Creek, was very acidic, ranging from 3.2-3.65. Cement Creek also had the highest concentrations of all metals and total dissolved solids.

Some consistent downstream trends were apparent in the

Animas River for concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, plus several of the non-metal water quality parameters

(Figure 2). At site AR-1 concentrations of the four metals were already high. For example, the average total zinc concentration was 0.833 mg/1, the average total cadmium concentration was 0.004 mg/1, and the average total lead concentration was 0.003 mg/1.

Total dissolved solids and sulfate concentrations were low, 78 mg/1 and 41.5 mg/1, respectively- Proceeding downstream to sites

AR-2, AR-3 and AR-4, total cadmium, copper and zinc concentrations tended to decrease, while lead, total dissolved solids, and sulfate concentrations tended to increase. Then, at site AR-5, immediately below the confluence of Cement Creek, concentrations of all four metals, total dissolved solids, and sulfate rose sharply. These increases were caused by the heavy load of chemicals added to the river by Cement Creek. At site

AR -6 below the confluence of Mineral Creek, concentrations of all parameters except copper decreased. The additional copper may have been contributed by Mineral Creek. At site AR-7, about seven

sulfate concentrations (SO^) mg/1. in Average total dissolved solids (TDS) and

Figure 2. Downstream trends of 6 chemical parameters measured In the upper Animas River 1n 1934. Table 18. Colorado Department of Health water quality standards for Class I Waters, Cold Water Aquatic Biota.

Parameter Standard_____ Values are in mg/1. Metal values are for total metal

0-100 m g /1 100-200 mg/ Hardness Hardness

METALS

Aluminum 0.1 (soluble) O.l(soluble) Arsenic 0.5 0.5 Cadmium 0.0004 0.001 Copper 0.005 0.01 Iron 1.0 1.0 Lead 0.004 0.025 Manganese 1.0 1.0 Selenium 0.05 0.05 Silver 0.0001 0.0001 Zinc 0.05 0.05

NON-METALS

pH (units) 6.5-9.0 6.5-9.0 Ammonia (unionized) 0.02 0.02 Dissolved oxygen >6 7 for spawning Study Site

Parameter AR-1 AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR -6 AR-7 EG-5 CC-! pH- X X X

Ammonia X X X X

Arsenic

Cadmium X XX X X X X X X

Copper X X X X X XX X X

Iron X X X X X

Lead X X X XX

Manganese X • X

Selenium

Iver

Zinc XX X X X XX X

a Based on average*1984 water quality values. " le 20. Historical water quality data for study site AR-2, below Eureka, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented (all units are in mg /1 except where n o t e d ) •

Concentration Parameter Unweighted Average Minimum Maximum pH (units) 7.1 6.55 7.5 Total alkalinity 24.65 19.3 32.3 (as CaCO^)

Total hardness 103.25 69.0 144.0 (as CaCOj)

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 42.55 258.0 602.0 Total diss. solids 153,0 77.0 214.0 Total susp. solids Total organic carbon Dissolved oxygen Ammonia (as N) Ni t r a t e (as N) Sulfate ' uninum, total Jenic, total Cadmium, total Cadmium, dissolved Copper, total n.d, n.d. n.d. Copper, dissolved Iron, total 0.013 n.d. 0.05 Lead, total n.d. n.d. n.d. Lead, dissolved Manganese, total 0.25 n.d. 0.68 Selenium, total Silver, total Silver, dissolved Zinc, total 0.577 0.400 0.707 Zinc, dissolved

n.d. » not detected T ‘le 22. Historical water quality data for study site AR-4, Lackawanna Bridge, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented (all units are in mg /1 except where n o t e d ) .

Concentration Parameter Unweighted Averaqe Minimum Maximum pH (units) 7.36 ■ 6.8 8.9 Total alkalinity 31.25 25.0 35.0 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness 105.25 38.0 178.0 (as CaCO^)

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 522.25 247.0 880.0 Total diss. solids 204.25 115.0 333.0 Total susp. solids •1.4 —- mm Total organic carbon —— •• ■" m m Dissolved oxygen —— ' — Ammonia (as N) —— —— MM Nitrate (as N) —— — MM Sulfate — MM fuminum, total — —— MM snic, total — —— MM Cadmium, total <0.001 n.d. 0.002 Cadmium, dissolved -<0.001 —— Copper, total 0.022 n.d. 0.04 Copper, dissolved 0.06 . — Iron, total 0.78 n.d. 6.67 Lead, total 0.10 n.d. 0.869 Lead, dissolved 0.842 — —— Manganese, total 0.462 0.28 0.72 Selenium, total Silver, total — •“** Silver, dissolved -- -- -— Zinc, total 0.656 0.36 1.05 Zinc, dissolved 0.730 ——

n.d. * not detected c

Table 23. Historical water quality data for study site AR-5, below Cement Creek and above Mineral Creek, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented (all units are in m g /1 except where noted).

Concentration Parameter Unweighted Average Minimum Maximum pH (units) 7.4 MM MM Total alkalinity (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness (as C a C 0 3 ) »1*11 »1*11 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 1 1 r- 1 1 ---- Total diss. solids Total susp. solids CO -- Total organic carbon Dissolved oxygen Ammonia (as N) Nitrate (as N) — ------Sulfate Aluminum, total — -- senic, total .'dmium, total 0.001 -- «•M Cadmium, dissolved Copper, total 6.52 0.041 13.0 Copper, dissolved — Iron, total 126.78 3.55 250.0 Lead, total 1 1 .0 0.01 22.0 Lead, dissolved Manganese, total 177.38 4.75 350.0 Selenium, total Silver, total Silver, dissolved Zinc, total 55.34 0.690 110.0 Zinc, dissolved mm n.d. ■ not detected Table 24. Historical water quality data for study site AR- 6, D.S.N.G. Bridge, 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented (all units are in mg /1 except where n o t e d ) •

Concentration Parameter Unweighted Average Minimum Maximum pH (units) 7.4 — - ■— Total alkalinity (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness (as CaCO^)

Conductivity (umhos/cm) Total diss. solids Total susp. solids 6.33 — — Total organic carbon Dissolved oxygen Ammonia (as N) * — Nitrate (as N) Sulfate Aluminum, total — ?enic, total — imium, total 0.001 Cadmium, dissolved Copper, total 0.025 Copper, dissolved — Iron, total 3.62 Lead, total 0.760 Lead, dissolved Manganese, total 3.17 Selenium, total — — Silver, total Silver, dissolved Zinc, total 1.20 — Zinc, dissolved n.d. * not detected (T r

Table 25. Historical water quality data for study site EG-5, Eureka Gulch (South Pork Animas River), 1970-1978, the range (minimum and maximum) and unweighted average of the available data are presented (all units are in m g /1 except where noted) '.

Concentration Parameter Unweighted Average" Minimum Maximum pH (units) 6.4 Total alkalinity (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness (as C a C 0 3 )

Conductivity (umhos/cm) 170 Total diss. solids Total susp. solids 765 Total organic carbon Dissolved oxygen Ammonia (as N) Nitrate (as N) Sulfate Aluminum, total senic, total ,dmium, total 0.006 Cadmium, dissolved Copper, total 0.125 n.d. 0.250 Copper, dissolved 0.005 Iron, total 22.22 0.110 44.33 Lead, total 0.495 n.d. 0.99 Lead, dissolved n.d. Manganese, total 2.75 1.50 4.00 Selenium, total Silver, total Silver, dissolved Zinc, total 2.85 1.4 4.3 Zinc, dissolved 0.77 n.d. = not detected S i l verton?\

Parameter >« . ^ Concentration Unweighted A v e r a g e Minimum Maximum pH (units) 5.2 Total alkalinity 3.6 6.6 (as C a C 0 3 )

Total hardness (as C a C 0 3 ) If Conductivity (umhos/cm) 940 Total diss. solids Total susp. solids 158,000 Total organic carbon Dissolved oxygen Ammonia (as N) Nitrate (as N) f |ate k .ninum, total Arsenic, total Cadmium, total Cadmium, dissolved 1.01 0.008 2.01 Copper, total 0.019 Copper, dissolved 11.59 0.08 34.6 Iron, total 0.036 0.012 0.06 Lead, total 120.9 5.7 350.0 Lead, dissolved 20.4 0.066 61.0 Manganese,-total 2.45 0.14 4.76 3.00 Selenium, total Silver, total Silver, dissolved — — Zinc, total 75.7 Zinc, dissolved 1.90 222.0 4.18 3.20 5.15 indication of any large changes. Zinc may be the best indicator

of such changes since it was present in 1984 at relatively high

concentrations. At all Animas River sites where historical data

are available, total zinc concentrations observed in 1984 were within the range of values observed from 1970-1978. Thus, it

appears that the water quality of the upper Animas River has not

changed substantially over the past 6-14 years.

Total vs. Dissolved Metals

For most toxic metals present in surface waters the

dissolved form is the most toxic. Metals present as particulate

complexes or that are adsorbed to suspended solids generally have

low bioavailabilities and low potential toxicities to aquatic

organisms. Therefore, the form in which metals are present in

surface waters is important for predicting potential toxic

e f f e c t s .

Data for dissolved metals in the Animas River are only

available for one sampling date, April 24, 1984. The data are

limited to analyses for copper, lead, silver and zinc for Cement

Creek and Animas River sites ‘AR-3, AR-4, and AR-5. At these

sites, from 77-96 percent of the total zinc was present in the

dissolved form (Table 27). At the three Animas River sites, 6-17

percent of the total copper was present in the dissolved form,

while no dissolved lead or silver was present. Thus, except for

zinc, most of the potentially toxic metals present in the Animas

River are present as particulates and only a small fraction of the metals are present in the more toxic dissolved form. In r•.

Table 27. Percent of total metal present as dissolved metal in the upper Animas River, April 24, 1984.

Percent of Total Metal Present as Dissolved Metal

Study Site

Parameter AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 CC-5

Copper 15.2 17.1 6.0 93.7

Lead 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.2

Silver 0.0 n.d 0.0 n.d

Zinc 86.9 77.1 87.8 95.7

n.d * not detected contrast in Cement Creek, probably as a result of the very low pH, virtually all of the copper, lead and zinc present was present as dissolved metal.

In summary, for the metals present in the upper Animas

River, zinc appears to be potentially the most toxic, since it is present in high concentrations in the dissolved form. Copper may also be significant since 6-17 percent is present as dissolved copper. The other metals appear to be present almost entirely in the particulate form and, therefore, probably have relatively low potential bioavailabilities and toxicities to aquatic organisms.

PHYSICAL HABITAT Mean monthly discharges for eleven recent water years at

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gage Station No.09357500 (Animas

River at Howardsville, Colorado) are presented in Table 28. The

source of these data is, Water Resources Data for Colorado,

published annually by the Water Resources Division of the USGS.

Inspection of these records indicates that the station was

officially discontinued after the 1982 water year. However, WAI

personnel found the gage to still be operational during the 1984

field season. No other gaging stations are currently or have

recently been in operation within the study area. Hydraulic data, cover rating information, SRI/CSE scores,

and HQI modeling results for each study site are presented in

Tables 29 to 37, respectively. Individual SRI/CSE ratings for the

15 attributes measured are presented in Table 38, by.study site,

while Table 39 provides the attribute ratings for the HQI c c

Table 28. Mean monthly discharges for recent years at U.S.G.S. Gage Station #09357500, Animas River at Howardsville, Colorado.

Water Mean Monthly Discharge (cfs)

Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Peb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

1970 57.4 35.0 22.6 18.1 17.5 15.9 17.4 327 396 174 74.8 199

1971 54.5 37.1 27.1 20.6 20.0 22.2 63.8 137 423 193 59.3 45.9 1972 34.6 29.0 22.7 19.8 18.4 29.1 67.1 259 294 71.4 34.1 50.1

1973 60.1 34.3 22.5 18.6 16.0 14.5 18.1 227 575 399 113 50.1

1974 26.0 18.5 16.4 15.3 14.2 14.9 23.6 281 257 80.5 31.6 19.8

1975 17.5 16.6 15.1 13.4 12.0 11.3 13.6 137 575 512 96.5 38.4 1977 29.1 18.9 14.7 13.8 11.8 10.7 38.8 115 157 47.9 46.7 45.4

1 P78 28.1 18.6 17.0 14.5 12.1 13.2 46.4 175 606 • 249 59.1 28.2 ;x^80 23.4 18.7 16.0 14.8 13.9 13.1 31.1 196 631 223 62.9 41.1 1981 23.6 17.6 15.6 14.2 12.3 12.1 39.7 137 308 128 55.8 47.2

1982 48.5 36.6 23.7 18.5 ' 16.1 18.0 35.6 183 564 313 170 148

Mean 36.6 25.5 19.4 16.5 14.9 15.9 35.9 198 435 217 73.1 64.8 (n=ll)

Average Discharge = 102 ft3/sec (1935-1982)

Minimum Daily Discharge =* 9.0 ft3/sec on 1/10/57, 2/15/64, 3/9/64, and 2/13/65

Maximum Discharge ■ 1980 ft3/sec (June 18, 1949) Sampling Date

Attribute July August October

Discharge (ft3/sec) 70 22 15 Reach L e n g t h (ft) 250 250 250

Mean Width (ft) 24.6 19.6 17.3 2 Surface Area (ft ) 6150 4900 4325

Mean Depth (ft) 0.88 0.62 0.50

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 3.47 1.91 1.83 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft' 21.0 11.9 8.6 Slope (%) 3.8 3.9 3.3

Sinuosity Ratio 1.1 1.1 1.1 o over Area (ft ) 3415 1536 * 1310

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 0 0 0

Cover Rating 0.21 0.12 0.11

Cl) SRI/CSE Score 61.5 61.5 61.5

C2} HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) 8.5

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) . 7.8

£1} Stream.Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C23 Habitat Quality Index c

Table 30. Physical habitat characteristics for study site AR-2, below Eureka.

Sampling Date

Attribute July August October

Discharge (ft^/sec) 195 65 37.5

Reach Length (ft) ” 468 468 468

Mean Width (ft) 30.9 28.3 27.2 2 Surface Area (ft ) 14,461 13,244 12,730

Mean Depth (ft) 1.56 0.90 0.65

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 4.06 2.58 2.15 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 48.1 25.5 17.7

Slope (%) 0.9 0.9 0.9

Sinuosity Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Cover Area (ft ) 7005 6198 4677

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 42 0 0

Cover Rating 0.24 0.18 0.14

(13 SRI/CSE Score 65.5 65.5 65.5

[23 HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 19.0 —

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 11.1 —

Cl} Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation £23 Habitat Quality Index Table 31. Physical habitat characteristics for study site AR-3, Howardsville.

Sampling Date

A ttribute July August October

Discharge (ft3/sec) 487 154 91 '

Reach Length (ft) 450 450 450

Mean Width (ft) 48.9 45.7 44.6

Surface Area (ft2) 22,005 20,560 20,070

Mean Depth (ft) 1.91 1.26 1.05

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 5.33 2.76 2.01 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft2) 93.4 57.6 46.8

Slope (%) 1.5 1.5 1.51 Sinuosity Ratio 1.1 1-1 1-1 Cover Area (ft2) 15,255 11,916 7497 Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 10 10 0 Cover Rating 0.27 0.23 0.14

Cl) SRI/CSE Score 60.5 60.5 60.5

C2) HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 19.0 —

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 11.8 —

Cl) Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C2} Habitat Quality Index CL'

Sampling Date

Attribute July. August

Discharge (ft3/sec) 683 219 120 Reach Length (ft) 500 500 500

Mean Width (ft) 56.7 53.7 51.8 2 Surface Area (ft ) 28,350 26,850 25,900

Mean Depth (ft) 1.79 1.22 0.94 Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 6.89 3.42. 2.55 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 101.5 65.5 48.7

Slope (%) 1.5 1.5 1.5

Sinuosity Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0

Cover Area (ft2) 14,640 12,630 10,520

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 0 G 0

Cover Rating 0.19 0.18 0.15

{1} SRI/CSE Score 67.5 67.5 67.5

C23 HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 19.0 --

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 10.9

Cl) Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C2) Habitat Quality Index c r

Table 33. Physical habitat characteristics for study site AR-5, below Cement Creek.

Sampling Date

Attribute July August October

Discharge (ft3/sec) 581 209 136 Reach Length (ft) 600 600 600

Mean W i d t h (ft) 73,5 62.1 59.3 2 Surface Area (ft ) 44,100 37,260 35,580

Mean Depth (ft) 1.46 1.13 0.90

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 5.46 3.05 2.62 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 107.3 70.2 53.4

Slope (%) 1.3 1.3 1.3

Sinuosity Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Cover Area (ft ) 23,773 17,892 , 12,156 Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 67.5 11.5 27.0

Cover Rating 0.27 0.19 0.16 82 Cl} SRI/CSE Score 82 8 2 ,

C2} HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 19.0 —

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 8.4

Cl} Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C2} Habitat Quality Index Table 34, Physical habitat characteristics for study site AR- 6, D.S.N.G Bridge,

Sampling Date

Attribute July August October 3 Discharge (ft /sec) 1212 416 228

Reach Length (ft) 634 634 634

Mean Width (ft) 83.7 77.9 72.2

Surface Area (ft2) 53,066 49,389 45,775

Mean Depth (ft) 1.98 1.43 1.19

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 7.44 3.84 2.73

Mean Cross-Section Area (ft2) 165.7 111.4 85.9

Slope (%) 0.6 0.6 0*6

Sinuosity Ratio 1.2 1.2 1.2 Cover Area (ft2) 30,254 24,372 19,306

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 72 0 0

Cover Rating 0.28 0.18 0.16

[13 SRI/CSE Score 72.5 72.5 72.5

C2} HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) 19.0

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre)

C13 Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation (23 habitat Quality Index c C

Table 35. Physical habitat characteristics for study site AR-7, Elk Park.

Sampling Date

Attribute July August October

Discharge (ft3/sec) 1200 394 246 Reach L e n g t h (ft) 750 750 750

Mean Width (ft) 75 68.4 64.9 2 Surface Area (ft ) 56,250 51,300 48,675

Mean Depth (ft) 2.5 1.83 1.56

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 6.4 3.31 2.59 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 187.5 125.2 101.2

Slope (%) -1.0 1.0 1.0

Sinuosity Ratio 1.1 1.1 1.1 Cover Area (ft2) — 35,940 32,355

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) — 0 0

Cover Rating — 0.26 0.25

Cl) SRI/CSE Score 57 57 57

C2} HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 19.0 — in H HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — • —

Cl) Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C23 Habitat Quality Index € <

Table 36. Physical habitat characteristics for study site EG-5, Eureka Gulch (South Fork of the Animas).

Sampling Date

Attribute July Auqust October

Discharge (ft^/sec) 83 20 11 Reach Length (ft) 200 200 200 Mean Width (ft) 25.5 19.3 18.4 2 Surface Area (ft ) 5100 3860 3680

Mean Depth (ft) 0.84 0.55 0.44

Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 4.08 2.06 1.51 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 21.2 10.3 7.5 Slope (%) 2.7 2.6 2.6

Sinuosity Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Cover Area (ft ) 1948 590 400

Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 122.5 23.5 3.5

Cover Rating 0.52 0.14 0.05

Cl) SRI/CSE Score 80.5 80.5 80.5

€2} HQI-Model I (lbs/acre) — 51.2 —

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 10.1 —

(1) Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C21 Habitat Quality Index Sampling Date

Attribute July August October

Discharge (ft^/sec) 104 43 30

Reach Length (ft) 255 255 255

Mean Width (ft) 30.2 26.7 25.8 2 Surface Area (ft ) 7701 6808 6579

Mean Depth (ft) 1.01 0.72 0.64 Mean Velocity (ft/sec) 3.26 2.35 1.95 2 Mean Cross-Section Area (ft ) 29.3 18.7 15.9

Slope (%) 1.5 1.4 1.5

Sinuosity Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Cover Area (ft ) 3820 2111 1820 Length, Overhead Cover (ft) 0 0 0

Cover Rating 0.19 0.12 0.10 Cl) SRI/CSE Score 104 104 104

C23 HQI-Model I- (lbs/acre) — 19.0 19.0

HQI-Model II (lbs/acre) — 5.6 —

Cl) Stream Reach Inventory/Channel Stability Evaluation C23 Habitat Quality Index Ratings by Study Site a

Attribute AR-1 EC-5 CC-5 AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR -6 AR-7

-upper Banks- • Landform slope G F E G/F G/F F E/G G E/G Mass wasting hazard G F F G/F G/F F E/GG G Debris jam potential E G G/F E E E EG E Vegetation bank P G F F G/F F/P F/P F/PF protection

-Lower Banks- Channel capacity EG P G G G F F G Bank rock content E/G G G/F G E/G G FFE/G Obstructions EG F E E G G EE/G Cutting E E P G E/G E/G G/F G/FE Deposition E/G F F E/G E E G/FE/G E -Channel Bottom- Angularity E/G E/G G E/GG G G GG Brightness GG F G G G G E/GG C plidation G G G/F E/G E/G E/G E/GE E/G S. ; distribution E E/G G/F EE E E/G EE Scouring deposition E G G E E E G E/G E Aquatic vegetation P P P P F F P PP

Overall rating G F F G G G FG G

E=excellent G«good F*fair P*poor 1 Ratings by Study Site a Attribute AR-1 EC-5 CC-5 AR-2 AR-3 AR-4 AR-5 AR -6 AR-

Late summer flow 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Annual flow variation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Maximum temperature 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Nitrate nitrogen 2 1 1 2 2 4 1 2 2 Fish food abundance 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 ]*ish food diversity 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 Eroding banks 4 4 0 3 3 4 1 2 4 Substrate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. J e r Velocity 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Stream Width 4 4 ~ 3 3 3 2 2 1 2

T a 0 * worst, 4 * best habitat rating evaluation. The results of the WUA analysis at AR-2 are

presented in Table 40. f ■

BIOLOGY

Fish

Very few fish were collected during this study (Table 41).

During each sampling trip, fish were only found to be present at

sites AR-3 (Howardsville) and AR-7 (Elk Park; no fish sampling',

was conducted at AR-7 during July because of high stream flows).

The presence of fish at both stations was probably a result of

inflows of relatively uncontaminated tributaries that contained

populations of trout: Cunningham Creek immediately above site

AR-3 and Molas Creek at site AR-7. These tributarties probably

create refuges in the Animas River by diluting the toxic metals

present in the river. In addition, they provide sources of fish

that can migrate into the river. At site AR-3, a total of four

brook trout were collected. These fish ranged from 171 to 216 mm

in total length and were in "good** condition. They were probably

migrants from Cunningham Creek. At site AR-7 two brook trout and

one rainbow trout were collected. The brook trout ranged were 203

and 213 mm in length, while the rainbow trout was 267 mm long.

All of these fish were collected on the west side of the river . within the plume of Molas Creek. These fish were probably migrants from Molas Creek, since brook trout were observed in the creek, and since Molas Lake, the source of Molas Creek,, contains . rainbow trout.

The absence of young-of-the-year, fish among collections r

Table 40. I.P.G. weighted usable area of habitat at study site AR-2 by life stage and species.

Weighted Usable Area (sg. ft. per 1000 linear ft. of stream)

Spawning/ Total Surface Discharge Egg Area per 1000 (cfs) Incubation Fry Juvenile Adult ft of stream RAINBOW TROUT

195 3945 264 308 2309 30,670 65 14128 1294 1071 6394 27,594 38 14225 1575 1452 9146 25,898 BROOK TROUT

195 0 594 30,670 65 13 2523 27,594 38 94 2862 25,898 f

Sampling Period Station Species Length(mm) WT(gm)

1 AR-3 brook trout 171 48

• 2 AR-3 brook trout 215 116 brook trout 216 128 — 4 others seen but not captured—

AR-7 brook trout 213

AR-3 brook trout

AR-7 brook trout 203 rainbow trout 267

Sampling periods: ) 1 — 9 July - 14 July, 1984 2 — 26 August - 29 August, 1984 3 — 7 October - 10 October, 1984

Species names follow Robbins et al. (1980) from the Animas River indicates a lack of successful reproduction by fish resident in the river.

Macroinvertebrates

Results of the macroinvertebrate surveys are presented in

Tables 42 to 44, These results demonstrate that the benthic fauna of the upper Animas River, Eureka Gulch and Cement Creek is quite

limited and under severe environmental stress. This stress is best indicated by the extremely low numbers of benthic invertebrates found at all sites. In contrast, several of the sites had moderately high species richness, that is, numbers of invertebrate taxa.

For the Animas River sites, the mean number of taxa collected ranged from 9 at AR-3 to 4 at AR-4, with an overall average of 6.4 taxa per site. Densities of organisms ranged from

5.7 per square meter at AR-5 to 75,0 per square meter at AR-3.

The average for all Animas River sites was 38.0 per square meter.

Cement Creek (CC-5) had the lowest numbers of taxa (2) and numbers of organisms (3.7 per square meter) of all sites, while

Eureka Creek (EG-5) had intermediate numbers of taxa and organisms (6.3 taxa and 52 organisms per square meter).

Some downstream trends in the bentic invertebrate community were apparent. The upper most Animas River sites, AR-1 and AR-2, had few benthic invertebrates. Both numbers of taxa and densities increased at AR-3 and AR-4. Then, at site AR-5, immediately below, the confluence of Cement Creek, both the number of taxa and density of organisms dropped off sharply. Some recovery was j Table 42. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling from 9 July to 14 July, 1984 in numbers per square meter and percent composition.

Study Site

EG-5 CC-5 AR-1 AR-2 AR-3 Ephemeroptera Rithrogena 3(27%) 3(21%) 2 (8%) 10(13%) Baetis 4(37%) 1(4%) 28(38%) Paraleptophlebia 2(18%) 3(21%) 1(4%) Epeorus 3(4%) Ephemerella

Plecoptera Sweltsa 5(7%) Megarcys 1(1.5% Xsoperla Unidentified

Trichoptera Rhyacophila 2(3%) Limnephilidae (A) 15(20%) Unidentified 1(7%) 1(1.5%

ptera Chironomidae 2(18%) 1(33%) 4(29%) 21(80%) 6 (8%) Simulidae 1(7%) Tipulidae 1(4%)

Miscellaneous Oligochaeta 2(67%) 2(14%) 3(4%) H irudinea

Total # of organisms 11 3 14 26 74

Total # of taxa 4 2 6 5 10 c o

i"-" Study Site

AR-4______AR-5______AR -6______AR-7

Ephemeroptera Ri'throgena 17(30%) Baetis 32(57%) 1(25%) 2(18%) 9(45%) Paraleptophlebia Epeorus 1(2%) 1(9%) 2(10%) Ephemerella 1(25%)

Plecoptera Sweltsa 1(2%) Megarcys Isoperla 1(9%) 1(5%) Unidentified

Trichoptera Rhyacophila 1(9%) 2(10%) -imnephilidae (A) 2(4%) 1(25%) 2(18%) 2(10%)

Diptera Chironomidae 2(4%) 1(9%) ?!!??* Simulidae 1(2%) 1(5%) Tipulidae

Miscellaneous Oligochaeta 1(5%) Hirudinea 3(27%)

Total # of organisms 56 4 11 20

Total # of taxa 7 4 7 8 Study Site

EG-5 CC-5 AR-1 AR-2 AR-3

Ephemeroptera Rithrogena 20(23%) 10(24%) 30(32%) Baetis 17(20%) 1(4.5%) 23(56%) 7(10%)' Epeorus 6 ( 7%) 3(14%) 1 1 (12%) Ephemerella 2 (2%) Ameletus 1(4.5%) 1 (1 %)

Plecoptera Sweltsa 3(4%) 1(4.5%) Megarcys 3(4%) 2 (2 %) Zapada 3(4%) 5(53%) 8(36%) 4(10%) 3(3%) Alloperla Unidentified 2 (2%) 3(14%) Trichoptera Rhyacophila 2 (2 %) 3(3%) Arctopsyche Hydropsychidae imnephilidae (A) 1(4.5%)

Diptera Chironomidae 5(6%) 2(9%) 3(7%) 16(17%) /1 Simulidae ' Tipulidae 1(3%) 3(3%) Psychodidae 1(4.5%) Unidentified

Miscellaneous ;- Oligochaeta 1(17%) Hirudinea 24 (28%) 13 (14%) Coleoptera (adult)

Total # of organisms 85 22 41 93

Total # of taxa 10 10 5 11 c¿ s

Study Site

AR-4 AR-5 AR -6 AR-7 Ephemeroptera Rithrogena 5(7%) 1(3%) Baetis 27(33% 1(4%) 6(17%) Epeorus 29(36%) 1 (8 %) 1(4%) 3(8%) Ephemerella 1(3%) Ameletus

glecoptera < Sweltsa 1 (1 %) , Megarcys 1 (1 %) Zapada 9 (11%) 3 (25%) 17(62%) 15(43%) Alloperla 3(25%) Unidentified

ITrlchoptera Rhyacophxla 1(3%) Arctopsyche 5(14% Ydropsychidae 1(4%) -¿iimnephilidae (A) 1 (8 %) Diptera Chironomidae * J 5(7%) 1(17%) 5(18%) 2 (6 % Simulidae 1 (1 %) 1 (8 %) 1(4%) Tipulidae Psychodidae Unidentified 1(4%)

Miscellaneous Oligochaeta 1 (1 %) 1 (8 %) Hirudinea 2 (2 %) Coleoptera (adult)

Total # of organisms 81 12 27 35

Total # of taxa 10 7 7 8 i r . '¿y

Study Site

EG-5 CC-5 AR-1 AR-2 AR-3

Ephemeroptera Rithrogena 34(57%) 1(33%) 19(33%) Epeorus Ephemerella 1 (2 %)

Plecoptera Sweltsa Megarcys 5(8%) 1 (2 %) 34(58% 2apada 17(28%) 1(50%) 2(67%) 1(33%) Trichoptera Rhyacophxla 1(33%) Arctopsyche 1 (2%) Hydropsychidae 1 (2 %)

Diptera Chironomidae 1(33%) 2(3%) iL allaneous Oligochaeta 1(50%) Hirudinea 3(5%) Coleoptera (adult)

Total # of organisms 60 58

Total # of taxa 5 6 Table 44 (cont'd). Results of macroinvertebrate sampling from 7 October to 10 Table 44 icont a». 1984 in numbers per sqUare meter and percent composition.

Study Site

AR-4 AR-5 ’______AR -6 AR-7

Ephemeroptera 3(4% Rithrogena- 23(27%) Epeorus 7(8%) Ephemere11a pjecoptera Sweltsa 2 (2 %) 3(4%) 2(3%) 1 (1 %) Megarcys 32(52%) 27(38% Zapada 47(55%) 1 (100%)

Trichoptera Rhyacophila 9 (15%) 12(17%) Arctopsyche 16(26%) 28 (39%) Hydropsychidae 3(4%)

Diptera Chironomidae 1 (2%)

I iellaneous uligochaeta Hirudinea 1 (2%)

61 71 Total # of organisms 85 6 5 Total # of taxa 6 r,. evident at site AR-6 below the confluence of Mineral Creek; however, even at site AR-7, about seven miles below AR- 6, the density of organisms was still very low, 42 per square meter.

The dominant taxa encountered tended to vary by site, sampling date, and station. Within the Animas River, mayflies and stoneflies were generally most abundant; however, caddisflies were also occasionally relatively abundant, especially at sites

AR -6 and AR-7. PRESENT USES OF THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER The Animas River above Elk Park, Eureka Gulch and Cement

Creek are currently unclassified by the CDOH. However, the CDOH has proposed that the Animas River be classified for aquatic life, water supply, and agricultural use. At present, actual uses of the Animas River above Elk Park are limited to livestock watering, some wading and some very

limited fishing. The river has been characterized as having only

poor fishery value by the CDOW. Except for a few very limited

sections below inflows of uncontaminated tributaries, wild trout

are not present in this section of the river. Therefore, any use

of the river for a fishery must be maintained by stocking. Given

the present water quality of the river, even fish that are

stocked into the river would not survive for very long. CDOW

stocking records show that the river above Elk Park has not been

stocked with trout since 1976. Our 1984 electro-fishing surveys

found only six brook trout and one rainbow trout in the river.

Brook trout were only collected at sites AR-3 (Howardsville) and

AR-7 (Elk Park), while the rainbow trout was collected at AR-7.

These fish were probably migrants from tributaries which enter

the river immediately above these sites. r

POTENTIALLY ATTAINABLE USES OF THE UPPER ANIMAS RIVER

Although the stream segments that are the focus of this study currenty have no designated uses, they have several potentially attainable uses. These include a cold-water fishery, water supply, and agriculture. The following discussion evaluates the data supporting and not supporting these potential uses. The evaluation will focus on the potential for developing a cold-water fishery in the upper Animas River, since this type of use generally requires the highest quality water and habitat.

Water Quality

Ambient water quality is the major factor presently limiting fish populations in the upper Animas River. Water quality

standards for Class 1 Waters, Cold Water Aquatic Biota are exceeded for cadmium, copper and zinc at all seven sites

evaluated. Additional standards that are exceeded at two ormore

sites include pH, ammonia, iron, lead and manganese. Of these

parameters, cadmium, copper, lead and zinc are probably exerting

the largest negative impact on the aquatic biota of the Animas

River proper. Tables 45 and 46, respectively, present data on

concentrations of these metals demonstrated to be acutely and

chronically toxic to brook and rainbow trout in waters with

alkalinity and hardness levels similar to those present in the

upper Animas River. Chronically toxic concentrations .are those that require long-term exposure (i.e., >30 days) to cause

mortality, while acutely toxic concentrations are those that only G

1. ie 45. Selected brook trout and rainbow trout acutely toxic values (96-h LCcns, mg/1, total recoverable metal) for cadmium, copper, lead, .and zinc (Source: U.S. EPA 1980a, 1980b. 1980c, and 1980d).

Brook Trout Rainbow Trout

Hardness 96-h LC 50 Hardness 96-h LC 50

Cadmium 44 0.0024 23-31 0.001-0.007 50 0.009 100 0.015 200 0.024

Copper 45 0.100 50 0.007 100 0.018 200 0.033

Lead 44 4.1 28 1.17

Zinc 44-47 1.55-2.42 44-47 0.370-0.756 170-179 4.98-6.98 170-179 1.191-2.96

l le 46. Selected brook trout and rainbow trout chronic toxicity values (mg/1# total recoverable metal) for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc (Source: U.S. EPA 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, and 1980d).

Brook Trout Rainbow Trout

Hardness Chronic Hardness Chronic (as CaCOj) Value (as C a C O 3 ) V a l u e 3

Cadmium 36-44 0.0017-0.0024 no data

187 0.0092

Copper 37.5 0.0039 45.4 0.0019 45 0.0129-0.0311

187 0.0063

Lead 44 0.083 28 0.519 35 0.102 . 0 Zinc 45 0,852 26-30 0.277

a The chronic value is the geometric mean of the lower and upper chronic limits from a chronic test (U.S. EPA 1981).

/) G

require a short-term exposure (i.e., <10 days) to cause mortality. Therefore, acutely toxic concentrations are higher

(generally from 2-100 times) than chronically toxic concentrations. The acute and chronic toxicity data are presented as the concentration of total recoverable metal. In contrast, the

1984 water quality data for the upper Animas River are presented as concentrations of total metal. Thus the two sets of values are not strictly comparable. Analyses for total recoverable metal

tend to produce lower values than analyses for total metal.

However, comparing the acute and chronic toxicity values (Tables

45 and 46) to the 1984 water quality data for the upper Animas

River at least provides a rough idea of whether potentially toxic conditions exist.

This comparison indicates that cadmium, copper, lead and

zinc are present at concentrations that could be chronically

toxic to rainbow trout. Cadmium, copper, and zinc are also present at concentrations that could be chronically toxic to brook trout. Metals present at potentially acutely toxic concentrations for rainbow trout included cadmium, copper and

zinc. For less sensitive brook trout, only cadmium was present at potentially acutely toxic concentrations.

The above comparison assumes that each of these toxic chemicals acts independently of all other toxic chemicals.

However, there is considerable evidence that combinations of

toxic chemicals may act additively or synergistically in their combined toxic effects (Brown 1968) ■ Copper and zinc are a classical example of potentially synergistic toxic effects. €

Sprague and Ramsay (1965) demonstrated that the combined

toxicities of copper and zinc to fish were greater than the

effects of the same concentrations of each metal alone. Given the

high concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in the

upper Animas River, it is highly probable that their combined

toxic effects to the biota of the river may be additive or synergistic.

In Cement Creek, concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead and

zinc approached or exceeded acutely and chronically toxic

concentrations for both brook and rainbow trout. In addition pH

levels would also be chronically and acutely toxic to both species.

The EPA and CDOH water quality standards are generally set at lower concentrations than the chronically safe concentrations for brook and rainbow trout. This is done because the water quality standards are designed to protect species that are more sensitive to toxic chemicals than brook trout and rainbow trout.

Physical Habitat

Hydraulic Components

As presented in Table 28, the flow regime for the Animas

River study area appears typical for mountain watersheds in the

Rocky Mountain region. Water yield from the watershed above the

Howardsville gaging Station is quite high, averaging approximately 2.1 acre-feet per acre of contributing area. The majority of the runoff emanates from melting of winter snowpack.

Spring runoff typically begins in late April and May, with peak d ischarge reached in June. The receding limb of the hydrograph

extends through July and August into the fall season, with precipitation from rainfall and early snow events supplementing

streamflows. With the onset of ice cover, winter baseflow conditions typically extend from November through March.

The critical streamflow period for riverine trout fisheries

is often considered to be the August through mid-September period

(Binns 1982). Analysis of critical period flows (CPF) using the

HQI evaluation procedure (Tables 5 and 39) and the discharge

record from the Howardsville gage station, indicates that CPF is

approximately 70% of the average discharge, and thus not a factor

limiting the Animas River fishery. However, annual stream flow

variation (ASFV), defined as the ratio of annual peak flow to

annual low flow, scored in the mid-90s range, a moderate rating

by the HQI standard. While such a rating could indicate fishery

limitations due to the effects of high flows on channel stability

and/or the effects of low flow on winter habitat conditions, it

is important to note that many high quality mountain trout

streams in Wyoming exhibit similar or higher ASFV ratios.

Several examples include the Encampment River with a ratio of 80,

the Laramie River at 64, Douglas Creek at 267, and Nash Fork

Creek at 476. Discharge, width, depth, velocity, cross-sectional area,

slope, and sinuosity information have been presented for each

study site in Tables 29 to 37. These data, when considered

alone, primarily describe the physical habitat. The importance

of these data lies in their contribution to such habitat evaluation methods as the SRI/CSE, WCR, HQI, and WUA procedures.

Thus, discussion of the individual hydraulic components will be

included below as they relate to the overall evaluation of the

habitat.

SRI/CSE Channel stability throughout the study area rated in the

"good" to "fair" categories. The most stable reaches were found

at sites AR-7, AR-3, AR-1, and AR-2, while CC-5 and AR-5 proved

to be the most unstable. The two attributes that most consistently scored in the

"poor" category were aquatic vegetation on the channel bottom and

the vegetation cover of the upper banks (Table 38)• The absence

of aquatic vegetation was probably not due to an unstable

substrate, since all other channel bottom attributes consistently

scored in the "excellent" and "good" categories. Rather, it

appears to be an effect of water quality on primary productivity.

The relatively low percentage of vegetative cover on the upper

bank is attributed chiefly to man's influence on these areas by

mining and road/railroad construction, among other activities.

Typically, lower bank attributes rated in the "excellent"

and "good" categories, with the exception of Cement Creek near

its confluence with the Animas River, and sites AR-5 and AR -6 below this confluence. At these sites channel capacity was

reduced? overbank flow was not uncommon? and raw, eroding banks were more prevalent. Such characteristics can be attributed

primarily to the location of these sites within the watershed. Both above and below, the river flows in relatively narrow, straight, high gradient, geologically-controlled canyons. In the vicinity of these sites, the valley bottom widens, slope lessens, and geologic-control diminishes, thereby resulting in an alluvial valley floor prone to braiding.

Results of a study at 17 sites on two Wyoming streams having stability ratings in the "good", "fair", and "poor" categories indicate a statistically significant relationship exists between

SRI/CSE scores and trout standing crops (Eifert and Wesche 1982).

As stability increased, that is SRI/CSE scores decreased, the habitat was found to be capable of supporting larger trout populations. While this study was quite limited in scope, in terms of stream size, number, and location, the predominant species was brook trout, as was found in the Animas River study area. Comparing stability scores measured in the Animas River study area with the regression model developed by Eifert and

Wesche (1982) we can conclude that based on channel stability alone, the Animas River sites should be capable of supporting approximatly 1200 to 2400 trout per stream mile. Thus, it appears that channel stability is not the factor most limiting to the Animas River fishery.

WCR Evaluation

The evaluation of trout cover at each study site using the

WCR method focused on quantitifying the amount of instream rubble/boulder area in association with water depths of at least

0.5 ft (pocket pools) and the length of overhead bank cover r r X ■■■

(willow, undercut banks, logs, snags) at least 0.3 ft in width having a minimum water depth of 0.5 ft. These criteria, and the cover rating equation developed from them, were derived by Wesche

(1980) based upon the cover requirements of 2300 fish, 62% of which were brown trout, 26% brook trout, and 13% rainbow and cutthroat trout. The method has been applied to a variety of streams in the Rocky Mountain region ranging from small mountain tributaries to larger rivers in the foothills and plains.

The primary cover type throughout the study area was pocket pools formed behind the predominant substrate types present, rubble (3-12 inch diameter) and boulders (>12 inch). These two particle sizes accounted for 39% of the substrate at EG-5 up to

70% at AR-3 and AR-7. Overhead bank cover provided little rearing habitat throughout the study area, with seven of the nine sites having none available at the October low flow sampling.

Cover ratings during low flow at the study sites ranged from a high of 0.25 at AR-7 down to 0.10 at CC-5 and 0.05 at EG-5.

The average of the nine sites was 0.14. Applying the regression models developed by Eifert and Wesche (1982) relating „cover rating to brook trout standing crop, the cover available at the study sites would be capable of supporting from approximately 100 to 180 pounds of trout per stream mile, or approximately 1000 to 1700 trout per mile. While cover in the Animas River study reach

is not particularly abundant when compared to such high quality

streams as the Little Laramie River (WCR = 0.61) and Hog Park

Creek (WCR = 0.53) in southeast Wyoming, we can conclude that

cover is sufficient to support a low to moderate trout fishery. HQI Evaluation Of the models currently available to assess the relationship between physical habitat and potential trout carrying capacity, the HQI procedure is the most broad-based, relying on the analysis of up to eleven habitat-oriented attributes (Table 5).

For this reason, the HQI models were run at each of the nine study sites, not only to estimate standing crop, but also to identify critical factors limiting the fishery potential of the study area. HQI predictions of trout standing crop for the Animas River study sites were relatively low. Applying Model I, estimates ranged from 8.5 lbs/acre at AR—1 up to 51.2 lbs/acre at EC-5, with all other sites „at 19.0. The overall mean was 21.4

lbs/acre. Model II predictions, recommended for use by Binns

(1982), were lower than those from Model I, ranging from a high

of 11.8 at AR-3 to a low of 5.6 lbs/acre at CC-5. The mean for

all nine sites was 9.5 lbs/acre. The following standing crop

estimates provided by Wesche (1980) for high quality trout streams of similar size in southeast Wyoming allows comparison

with the study site estimates: Encampment River - 75 lbs/acre

Little Laramie River - 188 lbs/acre

Laramie River - 117 lbs/acre

Douglas Creek - 189 lbs/acre Inspection of Table 39 points out the habitat deficiencies

at the Animas River sites resulting in such low HQI predictions. r r

While the ratings for the hydrologic (late summer flow, annual flow variation), physical (maximum temperature, cover, eroding banks, and width) and chemical attributes (nitrate nitrogen) generally were in the "fair" to "good” categories, certain attributes used to assess the food potential of the habitat (fish food abundance, fish food diversity, substrate, and water velocity) often rated as "poor". Benthic invertebrate samples collected by WAI during the course of this study for use with

Model I showed low densities and numbers of taxa to be present.

The substrate attribute, used in Model II calculations, rated a

"0" score or "poor" at all study sites over all sampling times, indicating a complete absence of aquatic vegetation throughout the system. As turbidity and channel bottom stability did not appear to contribute to the lack of vegetation, water quality conditions would be the most likely explanation. It should be pointed out that the size distribution of the substrate at all nine study sites as well as the mean water depth at low flow were conducive to good benthic production. Kimble and Wesche (1975)

found the greatest numbers and biomass of organisms to be associated with a rubble substrate and water depths less than 1-0 ft. Water velocities, measured by the dye dilution technique

recommended by Binns (1982), were found to be quite high overall, especially in the Animas River sites below AR-2 when

time-of-travel velocities exceeded 4.0 ft/sec. While 1984 summer

and fall streamflows were higher than normal due to a large snowmelt runoff followed by wet weather, these excessive

velocities were of little consequence in the final HQI computations. For Model II calculations, the Food Index is the product of the ratings for temperature, nitrate nitrogen, substrate and velocity. As substrate ratings for all sites were

"0” and subsequenly all Food Index scores were "0", the variation in velocity between sites had no effect on HQI predictions.

Thus, even if 1984 had been a low water year, with reduced streamflow and therefore reduced water velocities during the late

August sampling period, the food production potential though the study area would still have been limited by the lack of primary production.

WOA Evaluation

While budgeting and time limitations did not allow WUA analysis at all nine of the study sites, it is felt that the rather close similarity between the physical habitats throughout the study area allows extrapolation of results from AR-2 to other sites. Inspection of the data presented in Table 40 indicates several aspects of the Animas River habitat which could be limiting trout production.

Spawning habitat for rainbow trout, a spring spawning species, appears to be adequate, assuming that spawning would occur either prior to or after the peak runoff. Based upon the trend shown by the WUA data, little spawning habitat would exist during the peak runoff period due to excessive water velocities.

The most limiting aspect of the physical habitat.for rainbow appears to be the availability of nursery and rearing areas for fry and juveniles. During the early summer, less than 1% of the surface area at AR-2 was available as habitat for these young life stages, increasing to only 6% at lower flow levels. Adult habitat is also low (7.5% of total surface area) at higher, flows, increasing to 35% at low flow, as velocities decreased.

Habitat for fall brook trout spawing is virtually non-existent, limited by a shortage of finer gravels as well as by excessive water velocities. Adult habitat availability is also quite low (11%), greatly reduced from that available for rainbow trout at low flow.

In summary, the following conclusions were reached concerning physical factors that could potentially limit the use of the upper Animas River for a cold-water fishery:

1. Prom an overall habitat perspective, the most critical

factor limiting the trout population of the Animas River

is the virtual lack of primary productivity on the

channel bottom. Analysis of study results indicate this

lack of production is not a result of physical factors,

but rather water quality.

2. From primarily a physical habitat standpoint, trout

fishery potential is greatest at sites AR-3, AR-4, AR-7,

and EG-5, and least at CC-5 and AR-5.

3. Analysis of SRI/CSE and WCR data indicates that the

physical habitat available through the study area is

generally capable of supporting low to moderate trout

population levels ranging from 1000 to 2400 fish per mile. Channel stability and available cover are not

critical limiting factors for the Animas River fishery. 4. Predictions of trout standing crops using the HQI

indicate the Animas River habitats are capable of

supporting relatively low population levels. Model I

predictions averaged 21.4 lbs/acre, while the mean for

Model II was 9.5 lbs/acre.

5. WUA results indicate that the physical spawning habitat

potential for brook trout is very limited, while the

availability of nursery and rearing habitats for rainbow

trout is also low.

Biological Characteristics

The presently limited fish and benthic invertebrate communities of the upper Animas River are a direct result of the presently poor water quality of the river. For example, the benthic invertebrate community of the river would only be capable of supporting a very limited trout population? however, if the water quality of the river was significantly improved the river would develop a much more productive and diverse benthic invertebrate community that would be capable of supporting at least a moderate trout population. The relatively poor condition of the benthic community of the upper Animas River can be illustrated by comparing these results to those of Pennak (1977). Pennak summarized data on the benthic macroinvertebrates of 19 Rocky Mountain streams. The average number of taxa collected per visit to these streams

ranged from 6.2- 10.8 with a grand average of 8.6 taxa per stream. The average density of organisms ranged from 168-1653 per square meter with a grand average of 722 per square meter. In comparison, the number of taxa found during our 1984 surveys at all of the upper Animas River basin sites, except CC-5, AR.-2 and

AR-5, falls within the range reported by Pennak (1977). These other three stations had lower numbers of taxa. However, the density of organisms found at all the upper Animas River basin sites falls far below the range reported by Pennak (1977). Thus, the upper Animas River is currently unable to support the densities of benthic organisms typical of the Rocky Mountain region.

CAUSES OF IMPAIRED USES Our analysis demonstrates that the use of the upper Animas

River for a self-sustaining cold-water fishery is .presently precluded by the high ambient levels of toxic metals in the river. Establishment of such a fishery in the river would require

that ambient concentrations of these metals be reduced below

levels chronically toxic to trout. In addition it would require

that, the potential for short-term acutely toxic pulses of metals

be eliminated. Such pulses may occur during snowmelt or following

large rainstorms when large amounts of toxic metals may be washed

into the river. As previously discussed, the primary sources of

these metals are drainages from the numerous abandoned mine

portals throughout the entire upper Animas River watershed, and

mine tailings that have been discharged or washed .into the streams. Both 1984 and historical water quality data for the

upper Animas River show that high levels of metals are present

♦ ile 47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for selected metals (Source: U.S. EPA 1980a, 1980b, 1980c, 1980d).

Water Quality Criteria, Total Recoverable Metal (mg/1). 24-h Average Maximum Allowable Hardness Hardness

Parameter 50 100 200 50 100 200

Arsenic n.a.a n.a. n.a. 440 .440 .440 .0063 ' Cadmium .000012 .000025 .000051 0015 .0030 Copper .0056 .0056 .0056 012 .022 .043 .400 Lead .00075 .0038 .020 074 .170 Selenium .035 .035 .035 260 .260 .260 .0130 Silver n.a. n.a. n.a. 0012 .0041 . - Zinc .047 .047 .047 180 .320 .570

not available possibly more acheivable water quality may be capable of supporting a lower quality fishery that would not be dependent on natural reproduction, but that could be maintained by stocking.

To establish such a fishery would require that metal concentrations in the river be reduced to levels that would permit the survival of stocked trout. However, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to a priori predict from existing toxicity data such concentrations for a complex mixture of metals such as is present in the upper Animas River. The best method for accurately determining concentrations of these metals that would be non-toxic to stocked trout would be to conduct on-site bioassays with trout using ambient Animas River water. r C )

LITERATURE CITED

Binns, N.A. 1982. A habitat quality index for Wyoming trout streams. Fishery Research Report No. 2. Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 75 p.

Bovee, K. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12. FWS/OBS-82/26. 248 p.

Bovee, K/and R. Milhous. 1978. Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies: Theory and technique. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 5. FWS/035-78/33. 131 p.

Brown, V.M. 1968. The calculation of the acute toxicity of mixtures of poisons to rainbow trout. Water Res., 2:723-733.

Buchanan, T.J. and W.P. Somers. 1969. Discharge measurements at gaging stations. Book 3,. Chapter A 8 of Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 65 p.

Colorado Department of Health (CDOH). 1983 {as amended). Classification and numeric standards for San Juan River and Dolores River Basins. 3.4,0. Water Quality Control Commission. Denver, Colorado. 21 p.

Colorado Department of Health (CDOH). 1983 (as amended). Basic standards and methodologies. Water Quality Control Commission. Denver, Colorado. 44 p.

Cooper, J.L. 1976. U.S. Forest Service stream procedure — Northern Region. In: J.F. Osborn and C.H. Allman, eds., Proc. Symp. and Spec. Conf. on Instream Flow Needs, Vol. II. Amer. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, Maryland. 300-313.

Eifert, W. and T. Wesche. 1982. Evaluation of the Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Index for stream habitat analysis. Water Resources Series Pub. No. 82, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 106 p.

Kimble, L.A.,and T.A. Wesche. 1975. Relationships between selected physical parameters and benthic community structure in a small mountain stream. Water Resources Series Pub. No. 55. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Milhous, R., D. Wegner and T. Waddle. 1981. User's guide to the Physical Habitat Simulation System. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 11. FWS/OBS/-81/43. 254 p. ;^Nehring, R.B. and J.P. Goettl, Jr. 1974. Acute toxicity of 1 a zinc-polluted stream to four species of salmonids. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12(4):464-469.

Pennak, R.W. 1977. Trophic variables in Rocky Mountain trout streams. Arch. Hydrobiol. 86(3):253-285.

Pfankuch, D.J. 1975. Stream reach inventory and channel stability evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 26 p.

Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R. Brooker, E.A. ! Lachner, R.N. Lea and W.B* Scott. 1980. A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pub. No. 12. 174 p.

Sprague, J.B. and B.A Ramsay. 1965. Lethal levels of mixed copper-zinc solutions for juvenile salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 22(2):425-432.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria for cadmium. EPA 440/5-80-025. Washington, DC.

______. 1980b. Ambient water quality criteria for copper. EPA 440/5-80-036. Washington, DC. \ / ' ______. 1980c. Ambient water quality criteria for lead. EPA 440/5-80-057. Washington, DC.

______. 1980d. Ambient water quality criteria for zinc. EPA 440/5-80-079. Washington, DC.

______. 1981. Derivation of site-specific water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life and its uses. Environmental Research Laboratories. Duluth, Minnesota.

______. 1983. Water quality standards handbook. Washington, DC.

Wesche, T.A. 1980. The WRRI trout cover rating method. Water Resources Series Pub. No.' 78. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. 46 p.

Woodling, J.D. 1977. Investigations of point sources of acid metals mine drainage locations and water quality effects in the upper Animas River basin. Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Health. Denver, Colorado. 20 p. QUALIFICATION STATEMENT

May, 1984

Benjamin R. Parkhurst General Manager

Michael D. Marcus President

Western Aquatics, Inc. 203 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 546 Laramie, Wyoming 82070 Telephone (307) 742-7624 Overview......

Synopsis of Available Services......

Corporate Experience...... §

Technical Reports...... 11

Corporate References* ...... * ...... 14

Key Personnel...... ^ WESTERN AQUATICS, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

OVERVIEW

Western Aquatics, Inc. (WAI) provides scientific expertise on water quality, fishery biology, aquatic ecology, an'd aquatic toxicology.

Emphasizing the solving of environmental problems associated with energy, mining, and water developments, WAI assists clients In complying with both federal and state environmental laws and regulations. Among projects completed by WAI for clients In the United States and Canada are assessments of potential impacts on fish and aquatic ecosystems from acidic depositions

(acid rain), evaluations of potentially toxic wastewaters, surveys of fish and aquatic invertebrates, acquisition of NPDES discharge -permits, and analyses of aquatic impacts by power plants.

The comprehensive environmental services offered by WAI include:

Environmental Assessments

Aquatic Toxicity Testing

Toxic Substance Risk Evaluations

Environmental Impact Statements and Governmental Permit Applications

Environmental Inventories, Reviews, and Monitoring

Chemical and Biological Sample Analysis

Fisheries Management and Habitat Improvement

Aquaculture Feasibility Studies

Literature Reviews and Information Retrieval

Expert Testimony SYNOPSIS OF AVAILABLE SERVICES

Environmental Assessments

WAI provides comprehensive assessments of Impacts to aquatic environments

caused by such factors as acidic depositions, toxic chemicals, effluents,

mining, power plant operation, synthetic fuel facilities, and reservoir

developments. Necessary Information Is obtained through field studies and/or

Intensive computerized data and literature searches. Then, Impacts to water quality, habitat, and biota are Identified, 'quantified, and evaluated.

Alternatives are considered and potential mitigation measures and any necessary research recommendations are presented.

Aquatic Toxicity Testing

WAI provides comprehensive aquatic toxicology programs to assist clients

In complying with federal and state regulatory requirements for toxic effluents and chemicals. Test species for toxicity testing can Include trout, fathead minnows, waterfleas (DaphnI a magna or Cerlodaphnla). and other species. As appropriate for each potential contaminant, static or flow­ through acute bloassays (24- to 96- hour) and chronic embryo-larva I or life­ cycle bioassays can be conducted. These toxicity tests are performed by WAI on site or In a laboratory, according to the problem requirements. Adherence to quality assurance protocols and Good Laboratory Practices Is Integral to these programs. Based on test results and extensive IIterature reviews, potential environmental hazards are analyzed.

Toxic Substance Risk Evaluations

To meet requirements of the Clean Water Act, TSCA, RCRA, and related state and federal regulations, the potential environmental risks of chemicals and wastes are assessed through a tiered testing and evaluation process, which include chemical characterizations and toxicity, degradation, and

| , bloaccumulatlon tests. Early tiers Include literature reviews and simple fate

and effects tests. Evaluations proceed through more complex tests, If

j warranted by preliminary results. The final evaluation defines potential

^ toxicity, persistence, and bloaccumulatlon of the chemical or waste In aqautlc

ecosystems.

P Environmental Impact Statements and Governmental Permit A p p I Icatlons

] ■ Based on environmental data and on the scope, extent, and duration of the

proposed project, analyses and assessments of potential environmental Impacts

[j are provided to meet requirements of the Clean Water Act, NEPA, TSCA, RCRA, n the Wyoming Environmental Quality and Industrial Siting Acts, the Colorado L ; Joint Review Process, and other applicable laws and regulations. IV1 i.%i > P Environmental Inventories. Analyses, and Monitoring

■Sj Comprehensive surveys of hydrological, chemical, and biological

parameters In surface waters are conducted. The information produced is

suitable for determining Instream flow needs, preparing environmental Impact

statements, federal and state permit applIcatlons, and for monitoring the ' i J effects of wastewaters and toxic pollutants on rivers and lakes. Biological

communities are investigated with emphasis on fish populations and indicator .J species In other taxonomic groups.

Chemical and Biological Sample Analyses

WAI provides chemical analyses of water, sediments, and tissue, and

taxonomic identification of aquatic organisms for samples collected both by n 1 J WAI personnel and by other Individuals. Fisheries Management and Habitat Improvement

Revitalization of fisheries and restoration of degraded or unproductive

waters require establishment of optimal habitat conditions for fishery

production. WAI evaIuates stream and I ake fIsherI es, Identifies limiting

factors, and recommends-needed improvements. Evaluations include water quality, Instream flows, habitat, benthic Invertebrates, and riparian zones.

Fishery studies Include population estimates, growth rates, and reproductive success. Management recommendations may include habitat Improvement, minimum

flows, stocking rates, reclamation, and/or fishing regulations. WAI can obtain necessary permits and manage Implementation of necessary habitat alterations required to establish highly productive fisheries.

Aquaculture Feasibility Studies

Feasibility studies are conducted on the use of geothermally or

Industrially heated water for the commerclaI culture of prawn, catfish, tllapla and aquarium fishes, and on the use of co 1 d water resources for the culture of trout.

Literature Reviews and Information Retrieval

t The extensive experience of WAI's personnel enables preparation of synthesized literature reviews and Interpretations covering most environmental subjects. Contracts with major computerized bibliographic data base services provide WAI access to a wide range of scientific and technical information.

Customized, comprehensive I iterature surveys can be performed In-house. WAI has access to a set of computer programs capable of rapidly producing multi-

Indexed, cross-referenced bibliographies.

WAI!s Information Services can also provide 1) specialized reference service, 2) document delivery, and 3) information consultation.

Expert Testimony

WAI provides expert witnesses from its staff and consultants who have previously testified before various federal and state hearings, including those conducted by the U.S. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, the Colorado Water Quality Control

Commission, and the Colorado Air Qua 1 Ity Control Commission. ■ ( ï CORPORATE EXPERIENCE June 1980 - March 1983

Western Aquatics, Inc. has provided scientific design and/or management services as summarized for the following clients:

Electric Power Research Institute (EPR1)

WAI conducted for EPRI an evaluation of the relationship among acid rain, surface water acidification, and fish populations. Objectives of this study

Included: (1) evaluating the val Idlty of the data bases that are used to test hypotheses concerning the aquatic ecological effects of acid rain; (2)

Identifying documented cases of surface water acidification that have produced fish population declines and Identifying the causes of acidification; and (3) recommend I ng future research f und I ng pr lor I ties that will hel p to clarify the relationship among atmospheric emissions, surface water acidification, and effects on fish. WAI also prepared for EPRI a comprehensive 1,494 citation bibliography on the responses of fishes and aquatic ecosystems to surface water acidification.

WAI also has recently completed a general guide to and Index of EPRI sponsored research and publications on power plant cooling system effects on surface waters.

Currently, WAI is working with the University of Wyoming, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, and McMaster University on the EPRI sponsored Lake

Acidification and Fisheries Project. During this five year project, WAI will be compiling, analyzing and organizing published and unpublished data relevent to the effects of lake acidification on fish, Including toxicology., physiology, and population biology. These data are being distributed to other project, participants as needed to assist them In completing project tasks. Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)

Working under subcontracts that originated from UARG, WAI has

technically reviewed six different "acid rain” documents produced by the

Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and by the United States/Canada

Work Group on Transboundary Air Pollution. Our reviews critiqued the

scientific bases of conclusions pertaining to aquatic ecosystem effects of

acidifying atmospheric deposition.

WAI recently completed an evaluation of potential causes for hatchery

fish kills and fish spinal deformities In the southern Appalachian Mountains.

This project-Involved 1) Identifying all possible causes and available data on

■these problems, 2) formulating and evaluating working hypotheses for the most

likely causes, and 3) proposing research that would identify the actual

causes.

Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association (RMOGA)

WAI provided expert testimony for RMOGA at the Colorado Air Quality

Control Commission PSD Hearings. Testimony emphasized 1) the relationship

between sulfur emissions, surface water acidification, and fish populations In the Colorado Rocky Mountains; and 2) the probable extent of sensitivity of

lakes In that region to acidification.

Homestake Mining Company

For Homestake Mining Company, WAI designed and managed a testing program to evaluate the aquatic toxicity of uranium to brook trout and to predict effects In a stream receiving effluents from a uranium mine. Studies Included a bioaccumulation test and static acute, flow-through acute, and flow-through early life-stag© toxicity tests in waters of various hardness and alkalinity.

As a result of our findings, Homestake was granted an NPDES permit renewal for * its Pitch Mine by the State of Colorado. WAI also assisted Homestake with

Colorado stream classification proceedings concerning the Indian Creek and

Marshall Creek watersheds of the Gunnison River In southern Colorado. At that

time, WAI presented the lead technical testimony concerning uranium toxicity

before the Colorado Water QualIty Control Commission. Additionally, WAI

recently provided an analysis of the potential Impacts of. effluents from

Homestake's Bulldog Mountain Mine upon the Rio Grande*

Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Company

At Federal Oil Shale Lease Tract C-b in western Colorado, WAI evaluated the fate and. biological effects of mine sump water effluent which is discharged into PIceance Creek. We conducted on-site toxicity tests,

b lomonI tor Ing studies, and chemical analyses of NPDES discharge permit parameters In Fall 1980 and Spring 1981. As a result of these studies,

Cathedral Bluffs was granted an NPDES Permit renewal. In addition, WAI evaluated the fish community In PIceance Creek to assist Cathedral Bluffs with

Colorado stream classification proceedings.

Rio Blanco Oil Shale Company

WAI managed a ser I es of 48-h L-C^q paphn I a magna and 96-h LC^q fathead minnow toxicity tests on wastewater samples from the C-a oil shale site, and provided an analysis of these test results.

1WG Corporation

WAI reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of IWG's document on Oil Shale

Risk Analysis and recommendations were made for future programs, concern 1 ng aquatic ecological impacts associated with oil shale development In the

PIceance Basin. 'Subsequently, WAI participated In the Second Workshop on Oil Shale Health and Environmental Risk Analysis In San Diego during January of

1982.

A major U.S. energy company

WAI designed a battery of tests to evaluate aquatic environmental hazards

of wastewaters, solid wastes, and liquid products from this corporation's

synfuel operations. Additionally, we evaluated several aquatic toxicology

testing laboratories to determine their abl I 1 ty to conduct these tests and

recommended appropriate program options. i

Montreal Engineering Company, Ltd.

Under a subcontract from Montreal Engineering, WAI analyzed periphyton

communities In two streams and associated tributaries In the vicinity of a

base metals mine in New Brunswick, Canada. An assessment was provided of the

effects of the mine on these surface waters.

A private geothermal development group In Wyoming

WAI advised this group on the feaslbi I I ty of developing a commercial

geothermal aquaculture facility near Midwest, Wyoming. Geothermal Iy-heated

well water was considered for culture of catfish and tropical aquarium fish and for greenhouse heating.

Standard Metals Corporation

WAI Is currently conducting stream surveys and analyses of existing data to determine appropriate classifications for several southwestern Colorado • streams. Parameters to be analyzed Include I nstream-f lows, water qua I lty,

Invertebrate populations, fisheries, and related habitat characteristics. Ash Creek Mining Company

WAI conducted the sampling and analyses of aquatic habitats, Including

fish and macro Invertebrate populations, around a coal mine north of Sheridan

Wyoming, and prepared the relevant aquatic sections of the mine permit

application.

Wyoming Water Research Center

WAI assessed the current state of the knowledge to determine the

potential for adverse acid rain impacts In Wyoming. Potentially affected

resources that were evaluated included soils, crops, forests, surface-water

quality, aquatic organisms, human health, and cultural materials. Additional

research needs were Identified and various projects were recommended for a

monitoring and research program to Investigate acid depositions in Wyoming. NO. j - ' 1. Risk assessment methodology, ecotox testing methods, environmental Impact legislation and regulations, and synfuel developments. Prepared for a major U.S. energy company. September 1980.

2. Analyses and interpretation of periphyton populations surrounding a base metal mine site. Prepared for Montreal Eng I neer i ng Co., Ltd. October 1980.

3. Toxicity of uranium to juvenile brook trout (Sa I ve 11 n \ s font i na I i s) In soft and hard waters. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. November 1980.

4. An evaluation of downstream fates and effects of mine dewatering discharges at the C-b Tract. Prepared for the Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil [ Company. December 1980.

5. Review and critique of a synfuel ecotox testing battery. Prepared for a D major U.S. energy company. February 1981. ] 6. The effects of acid rain on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Prepared Ij] for the Utl I ity Air Regulatory Group (w ith A.S.L. and Associates). May 1981.

EJ 7. Effects of chronic exposure of uranium on brook trout eggs and fry. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. May 1981. j*i 8. Acute toxicity of uranium to brook trout determined In a flow-through test. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. July 1981.

H 9. Bioconcentration of aqueous uranium by juvenile brook trout. Prepared L for Homestake Mining Company. July 1981.

10. Evaluation of the aquatic toxicity of the mine dewatering discharge from the C-b Tract. Prepared for Cathedra I Bluffs Sha 1 e 01 I Company. July 1981.

11. PrelIminary results from a geothermal aquaculture feaslblIity study. Prepared for a private Wyoming development group. July 1981.

12. A review of the Office of Technology Assessment documents: (1) Impacts of acid deposition on aquatic ecosystems, and (2) Impacts of acid deposition and ozone on forests and soils. Prepared for the Utility Air Regulatory Group (with A.S.L. and Associates). July 1981.

13. Preliminary comments on "Working Group I, Impact Assessment Report II, United States-Canada Memorandum of Intent on Transboundary Air Pol I utl on." Prepared for the Utl I Ity Air Regulatory Group (with A.S.L. and Associates). August 1981. [ NO. S i L 14. * I ov ion wi t uv I v/> I ^ » vm » iwi *• t — *— * . — -, g^,. , ,, rm ndlan Creek. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. October 1981. il1 . i: 15. Creeks. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. November 1981. p 16. ». Prepared for a major [j U.S. energy company. November 1981.

17. A status report of aquatic and terrestrial acid rain biological effects. n Prepared for Utl I Ity Air Regul atory Group (w Ith A.S.L. and Associates). November 1981.

18. Comparative sensitivity of brook and brown trout to uranium present In Indian Creek. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. December 1981.

19. Piceance Creek: Status of Its fish community and rationale for Colorado stream classification. Prepared for Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Company. December 1981.

20. Review of oil shale risk analysis document. Prepared for IWG Corporation. December 1981.

21. The effects of acid rain on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems: A status report and a review of the Joint Canadian and United States Impact Assessment Report (October 1981). Prepared for Utility Air Regulatory Group (with A.S.L. and Associates). February 1982.

2 2 . Bibliography on the responses of fishes and aquatic ecosystems to acidifying depositions and related acid stresses. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute. May 1982.

23. Assessment of the relationship among acidifying depositions, surface- water acidifications, and fish populations in North America. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute. November 1982.

24. The relationship between sulfur emissions, surface water acidification, and fish populations In the Colorado Rocky Mountains, and the probable extent of sensitivity of lakes in that region to acidification. Prepared for Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association. November 1982.

25. Acute toxicity of two oil shale process waters to aquatic biota. Prepared for the Rio Blanco Oi I Shale Company (with the University of E Wyoming). December 1982. 26. Review of protocol for evaluation of waste leachate acute and chronic toxicity with Daphnla maqna. Prepared for ICAIR Systems Division, Life Systems, Inc. December 1982. o 27. An analysis of the Impacts of Homestake Mining Company's Bulldog Mountain Mine effluent on the Rio Grande. Prepared for Homestake Mining Company. January 1983.

28. Comments on Work Group I impact assessment final report. Prepared for the UtI 1 Ity Air Regulatory Group (with A.S.L. and Associates). April 1983.

29. Aquatic sampling and analysis at the Ash Creek Mine Site. Prepared for Land Resources and Technology. June 1983.

30. Evaluation of fisheries problems In the southern Appalachian Mountains. Prepared for the Utility Air Regulatory Group. November 1983.

31. Guide to EPRl pub Iicat Ions and projects for cooling system effects on surface waters. Prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute. December 1983.

32. Acidic depositions In Wyoming: an assessment of current information to design a Wyoming monitoring and research program. Prepared for the Wyoming Water Research Center. February 1984.

\ nsi * 5J CORPORATE REFERENCES

! ? The following Individuals may be contacted concerning the services and

performance of Western Aquatics, Inc.

Dr. Robert W. Brocksen D Ï rector Wyoming Water Research Center P.O. Box 3067, University Station Laramie, WY 82070

(307) 766-2143

Dr. Arnold GniIka Co-chairman, Acidic Deposition Subgroup Utility Air Regulatory Group Duke Power Company P.O. Box 2178 Charlotte, NC 28242

(704) 373-8071

Dr. Alan W. Maki Senior Toxicologist Exxon Corporation P.O. Box 235 East Mi I I stone, NJ 08873

(201) 873-6265

Dr. Jack Matt ice Ecological Effects Program Electric Power Research Institute P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94303

(415) 855-2763

Mr. Robert Thomason Vice President, Environmental Affairs Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Company P.O. Box 2687 Grand Junction, CO 81502 o KEY PERSONNEL

Benjamin R. Parkhurst General Manager

Michael D. Marcus President

David R. Barnard Assistant Scientist

Steven W. Wolff Assistant Scientist/ Information Specialist

Principal Consultants

George T. Baxter, Ph.D. Aquatic biology and taxonomy; herpetology

Harold L. Bergman, Ph.D. Aquatic toxicology; fish physiology

Mark S. Boyce, Ph.D. Aquatic mammals; population biology

William R. Good, Ph.D. Aquatic invertebrate taxonomy

Larry D. Hayden-WIng, Ph.D. Wildlife biology; waterfowl

Howard E. Johnson, Ph.D. Aquatic toxicology; pesticides

Thomas W. LaPoint, Ph.D. Aquatic Invertebrate taxonomy; blostatlstlcs

Michael Parker, Ph.D. Limnology; systems mode 11ng

Thomas Wesche, M.S. Instream flows; habitat analysis RESUME

BENJAMIN R. PARKHURST General Manager

PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE

Environmental Impact Analysis Aquatic Toxicology Fisheries Biology Fish Culture

EDUCATION

1983-Present University of Wyoming - Ph.D. Candidate Zoology 1975-1979 University of Tennessee Ecology 1969-1971 Michigan State University - M.S. Fisheries Biol 1965-1969 Michigan State University - B.S. Fisheries Biol PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHI PS

American Fisheries Society Ecological Society of America Rocky Mountain Association of Environmental Professionals Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1981 - Present General Manager, Western Aquatics, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

1980 - 1981 Director, Environmental Assessments, Western Aquatics, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

1976 - 1980 Research Associate, Synthetic Fuels Program, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

1974 - 1976 Research Associate, Environmental Impacts Program, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge national Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

1971 - 1974 Fisheries Biologist, Peace Corps and Tropical Fish Culture Institute, Buga, Valle, Colombia, South America.

1969 - 1971 Research Assistant, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. PARKHURST, Benjamin R.

REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS

Parkhurst, B.R. 1971. An ecological evaluation of a thermal discharge. Part V. The distribution and growth of the fish populations along the western shore of Lake Erie at Monroe, Michigan, during 1970. Technical Report Number 17, Thermal Discharge Series, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. (NT1S Rpt. No. PB240 7111/256).

Parkhurst, B.R., J. Norena and J. Zapata. 1973. A study of polyculture using the non-native species TiIapia rendaIII, T. mossambIca, Cyprinus carplo v. specularls (Israel i carp) and Cichla ocel laris (tucanare). Instltuto de Plscicultura Tropical, Buga, Colombia. (I n Span i sh).

Parkhurst, B.R., J. Norena and J. Zapata. 1973. Ichthyology inventory of the watersheds of the Guada I a Jar a RI ver, Fr i o RI ver and Ca 11 ma River. Institute de Plscicultura Tropical, Buga, Colombia. (In Spanish). -

Parkhurst, B.R. (in part). 1975. Final environmental statement related to the construction of Perkins Nuclear Station Units 1,2, and 3. Docket Numbers STN 50-488, 50-489, and 50-490, U.S. Nuclear Regula­ tory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

Parkhurst, B.R. (in part). 1975. Final environmental statement related to the construction of Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3. Docket Numbers STN 50-491, 50-492, and 50-493, U.S. Nuclear Regula­ tory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

Parkhurst, B.R. (In part). 1976. Draft environmental statement related to the construction of the Tyrone Energy Park Unit 1. Docket Number STN 50-484, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

Parkhurst, B.R. (in part). 1977. Final environmental statement related to the determination of the suitability of the Islote site for eventual construction of the North Coast Nuc I ear PI ant Un 11 No. 1. Docket Number STN 50-376, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

Parkhurst, B.R. (in part). 1977. Final environmental statement related to the construction of the Montague Nuclear Power Station Units -1 and 2. Docket Numbers 50-496 and 50-497, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

Parkhurst, B.R., and H.A. McLain. 1978. An environmental assessment of cooling reservoirs. ORNL/NUREG/TM-226, Oak Ridge National Labora­ tory, Oak Ridge, TN. Parkhurst, B.R., A*S* Bradshaw and J.L* Forte* 1979* An evaluation of the acute toxicity to aquatic biota of a coal conversion effluent and its major components. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 23:349-356*

Parkhurst, B.R., A*S* Bradshaw, J.L. Forte and G*P. Wright. 1979. The acute and chronic toxicity to Daphn ia magna of acr Idine, a repre­ sentative azaarene present In wastewaters from coal conversion processes. Presented at 109th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society, September 1979. West Yellowstone, MT.

Parkhurst, B.R., C.W* Gehrs and l*B. Rubin. 1979. Value of chemical fractionation for Identifying the toxic components of complex aqueous effluents, pp. 122-130 in L. L. Marking and R.A. Kimerle (eds.). Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM STP 667, American Society for Testing and Materials.

Shrlner, D.S., H. Arora, N.T. Edwards and B.R. Parkhurst. 1979. Physical, chemical and ecological characterization of solid wastes from a Lurgi gasification-faclI tty* pp* 181-192. J_n: Proceedings of a symposium on potential health and environmental effects of synthetic fosslI fuels technology. CONF-780903* Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

Southworth, G.R., B.R. Parkhurst and J. Beauchamp. 1979. Accumulation of acridlne from water, food and sediment by fathead minnows, Plmephales promelas* Water, Air and Soil Pollution 12:331-341.

Glddings, J.M., B.R. Parkhurst, C.W. Gehrs and R*E. Mllleman. 1980. Toxicity of a coal IIqulfIcation product to aquatic organisms. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 25:1-8.

Millemann, R.E., and B.R. Parkhurst. 1980. Comparative toxicity of solid waste leachates to Daphn1c magna. Environment International 4:255- 260.

Brand, J.I., J.A. Klein, B.R. Parkhurst and T.K. Rao. 1981. Mutageni­ city and toxicity of treated aqueous effluents from coal conversion processes. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference* West Lafayette, IN.

Millemann, R.E., B.R. Parkhurst and N.T. Edwards. 1981. Toxicity to DaphnI a magna and terrestrial plants of solid waste leachates from coal conversion processes, pp. 237-247 In D.D. Mahlum, R.H. Gray and W.D. Fel Ix (eds.). Coal Conversion and the Environment. Tech­ nical Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy Symposium Series 54. Conf-801039 (NTIS Rept. No. DE82000105).

Parkhurst, B.R. 1981. Environmental risk analysis of wastewaters produced by synthetic fuel technologies, pp. 399-411. J_n: R.W. Conway (ed.). Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemicals. Van Nostrand Re Inhold Company, New York. Parkhurst, B.R. 1981. The comparative toxicity of coal-derived oils and petroleum fuel oil to Daphnla magna. Presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Arlington, VA.

Parkhurst, B.R. 1981. Toxlclties of solid wastes, wastewaters and products from synthetic fossil fuel processes to aquatic organisms. Presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Colorado-Wyoming Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. Laramie, WY.

Parkhurst» B.R., A.S. Bradshaw, J.L. Forte and G.P. Wright* 1981. The chronIc toxicity to Daphnla magna of acrldlne, a representative azaarene present In synthetic fuel products and wastewaters. Envi­ ronmental Pollution 24:21-30.

Parkhurst, B.R., J.L. Forte and G.P. Wright. 1981. Reproduclbt I Ity of a life cycle toxicity test with Daphnla magna. Bulletin of Environ­ mental Contamination and Toxicology 26:1-8.

Parkhurst, B.R., J.S. Meyer, G.M. DeGraeve and H.L. Bergman. 1981. A réévaluation of the toxicity of coal conversion process waters. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 26:9-15.

Southworth, G.R., B.R. Parkhurst, S.E. Herbes and S.C. Tsai. 1981. The risk of chemicals to aquatic environment, pp. 85-153 In R.W. Conway (ed.). Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemicals. Van Nostrand Re Inhold Company, New York.

Cushman, R.M., D.K. Brown, N.T. Edwards, J.M. GIddlngs and B.R. Parkhurst. 1982. Ecotoxlclty of coal gaslfler solid wastes. Bul>- letln of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 28:39-45.

Parkhurst, B.R. 1982. Book review of Aquatic Invertebrate Bloassavs edited by L. Bulkema, Jr. and John Cairnes, Jr. ASTM Special Publi­ cation 715, American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadel­ phia, PA. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 111 (6)¡789-791.

Marcus, M.D., B.R. Parkhurst and F.E. Payne. 1982. An assessment of the relationship among acidifying depositions, surface-water acidifica­ tion, and fish populations In North America. EPRl EA-3127, Volume 1. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Parkhurst, B.R., M.D. Marcus, K. Bub and F. Sanders. 1983. Evaluation of Fisheries problems in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The Utility Air Regulatory Group, Washington, D.C. 278 pp.

Marcus, M.D., K. Bub and B.R. Parkhurst. 1984. Guide to EPRl projects and publications for cooling system effects on surface waters. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California (In press). Marcus, M.D., B.R. Parkhurst and R.W. Brocksen. 1984. Acid deposition In Wyoming; An assessment of current information to design a Wyoming monitoring and research program. Wyoming Water Research Center, Laramie, Wyoming.

Parkhurst, B.R. 1984. The role of fractionation in hazard assessments of complex effluents. J_n_: A.W. Maki, R.A. Kimerle and H.L. Bergman (eds.). Environmental Hazard Assessment of Effluents. Society of Environmental Toxicology and chemistry, Rockville, MD. Special Publication Number 1 (In press).

Parkhurst, B.R., R.G. Elder, J.S. Meyer, D.A. Sanchez, R.W. Pennak and W.T. Waller. 1984. An environmental hazard evaluation of uranium In a Rocky Mountain stream. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 3(1):113-124. RESUME

MICHAEL D. MARCUS President

PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE

Reservoir and Stream Ecology Algal Taxonomy and Ecology Ecosystem Analysis Environmental Risk Assessment

EDUCATION

1979-Present University of Wyoming - Ph.D. Candidate Ecology 1976 Montana State University 1969-1972 Michigan State University - M.S. Limnology 1967-1969 Michigan State University - B.S. Fisheries Biology 1965-1967 Central Michigan University

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Fisheries Society American Society for Limnology and Oceanography Ecological Society of America. International Society of Theoretical and Applied Limnology Sigma XI, the Scientific Research Society

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1980 - Present President, Western Aquatics, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

1977 - 1980 Scientist I, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

1977 Editor, Institute for Policy Research, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

1976 - 1977 Research/Laboratory Assistant, Department of Microbiology and Montana Universities Joint Water Resources Research Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

1975 Editor, Black Thunder Mine Environmental Assessment Project, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

1973 - 1975 Biologist, Environmental Laboratories, Duke Power Company, Huntersville, North Carolina.

1973 Conservation Aide, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 1972 Laboratory Technician, Institute of. Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

1969 - 1972 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS

Marcus, M.D. 1972. An ecological evaluation of a thermal discharge. Part 11. The distribution of phytoplankton and primary productivity near the western shore of Lake Erie. Technical Report Number 14, Thermal Discharge Series. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 104 pp. (NT1S Rpt. No. PB 240 708/856).

Marcus, M.D., and R.A. Cole. 1974. Planktonic metabolism in near-shore communities of western Lake Erie. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography 37th Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington.

Bergman, H.L. , and M.D. Marcus Ceds.). 1976. Final environmental assessment, Black Thunder (Atlantic Richfield Company) Mine Site, Campbell County, Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Volumes I - 1V: 1400 pp.

Marcus, M.D. 1977,. Periphyton productivity and diatom succession In montane streams. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography 40th Annual Meeting, East Lansing, Michigan.

Board, M.R., M.D* Marcus and A.F. Bergman (eds.). 1977. Socioeconomic longitudinal monitoring project, first year progress report. The Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, Institute for Policy Research, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Volumes I - IV:437 pp.

Marcus, M.D., and H.L. Bergman (eds.). 1977-1980. Effects of effluents from in situ fossil fuel processing technologies on aquatic systems. Quarterly and Annual Progress Reports to U.S. Environmental Protec­ tion Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. (U.S. DOE Technical Information Center Rpt. Nos. DOE/LETC-3913-1:73 pp.; DOE/ LETC/12344-T2;60 pp.; D0E/LETC-10058-T1; 121 pp.).

Marcus, M.D., J.E. SchII linger and D.G.* Stuart. 1978. Limnological studies In Montana: Hyalite Reservoir and responses of lotic periphyton to deep-water reservoir discharges, grazing and logging. Report Number 92, Montana Universities Joint Water Resources Research Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. 173 pp. (NT IS Rpt. No. PB80-176134. Fannin, T.E., H.L. Bergman, M. Parker, M.D. Marcus and J.S. Meyer. 1978. A simple'screening system to identify environmentally persistent hydrocarbons. Presented at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography 41st Annual Meeting, Victoria, British Columbia.

Meyer, J.S., H.L. Bergman and M.D. Marcus. 1979. Inhibitory Interac­ tions of aromatic organlcs during microbial metabolism. Presented at the Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting, Sti1Iwater, Oklahoma.

Marcus, M.D. 1980. Periphytlc community response to chronic nutrient enrichment by a reservoir discharge. Ecology 61 (2):387-399.

Marcus,. M.D., H.L. Bergman, D.A. Stoller, S.K. Brown and P.A. Molholt. 1980. Bibliography of aquatic ecosystem effects, analytical methods and treatment of technologies for organic compounds In advanced fossil fuel processing effluents. Research and Development Series Report Number EPA-600/3-80-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. 362 pp. (NTIS Rpt. No. PB-8Q-177140).

Zeve 1 off, L.B., M. Parker, M.D. Marcus and H.L. Bergman. 1980. Bib­ liography of aquatic ecosystem effects, analytical methods and treatment technologies for organic compounds In advanced fossil-fuel processing effluents - Volume 2. Research and Development Series Report Number EPA-6003-80-086. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota. 216 pp. (NTIS Rpt. No. PB-80-224868).

Bergman, H.L., G.M. DeGraeve, J.S. Meyer, M.D. Marcus and D.L. Geiger. 1981. Aquatic ecosystem hazard assessment of underground coal gasification process waters, pp. 270-293 in D.D. Mahlum, R.H. Gray and W.D. Felix (eds.). _ Coa 1 Conversion and the Environment. Technical Information Center, U.S. Department of Energy Symposium Series 54. CONF-801039 (NTIS Rpt. No. DE82000105).

Fannin, T.E., M.D. Marcus, D.A. Anderson and H.L. Bergman. 1981. Use of a fractional factorial design to evaluate environmental Interactions on biodégradation rates. Journal of Applied and Environmental Microbiology 42(6) :936-943.

Bub, K., M.D. Marcus, J.S. Meyer, M.K. Rothwell, M. Parker and L.8. ZeveI of f. 1983. An assessment of the relationship among acldifylnOg depositions surface water acidification, and fish pop­ ulations In North America. Volume 2. Bibliography. Research Report EPRl EA-3127 vol. 2. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 291 pp.

Marcus, M.D., and B.R. Parkhurst. 1983. Research needs to evaluate potential hazards from acid depositions In the Rocky Mountain Region. Presented at the Joint Annual Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Western Division of the American Fishery Society. Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Marcus, M.D., B-R. Parkhurst and F.E. Payne, 1983. An assessment of the relationship among acidifying depositions, surface water acidi­ fication, and fish populations in North America, Research Report EPRI EA-3127 vol. 1. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California. 169 pp.

Parkhurst, B.R,, M.D. Marcus, K. Bub and F. Sanders, 1983. Evaluation of fisheries problems in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Tech­ nical Report. The UtlIity Air Regulatory Group, Washington, DC. 278 pp.

Marcus, M.D., K. Bub and B.R. Parkhurst. 1984. Guide to EPRI projects and publications for cooling system effects on surface waters. Research Report. Electric Power Research 1nstltute. Palo Alto, California. (In press).

Marcus, M.D., W.A. Hubert and S.H. Anderson. 1984. Habitat suitabi I ity index models; lake trout. United States Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service Report (in intraagency review).

Marcus, M.D., B.R. Parkhurst and R.W. Brocksen. 1984. Acidic deposi­ tions In Wyoming: an assessment of current information to design a Wyoming monitoring and research program. Wyoming Water Research Center Report. 127 pp.

Meyer, J.S., G.L. Linder, M.D. Marcus and H.L. Bergman. 1984. Identi­ fy 1 ng problem compounds In comp I ex organ Ic mixtures: Oil shale retort water examples. I n: Synthetic Fossil' Fuel Technologies: Results of Health and Environmental Studies. Proceed Ings of the Fifth ORNL Life Sciences Symposium, Gatllnburg, TN. October 24-27, 1982. (In press).

Meyer, J.S., M.D. Marcus and H.L. Bergman. 1984. Inhibitory interaction of aromatic organisms during microbial degradation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (in press). RESUME

DAVID R. BARNARD Assistant Scientist

PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE

Fisheries Ecology Marine Biology Zooplankton Taxonomy Environmental Impact Analysis

EDUCATION

1977-1981 University of Alaska - M.S. Biological Oceanography 1970-1975 University of Wyoming - B.S. Zoology

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1983 - Present Assistant Scientist, Western Aquatics, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.

1981 - 1982 Aquatic Biologist, LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska.

1977 - 1981 Research Assistant, University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science, Fairbanks, Alaska.

1976, 1977 Fisheries Biologist Technician, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, Casper, Wyoming.

1975 Biological Technician, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rawlins, Wyoming.

REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS

Barnard, D.R. 1979. Aspects of the carrying capacity of nearshore waters adjacent to a pink and chum salmon hatchery In Prince William Sound, Alaska. Presented at'the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Alaska.

Urquhard, D.L., and D.R. Barnard. 1979. Growth of pen reared pink salmon fry Oncorynchus gorbuscha, feeding on available marine^ zooplankton. Aquaculture 17:251-256. v Barnard, D.R. 1981. Trophic relationships between juvenile pink and chum salmon in Prince William Sound, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Univer­ sity of Alaska. ■ - ! ) Barnard, D.R., D.R. Schmidt, D.M. Troy and C.H. WWlIng. 1981. Spring 1981 fisheries survey and provisional list of water bodies along the Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Co. route: Prudhoe Bay to the Yukon Territory. Final Report. Prepared for LGL Alaska Research Asso­ ciates, Inc. for Northwest Alaska Pipeline Co*, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Barnard, D.R. 1982. An evaluation of the environmental database and environmental Issues and concerns related to Bering Sea oil and gas exploration and development. LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Prepared for Sohlo Alaska Petroleum Co. 3 Volumes.

Barnard, D.R. 1982. Feeding ecology of juvenile pink and chum salmon In Alaskan waters. Salmon Hatchery Workshop, Office of the Governor, State of Alaska.

Barnard, D.R., and R. McM i I I an. 1983. Chapter 4. Streamf I sh J_n: D.M. Troy (ed.) Prudhoe Bay Unit - Eileen West End Environmental Studies Program, Summer 1982. LGL A I aska Research Assoc I ates, Inc. Pre­ pared for Sohlo Alaska Petroleum Company.

Day, R.H., K.L. Oakley and D.R* Barnard. 1983. Aspects of the nesting biology of Kittlitz's Murrelet (Brachvrampus brevlvostrls). Condor (In press). STANDARD METALS CORPORATION P.O. Box 247 Silverton, Colorado 81433 (303) 387-5533

UPPER ANIMAS STREAM STUDY AS PROPOSED BY STANDARD METALS CORPORATION

Introduction- Stream classification deliberations for the San Juan Basin were conducted by the Water Quality Control Commission in the spring of 1982. The Water Quality Control Division, subsequent to public hearings held by the Commission in 1981 for the purpose of gathering Input regard­ ing use classifications in the San Juan Basin, recommended to the Commission that the upper Animas and certain of its tributaries be upgraded from an unclassified category and designated for aquatic life, water supply, and/ or agricultural use. Standard Metals Corporation operates base and precious metal ore extraction and beneficlation facilities 1n San Juan County, near Silverton which discharge into segments of the upper Animas, and believes use re-classification as proposed by the Division is unrealistic and un­ attainable due to the extent of point and non-point source pollution existant in the segments of Interest, resulting from natural mineralization and historic mining activities 1n the region.

Company representatives did not participate in the proceedings at which the record for the San Juan Basin was formulated and was thus not able to provide the Commission with data pertinent to evaluating stream classifications for the upper Animas River drainage. A motion for petition was subsequently filed before the Commission to allow the company to present rebuttal statements on proposed stream classifications based on data existant in the record. In addition, Standard Metals Corporation requested the opportunity to present supplemental data substantiating Its position through implementation of a stream study assessing the current status of water quality and aquatic life in the upper Animas River and tributaries with respect to proposed use desig­ nations and water quality standards. The Commission agreed to admit the company as party to the San Juan Basin deliberations for the purpose of re­ buttal presentation and accepted the company's offer as committment to conduct stream surveys on the upper Animas River in conjunction with the Division for the purpose of aquirlng and presenting current stream data which the Commission could employ in subsequent deliberations on the upper Animas River.

Purpose- The objective of the stream study as presented in the following scope of worE 1s to aqulre additional data on the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of the stream segments of interest which can be used by the Commission to evaluate use classifications and assign water quality standards on identified segments. Data aquired from the stream survey is not intended to wholly reflect present conditions in these segments, but to supplement historic data collected by the Division and other entities 1n oird®r that a broader, long term evaluation of water quality, and aquatic life habitat potential is possible. Sampling station locations, study parameters, and data collection techniques to be employed in the stream study were developed in collaboration with Division personnel 1n order to aqulre data which could be correlated with historic data collected by the Division. Emphasis for the study as directed by Division personnel is to assess habitat potential in the surveyed segments and,capability of these stream reaches to support aquatic life class­ ification. Equally important is ascertainment of background water quality exist- ant in these reaches in order that the potential to support aquatic life, water supply, or agricultural use classifications can be evaluated.

SCOPE OF WORK

I Stream Segment Description- Stream segments 1n the upper Animas River drainage on which stream survey work will be conducted are listed below. Stream reaches for which survey work 1s proposed do not comprise all segments in the region which are impacted by natural or artificial sources, in which aquatic life, water supply and/or agricultural classifications are considered to be unattainable, but only those segments of Interest at present.

Segment 1) Mainstream of the upper Animas River from Anlmis Forks to a point immediately above the confluence with Elk Creek Length- approximately 25 miles Location- See Handies Peak, Howardsvllle, and Silverton areas of the USGS 15° Silverton quandrangle

Segment 2) Eureka Creek from the source to the confluence with the south fork of the Animas River, and then the south fork of the Animas to the confluence with the Animas mainstream Length- approximately 3.0 miles Location- See Handies Peak area of the USGS 15° Silverton quadrangle

Segment 3) Mainstream of Cement Creek from a point immediately above Gladstone to the confluence with the Animas River mainstream Length- approximately 7.0 miles Location- see Ironton, and Silverton areas of the USGS 15° Silverton quadrangle

II Sampling Stations- Sampling station locations identified in the following descriptions represent the maximum number of stations considered adequate for assessing stream segments as delineated. Upon implementation of the study and further field reconnaissance 1t may become evident that fewer stations will be required to satisfactorily complete the study. All stations except the lower most location (AR-7) on the Animas mainstream segment are accessible by maintained road. The lower Animas mainstream station can be accessed by narrow gauge railroad upon arrangement.

Sampling stations along defined stream segments were sited to approximate proximity to locations from which historic data was generated such that data aqulred during the survey could be correlated with historic data. Exact location of the sampling stations in the field will be conducted 1n a manner to reduce bias of the biosurvey sampling, (i.e., away from waterfalls, point source pollution, etc.) Upper Animas Stream Study January 27, 1984 Page Three

Segment- Mainstream Animas River (total 7 stations)

1. station (AR-1)- immediately below Animas Forks

2. station (AR-2)- immediately below confluence of South Fork Animas River at Eureka

3. station (AR-3)- immediately below Howardsvllle at County Road 110 bridge

4. station (AR-4)- at Lackawanna bridge crossing above Silverton

5. station (AR-5)- below confluence with Cement Creek and above confluence with Mineral Creek

6. station (AR-6)- below confluence with Mineral Creek at D&RGRR bridge

7. station (AR-7)- above confluence with Elk Creek

Segment- Eureka Creek/South Fork Animas (total 5 stations)

1. station (EG-1)- discharge from Lake Emma 1n Sunnyslde basin

2. station (EG-2)- Immediately above Terry Tunnel Portal

3. station (EG-3)- below Terry Tunnel Portal

4. station (EG-4)- below confluence with South Fork Animas River

5. station (EG-5)- above confluence with Animas mainstream at Eureka

Segment- Cement Creek mainstream (total 5 stations)

1. station (CC-1)- north fork of Cement Creek above American Tunnel Portal

2. station (CC-2)- south fork of Cement Creek immediately above confluence with north fork of Cement Creek

3. station (CC-3)- mainstream Cement Creek below confluence at north and south forks

4. station (CC-4)- mainstream of Cement Creek above Fairview Gulch

5. station (CC-5)- mainstream Cement Creek in Silverton, above confluence with Animas River

III Historical Data- Compilation of available physical, chemical, and biological data for the listed stream segments generated by the Division or other entities.

IV Physical Data- The emphasis of this component of the stream study will be to evaluate the physical characteristics of the defined stream segments and delineate each reach into smaller units for which aquatic life habitat potential will be assessed. Criteria to be used for segment delineation shall Include, but not be limited to, that presented below, and should be assessed for the entire segment length where reasonably possible.

A. Flow characteristics-

- measure high and low flows at each station by accepted methodology - stream velocity

B. General stream morphology-

- ripple/pool ratios - slope - bank stability

C. Substrate characteristics-

- composition (gravels, silts) - deposltlonal trends

V Chemical Data- Chemical! parameters listed below will be monitored at each sampling station established on the described stream segments. Listed chemical parameters will be analyzed in accordance with procedures accepted by the Division for stream standard assignment. Monitoring frequency for each parameter will vary from station to station, but as a minimum will be conducted on a quarterly basis to encompass average, high and low flow regimes for the year.

1. ph 2. temperature 3. total dissolved solids (TDS) 4. total suspended solids (TSS) 5. total hardness 6. conductivity 7. alkalinity 8. dissolved oxygen (DO) 9. total organic carbon 10. ammonia (N-Nlt3) 11. lead (pb) total/add soluble 12. zinc (zn) total/acid soluble 13. copper (cu) total/acid soluble 14. silver (ag) total/acid soluble 15. arsenic (as) totial 16. cadmium (cd) total 17. selenium (se) total 18. manganese (mn) total 19. sulfate (s-so^j ¡total 20. Iron (fe) total j 21. cyanide (cn) total

Chemical data for the survey will be aquired by Standard Metals Corporation through in-house sampling and in-house and outside analysis, in order to keep the cost of the project within financial limits.

VI Biological Data- Biosurvey parameters listed below will be implemented at all sampling stations 1ndent1f1ed 1n the scope of work. The objective of this stream study component 1s to ascertain the presence or absence of aquatic populations in the stream segments, and If present to determine the relative health of the populations through quantitative and qualitative analyses- Biosurvey work will encompass high and low flow regimes, thus samplings will be implemented at each station on two occassions.

A. Quantitative analysis of resident fish population

B. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of macroinvertebrate populations

VII Stream Study Assessment- Compilation of historic data and data collected during the defined stream study into a cohesive report format detailing the current status of surveyed stream segments with respect to current and proposed use class1ficationss^>Cons1dered to be attainable within 20 years. As directed by the Division primary emphasis for the study 1s to determine the habitat potential supportive of aquatic life classification. However, pollutant loadings in the surveyed stream segments due to point and non-point sources must be evaluated from chemical data when considering use classifications which are realistically attainable.

VII Other Guidelines- In order to perform the stream study in a manner accept­ able by all interested parties, Division personnel will be consulted by Standard Metals or selected contracted consultant at the following times to discuss items pertinent to subsequent phase Implementation.

1. prior to implementing field work 1n the spring

2. prior to Implementing fall field work

3. prior to final report formulation ______STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone (303) 331*4525

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULEMAKING HEARING BEFORE THE COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

SUBJECT:

For consideration of amendments to the aquatic life biom onitoring provisions in section 6.9.7 of the Regulations for the State Discharge Permit System 6.1.0 {5 CCR 1002-2). A draft of one set of potential revisions, prepared by the D ivision sta ff, along w ith a proposed Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose, is attached to this notice as Exhibit 1. A second set of potential revisions, based on provisions in the federal NPDES regulations at 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1), i s attached to this notice as Exhibit 2. In addition, the options considered by the Commission w ill include: (1) retention of the existing regulation, and (2) repeal of the biom onitoring regulation provisions, allowing the D ivision to implement such requirements based on its own policy documents. Any alternative proposals regarding revised biom onitoring provisions submitted in accordance w ith the prehearing procedures outlined below also w ill be considered.

EPA has challenged the consistency of Colorado's existing biom onitoring regulation with federal law. Those entities advocating retention of the existing regulation are requested to specifically address it legality. E ntities advocating changes to the existing regulation other than those contained in Exhibits 1 and 2 are requested to id en tify the specific changes recommended and to address th e ir appropriateness from a legal and policy standpoint.

The proposal attached as Exhibit 1 is essentially the D raft #5 revision of the existing Colorado biom onitoring regulation previously circulated for inform al comment. However, one further change has been incorporated into that version. The change concerns the definition of "acute to xicity lim it vio latio n." The D ivision has proposed a distinction between the enforceability of "D efinitive" acute to xicity tests and screening" or accelerated tests conducted pursuant to compliance schedule.

*ING SCHEDULE: Is0 *7 7 c ' ^ 1 H I D FPFivFn DATE: Monday, June 3, 1991 I l L w L l V t U

Z“,:' FEB 2 81991 ‘'I'0"

“ *‘tn ELECTIUNS/LICENSING Denver, Colorado 80220 SECRETARY OF STATE

Oral testimony at the hearing w ill be lim ited. Direct testimony should prim arily draw attention to w ritten evidence. The hearing w ill emphasize Commission questioning of parties about th e ir w ritten prehearing subm ittals. Introduction of w ritten m aterial by parties at the hearing generally w ill not be perm itted. Parties are prohibited from oral presentation of w ritten m aterial submitted to the Commission. C___ R 14-220 P a r ticipation as a "party" to this hearing w ill require compliance w ith the Procedural Rules, 2.1.0 (5 CCR 1002-1). It is not necessary to acquire party status in order to te stify or comment. W ritten party status requests are due in -the o ffice of the Commission on or before?

DATE: Thursday, April 4, 1991 TIME: 5:00 p.m.

PREHEARING CONFERENCE:

DATE: Tuesday, May 14, 1991 TIME: 10:00 a.m. PLACE: Room 150 Department of Health Building 4210 East lith e Avenue Denver, Colorado

Attendance at the prehearing conference is mandatory for a ll parties. A prehearing statement, including any exhibits, w ritten testim ony and alternative proposals of anyone seeking party status must be submitted to the Commission O ffice no la te r than May 2, 1991. In addition, copies of these documents must be mailed or hand-delivered by that date to a ll persons requesting party status, in accordance w ith a lis t provided by the Commission O ffice follow ing the party status deadline.

Following the prehearing conference, w ritten rebuttal statements may be subm itted by Mav 21. 1991. w ith copies mailed or hand-delivered by that date directly to a ll persons requesting party status. No other documentation, exhibits, or other m aterials w ill be accepted after the prehearing conference except for good cause shown.

SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY:

The provisions of C.R.S. 25-8-202(1)(d) and (2 ); and 25-8-501 to 504 provide the specific statutory authority for consideration of the regulatory amendments proposed by th is notice.

Should the Commission adopt the regulatory language as proposed in this notice, it w ill also adopt, in compliance w ith 24-4-103(4) C.R.S., a n appropriate Statement of Basis, Specific statutory A uthority, and Purpose. I n accordance w ith C.R.S. 25-8-104(2)(d), any person who believes that the actions proposed in th is notice have the potential to cause m aterial injury to his or her water rights is requested to so indicate in the party status request submitted. In order for this potential to be considered fu lly by the Commission and the other agencies liste d in the statute, persons must fu lly explain the basis for th e ir claim in th e ir prehearing statement which is due in the Commission O ffic e on the date specified above. This explanation should identify and describe the water r i g h t ( s ) , and explain how and to what degree the m aterial injury w ill be incurred.

Dated th is day of February, 1991, at Denver, Colorado.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

c $ . Paul D. Frohardt^Adm inistrator 2472m/0172m/lc D r a ft #1, December 8, D raft #2, December 22, 1989 Revised follow ing meeting w ith EPA Region V III D raft #3, A pril 12, 1990 D raft #4, A pril-17, 1990 D raft #5, June 1, 1990 D raft #6, January 24, 1991

BIOMONITORING REGULATION

6 .9 .7 AQUATIC LIFE BIOMONITORING

(1) DEFINITIONS

m um m iifim m tm iM W W ttiL'tm itfinm m M i

iniuntM H ittiinitw nteU iiuiiii i ï i ï i w t

M iiunwtitntwtuuuuiwunm twituiM utniwn

ttiwt / ituututtiiM tw M iiw niw /tw te/tM iM W ti* WtUWrtWiUI-iinmtUWtllMIWMl-MWMtilWltWtWMt MiiMttotltW in MM ntltHW /W tl-UW HteiW W UtW i

tlMW tMnW tMtlM M I/tMM M tltM /tW I/M M M t

/# /( a ) "ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT". TM/MMt/WtWWŸ/lWW/W

tMlfiMlMMtolUMUWttWMtMIMMtniitliiMtolWM-MW tefW W W MiW W MlMlW W IlMtMtMMiltW lMt e f f l u e n t DISCHARGED SHALL NOT RESULT IN; (i) A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN THE MORTALITY OBSERVED FOR EITHER SPECIES OF AQUATIC ORGANISM USED IN APPLICABLE BIOMONITORING TESTS BETWEEN THE CONTROL AND ANY EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THE INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION, OR ( i i ) IF NO INSTANTANEOUS MIXING IS PROVIDED, MORTALITY IN ANY CONCENTRATION OF EFFLUENT (INCLUDING 100% EFFLUENT) THAT EXCEEDS 50 PERCENT.

/¿ /(b ) "ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT VIOLATION" MEANS ANY EXCEEDANCE OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT ON A ROUTINE QUARTERLY DEFINITIVE TEST OR DIVISION DIRECTED OR CONDUCTED TEST.

(c) "CONTROL PROGRAM". A control program consists of the measures determined to be the most feasible measures to elim inate whole effluent to xicity through the identification and elim ination of toxicant(s) responsible for WET and the source(s) of such toxicant(s), or through the identification of toxicant tre a ta b ility p r o c e s s e s . ( d ) "DILIGENCE”. Diligence is the performance of specified tasks pursuant to a toxic incident response, performance of those tasks w ithin specified tim e frames pursuant to a toxic incident ¿'capense and use of appropriate methods and quality assurance practices in carrying out the requirements of a toxic incident response.

(e) "ENFORCEABLE TOXICITY INCIDENT". An enforceable to x ic ity incident occurs whenever l/Hi-W U/M IW UtlW THERE IS AN ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT VIOLATION, AND/OR the perm ittee displays a lack of diligence in investigating the cause(s) and elim inating effluent toxicity. M tWi-WnWllllWMtiniWMtltiltWUUWItilWWlHIM

W ilW M ItM M ilV M ttitti.I'I'totltW nttiliM itlim t For penalty purposes, EACH ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT VIOLATION AND each day th a t the p e rm itte e FAILS TO MEET THE TERMS OF A COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ^íW ^yfí/fí/Í^K /^/íW í^lW shall equate to a day of violation.

(f) "INSTANTANEOUS MIXING" MEANS AN ENGINEERED DISCHARGE STRUCTURE, SUCH AS A DIFFUSER SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO DIVISION APPROVAL, WHICH UTILIZES THE FULL DILUTION CAPACITY OF THE RECEIVING STREAM, AT LOW FLOW, TO DISSIPATE ANY EFFLUENT TOXICITY RAPIDLY INSTREAM.

(qf) "INSTREAM WASTE CONCENTRATION (IWC)". The IWC is the ratio between the maximum discharge of a fa c ility expected during the l i f e of the perm it and the low flow of the receiving stream, defined m athem atically as:

Q e IWC =------X 100 Qe + Qs

Where: IWC = Instream Waste Concentration, expressed as a percentage

Qe = F a cility Design Flow

Qs = Upstream low flow

In the case of a discharge to a dry stream bed or to a stream segment not classified for an aquatic life use the low flow of the firs t downstream segment classified for an aquatic life use shall be used fo r the upstream Qs.

(htf) "PATTERN OF TOXICITY’1. A pattern of to x ic ity is defined by the results of a series of up to five acute biom onitoring SCREENING teats pursuant to the accelerated SCREENING testing requirem ents of 6.9.7(4)(b)(ii) using the single species found to be more sensitive, once every week for up to five consecutive weeks u n til one of the follow ing occurs:

(i) Two (2) consecutive tests (not including the scheduled quarterly test which triggered the search for a pattern of to x ic ity ) re su lt in AN EXCEEDANCE OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT.

This constitutes a pattern of to xicity. ( i i ) T w o (2) consecutive tests (not including the scheduled quarterly test which triggered the search for a pattern of to x ic ity ')' do not re s u lt “in ' AJT "EXCEEDANCE OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY L I M I T . m t U M )

M M iiii.tli.W lil At that tim e no further ACCELERATED I M t M a testing w ill be required and no pattern of to xicity w ill be found to exist.

(iii) if consecutive tests yield different results, the perm ittee shall be required to conduct a maximum of five (5) acute tests (not including the scheduled quarterly test which triggered the search for a pattern of t o x i c i t y ) . I f three out of fiv e tests re s u lt* IN AN EXCEEDANCE OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY

l i m i t , /n w jm iM tu w t I it/ this w ill constitute a pattern of toxicity.

(iji) "PHASE I TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION (PHASE I TRE)". A Phase I TRE is conducted to isolate and characterize the physical/chem ical properties of effluent toxicants using a parallel series of biom onitoring tests. Each characterization test is designed to remove or render biologically unavailable a specific group of toxicants, such as oxidants, m etals, nonpolar organics, or metal chelates.

(jX ) "PHASE II TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION (PHASE II TRE)". Phase II TRE's are studies designed to assess means of elim inating whole effluent to xicity either by identifying toxicants and elim inating them at the source, or by providing treatm ent. Phase II TRE's include fin a l toxicant iden tification and source identification or toxicant tre a ta b ility studies. The details of a Phase II TRE must be developed on a case-by-case b a sis.

( k j) "PRELIMINARY TOXICITY INVESTIGATION". A prelim inary t o x i c i . y investigation consists of a brief search for possible sources of whole effluent to x ic ity , which search might reveal causes of such to xicity and appropriate corrective actions more simply and cost effectively than a form al to xicity reduction evaluation process.

(1) "STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT." FOR PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT, A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE SHALL BE DETERMINED USING THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL, P = .05, WITH THE NUMBER OF TEST ORGANISMS PER DILUTION GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20.

(m}t) "TOXICITY INCIDENT". A to x ic ity incident begins whenever a pattern of to xicity (as defined under 6.9.7(1)(tfh)) occurs. A to xicity incident ends when the to xicity is controlled or the D ivision amends the perm it per 6.9.7(4)(c)(iv)(B).

(n?> "TOXICITY INCIDENT RESPONSE". A to x ic ity incident response consists of a series of tiered investigations conducted in response to finding a pattern of to x ic ity . A TOXICITY INCIDENT RESPONSE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED THROUGH A SPECIFIC COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE ESTABLISHED BY THE DIVISION, AS A RESULT OF SEVERAL ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT VIOLATIONS HAVING OCCURRED WITHOUT A PATTERN OF TOXICITY BEING DEMONSTRATED. A to x ic ity incident response may include a D r a f t # 6 prelim inary to xicity investigation, a Phase I to xicity reduction evaluation, and a Phase II to xicity reduction evaluation.

(6(A) "WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET)". Whole effluent toxicity (WET) is a biological a ctivity e f f e c t by which effluents exhibit antagonism to the aquatic organisms used in biom onitoring tests in the form of acute or chronic to xicity. WET may be caused by a variety of specific compounds or by synergistic interaction among c o m p o u n d s .

(2) GENERAL APPLICATION

The biom onitoring requirements described in Section 6 .9 .7 shall apply to a ll perm ittees WHERE THE DIVISION DETERMINES THAT THE DISCHARGE CAUSES OR HAS THE REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH ATTAINMENT OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS. W W ltlW IW tW nLtllW M llVMl THE DIVISION HAS THE DISCRETION TO REQUIRE, ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, BIOMONITORING INFORMATION FROM A PERMITTEE, WHEN THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE DISCHARGE MAY HAVE THE REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH ATTAINMENT OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS. IF SUCH INFORMATION DEMONSTRATES THAT SUCH TOXICITY IS PRESENT, OR THERE IS A REASONABLE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH TOXICITY, BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO PERMITTEES, SECTION 6.9.7(2)(a) AND (b) NOTWITHSTANDING. Requirements shall be added to perm its at renewal, or at other tim es that the D ivision deems appropriate.

(a) Industrial Permits

(i) The biom onitoring requirements contained in section 6 .9 .7 shall BE PRESUMED not TO apply to the follow ing categories of industrial perm ittees:

(A) Those authorized by THE FOLLOWING general perm its:

(I) PLACER MINING PLUS SAND AND GRAVEL MINING AND PROCESSING.

(II) CONSTRUCTION DEWATERING.

(III) COAL MINING SURFACE RUNOFF.

(IV) POTABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS.

(B) POTABLE water treatm ent plant perm ittees;

(C) Aquaculture;

(D) Exploratory mines (where there is h isto ric drainage);

(E) Non-contact cooling water, AND storm water ru n o ff/ and sump pump discharges w ith no chemical addition o f, or opportunity to come in contact w ith, chemicals other than those substances harmless to aquatic life , or other substances sim ilarly qualified; ( P ) Individual industrial fa cilitie s that the Division finds upon perm it application, through chemical analysis, site inventory and/or biom onitoring test results, do not discharge toxics in concentrations or com binations which would warrant a biom onitoring requirement in the perm it; and

(G) Industrial fa c ilitie s having simple effluents of consistent quality which can be com pletely characterized chem ically may request a waiver from biom onitoring for the remainder of the life of the perm it, if the firs t four quarters of testing show no EXCEEDANCE OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT. Q uarterly biom onitoring w ill be required for the f i r s t year follow ing each perm it renewal.

( i i ) New industrial perm it applicants, not ADDRESSED under 6.9.7{2)(a)(i), for which it is known that the effluent can be accurately simulated because of sim ila rity of the proposed process to existing processes shall be required to perform biom onitoring on sim ulated effluent during the application phase of the perm it process.

(A) If the applicant determines that actual effluent from a full-scale treatment plant is unavailable, p ilo t plant effluent, representative wastewater from bench scale testing or other wastewater which is representative of the discharge, may be used for the testing at the application stage. It is the responsibility of the applicant to insure that an appropriate effluent is utilized for the testing at application, as it w ill be responsible for meeting perm it conditions upon discharge.

(B) No discharge perm it shall be issued if biom onitoring on the sim ulated e fflu e n t results in EXCEEDANCE OF THE acute to xicity LIMIT At the determ ination of the D ivision, the applicant may conduct a prelim inary to xicity investigation under 6.9.7(4)(c)(i) and/or a Phase I TRE under 6.9.7(4)(c)(ii)(A) to modify the proposed process or treatm ent systems to elim inate the to xicity.

(C) If the Phase I TRE conducted pursuant to 6.9.7(4)(c)(ii)(A) a n d (B) indicate that the cause of the toxicity is a SUBSTANCE which has been assigned a numeric lim it under the water quality standards pursuant to S e c t i o n 3 .1 .1 et seq. (5 CCR 1002-8//VMW /5SvUW y Standards and of the Commission's r u l e s ( i . e . , inorganics, m etals, e t c . ) , the water quality standard w ill apply and the discharge perm it lim itations for that SUBSTANCE w ill be based on those standards, pursuant to Section 3 .1 .1 4 of the Commission's rules. The biom onitoring test protocol may be m odified so that the test is not sensitive to SUBSTANCES f°r which numeric permit lim its have been established but only after sufficient verification as to the cause of to xicity and only if the modification is specific to the SUBSTANCE and not an entire fraction. However, if the to xicity is found to be caused by a SUBSTANCE which is not assigned a - 5 - n u m eric lim it under the water quality standards, then the applicant w ill be required to reevaluate the proposed process or treatm ent systems, u n til the potential discharge-pa*ses the appropriate biom onitoring test. This provision applies only to acute to xicity defined by sta tistica lly significantly greater m ortality observed for test species in an effluent concentration than in the control (as defined under e.9 .7(i)

( i i i ) Other new industrial perm its.

(A) A ll new industrial perm it applicants not covered under 6.9.7(2)(a)(i) or 6.9„7(2)(a)(i i ), for which it may not be possible to sim ulate the effluent accurately, are not required to conduct biom onitoring tests at application, but shall have the option of doing so.

(B) In addition, a ll perm its issued to new industrial applicants under 6.9.7(2)(a)(iii) shall contain biom onitoring requirements in accordance w ith Section 6 .9 .7 , including the acute to xicity lim it.

( iv ) Renewal industrial perm its. - At renewal, a ll industrial permits not ADDRESSED under 6.9. 7 (2) (a) ( i ) s h a l l b e subject to the biom onitoring requirem ents.

(v) In cases where the discharge perm it incorporates requirements for more than one discharge point, the provisions o f 6.9.7(2)(a) shall apply w ith regard to each discharge; (e .g ., each discharge point shall be considered in dividu ally).

(b) Domestic perm its -

(i) THE BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN SECTION 6.9 .7 SHALL BE PRESUMED NOT TO APPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF DOMESTIC PERMITTEES:

(A) THOSE AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH DISCHARGE TO UNCLASSIFIED WATERS, OR EITHER GENERAL PERMIT FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH DISCHARGE TO STATE WATERS CLASSIFIED FOR CLASS 2 AQUATIC LIFE. (£B) Domestic Perm its Less Than 5 MGD (dom estic o n ly ) . - The biom onitoring requirements contained in Section 6 .9 .7 shall not apply to any domestic perm ittee w ith design flows less than five m illion gallons per day which treats only domestic wastewater, as verified by the D ivision. However, the D ivision may conduct OR REQUIRE biom onitoring tests ^jiFOR such perm ittees. If such testing RESULTS IN AN EXCEEDANCE OF THE m W i M f acute toxicity LIMIT

then the Division SHALL modify the perm it to include biom onitoring requirem ents in accordance w ith this Section.

tllM ft Wjitti.Wlt+WlttMt'f'lWMtMMtlWHiWWttfWfM M iniUIUW /M tW tlteM tU&tltM liM niW /UVitttlW

tm nw iitm w w tm iiw iiiu

( * ? ( ii> im iittiW tlW M tU tlW tM ttl !tW M4iUt

ttttltlitm tlttM IM Itm M U W ltt F0R dom estic PERMITTEES, THE DIVISION GENERALLY WILL DETERMINE THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT CAUSE OR HAVE THE REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE INTERFERENCE WITH ATTAINMENT OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS OR STANDARDS IF THE PERMITTEE DEMONSTRATES THAT:

(A) An inventory of the industrial and commercial users indicates that there are no categorical industrial contributions as determined by the D ivision; and

(B) An inventory of the in dustrial and commercial users reveals no commercial or industrial contributions which by the nature of th e ir effluents would be expected to have a reasonable potential to cause WET in the perm ittee's effluent, as determined by the D ivision; and

(C) The perm ittee conducts an acute biom onitoring test (2 species) of th e ir discharge which does not RESULT IN AN EXCEEDANCE OF THE acute toxicity LIMIT. M im m tiuiuitm iim iiiuiu ( i i i ) NEW DOMESTIC DISCHARGE APPLICANTS THAT HAVE NO REPRESENTATIVE EFFLUENT W ILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A BIOMONITORING TEST DURING THE APPLICATION STAGE OF THE PERMIT PROCESS.

ttllM M tim m ttltM IM M IM IM ttllUUm -M

Vi-ililM!ai m um IWItatiUttlWIUWitlWWUil-'M’l-UI iunm H uuii luituiuutnm m UUWitl-W int M iM tM i-itnwniM M ntiuuM m M 'm wuM

tHnm um m titm im m i

au nuim itm m tii-niM nm m iuiuw m i m i* um wuniuunm uum uM inm uim iUHi^ M m ua m utm w wtM m iuiwM m m tm mi n m iu m u i m tiutixi-tnm ui i^m tuuiuiium m iM UW tM W IM UM UilUltnW UUIttW lll+M HW W tU tw utittM itnuiM ttin'tii-ttutitm 'm t'm 'bti

(3) TEST METHODS

(a) Acute T oxicity Test - The perm ittee shall conduct each acute to xicity test in general accordance w ith standard w ritten procedures and methods prescribed by the D ivision. STATISTICAL METHODS SHALL BE THOSE FOR MULTIPLE COMPARISONS FOUND IN SHORT-TERM METHODS FOR ESTIMATING THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING WATERS TO FRESHWATER ORGANISMS {EPA/600/4/-85/014). Acute tests w ill be static replacement te s ts o f a single effluent grab sample. C onflicts between normal sample holding requirem ents specified fo r chemical parameters in reference laboratory guidance manuals and the biom onitoring test protocols w ill be resolved by the D ivision. MORTALITY IN THE CONTROL MUST BE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL UNDER ALL THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN EVIDENCE AS DETERMINED BY THE DIVISION. THE DIVISION WILL ADVISE THE DISCHARGER, WITHIN F IF T E E N (15) DAYS OF RECEIPT BY THE DIVISION OF THE TEST RESULTS, IF A RETEST IS REQUIRED.

(b) Chronic T oxicity Test - The perm ittee shall conduct each chronic to xicity test in general accordance w ith standard methods and conditions prescribed by the D ivision. Chronic tests w ill be static replacement te s ts using three composite effluent samples, each of which is to be composited for a minimum of eight hours.

(c) Species Selection - Acute to xicity testing w ill be conducted w ith two species — Ceriodaphnia sp and fathead minnows {Pimephales promelas). Chronic testing w ill be conducted with these two species during the firs t year, and w ith only the more sensitive single species each year thereafter. If chronic to xicity is found for neither species, Ceriodaphnia sp shall be used for subsequent chronic testing. At the request of the applicant, the D ivision may approve the use of other species if their sensitivity to potential pollutants is equivalent to or more than that of Ceriodaphnia sp for invertebrates or fathead minnows for vertebrates, and if there are acceptable methods and procedures for testing alternate species. . ( d ) M odifications of Teat Methods - Perm ittees may modify the test methods or test conditions described above if such m odifications are authorized in advance by the D ivision.

(4) ACUTE TOXICITY - BASED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

(a) Inclusion of Perm it Requirements and Enforcement

( i ) T h e W iW /W iLiiW i/lW li'/tW requirements for testing effluents fo r WET using the methods described in 6 .9 .7 (3 ) shall be incorporated into a ll new discharge perm its and into existing perm its no later than the time of renewal for a ll non-excluded industrial and domestic fa c ilitie s . The D ivision may reopen perm its to include biom onitoring requirements prior to the normal renewal date. Routine testing requirements shall be effective upon perm it is s u a n c e .

( i i ) WHEN INCLUDED IN A PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION, THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT SHALL BE APPLIED AS A DAILY MAXIMUM LIMITATION. AN ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT VIOLATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE DAY OF VIOLATION.

( i i i ) FOR NEW DISCHARGES, THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE IN ITIA L PERMIT ISSUED AND SHALL BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. FOR FACILITIES LISTED PURSUANT TO S E C T IO N 304(1)<1)(C> OF THE FEDERAL ACT, THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN A PERMIT MODIFICATION THAT ESTABLISHES THE REQUIRED INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGY, IF DETERMINED TO BE A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF THAT STRATEGY, AND SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE WITHIN THE DEADLINES ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL ACT.

(H iv ) FOR DISCHARGES OTHER THAN THOSE ADDRESSED IN SUBPARAGRAPH ( i i i ) ABOVE, THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO PERMITS AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OR REOPENING BY THE DIVISION; AND THE LIM IT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF THAT IN ITIA L PERMIT MODIFICATION OR RENEWAL. IF ACUTE WET IS DETECTED WITHIN THE FIRST THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF A PERMITTEE'S FIRST PERMIT CONTAINING BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CONDUCT ACCELERATED TESTING, AND, IF NECESSARY, CONDUCT A TOXICITY INCIDENT RESPONSE AND IDENTIFY A CONTROL PROGRAM TO ELIMINATE THAT TOXICITY. THE CONTROL PROGRAM SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE EARLIEST PRACTICABLE TIME. u / m /it/M *M

tt/m ftim ftim t/m uM M /um m ttM M M tmmi/m/tM M M m/muM t/W M tw/twn m uitm wim im /mM W im iwwmut nnuiM iinwi+ittiwtM iiM m m M itM itM m nniuitum tH m im iium uH inituim uiuum i MM/

(V) IF A VIOLATION OF THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT AS DEFINED IN 6.9. 7 (1 )(b) OCCURS, THAT VIOLATION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DIVISIO N ENFORCEMENT POLICY. PERMITS CONTAINING BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS SHALL PROVIDE THAT SUCH A VIOLATION TRIGGERS AN AUTOMATIC ENFORCEMENT COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE/ REQUIRING THAT THE PERMITTEE UNDERTAKE THE ACCELERATED TESTING AND, IF NECESSARY, TOXICITY INCIDENT RESPONSE MEASURES SPECIFIED BELOW. GENERALLY, NO ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF SECTION 6 .9 .7 SHALL BE TAKEN FOR CONDITIONS PRESENT DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION, SO LONG AS THE PERMITTEE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE.

HM (v i) Enforcement of perm it requirements relative to the exceedance of the acute to xicity lim it shall IN PART be based on the diligence w ith which perm ittees pursue the investigation and elim ination of the exceedance of the acute toxicity lim it. D iligent pursuit of the elim ination of acute to xicity lim it exceedances is a minimum requirement for a ll perm ittees required to perform biom onitoring for WET. The c rite ria used for determ ining the appropriateness of methods used in accomplishing the tasks specified for a toxic incident response are described in Guidance For Conducting Toxicity Reduction Evaluations in Colorado. The D ivision shall be guided by th is document to assure that to xicity incident responses and control programs are appropriate, and to assure that the performance of approved study and control program plans is appropriate. Lack of diligence may include, but is not lim ited to: Failure to perform routine or accelerated testing or to report the results thereof, failure to meet required deadlines established for the purpose of investigating and/or controlling effluent to xicity, failure to perform required investigation of to xicity incidents as set forth in 6.9.7(4){c), or failure to develop and submit for D ivision approval plans for the investigation of effluent to xicity or for the implementation of control programs to elim inate effluent to xicity w ithin the time frames specified i n 6.9.7(4)(c). ( H I ( v i i ) If the acute to xicity lim it is exceeded and the to xicity incident response determines that the to xicity re su lts from a SUBSTANCE regulated by A water q u a lity standard*-BASED PERMIT LIMITATION/ the water quality standard-BASED PERMIT LIMITATION SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR DETERMINING PERMIT COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN THE ACUTE TOXICITY l i m i t . M iitm ii/itiw /tnm titiLM iM M /w ftw /w m M m /tm m iM im iim t/M /m /uut/M tM iiM iltW M tlM Ln THE TOXICITY RESULTS FROM A SUBSTANCE FOR WHICH A NUMERICAL WATER QUALITY STANDARD EXISTS, BUT NO PERMIT LIMITATION, A numeric lim it fo r the SUBSTANCE shall be incorporated into the perm it using the mass balance equation. Where the SUBSTANCE not regulated by a water quality standard, the D ivision may establish an appropriate INTERIM lim ita tio n based upon the findings of the biom onitoring testing AND THE NECESSARY PROTECTION OF DESIGNATED AQUATIC LIFE USES OF THE RECEIVING WATERS. THE INTERIM LIMITATION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAS CONSIDERED THE POLLUTANT AND ESTABLISHED AN APPROPRIATE STANDARD THAT PROTECTS THE DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USE. SUCH CONSIDERATION SHALL OCCUR NO LATER THAN THE NEXT TRIENNIAL REVIEW. The biom onitoring te st protocol, IF POSSIBLE, may be m odified so that the test is not sensitive to THE SUBSTANCE fttttWWWW but only after sufficient verification as to the cause of to xicity and only if the m odification is specific to the SUBSTANCE $$$£$$$$ and not an entire fraction.

/ / / ( v i i i ) Nothing in V M f t t W t e M s e c t i o n * 6 .9 .7 S H A L L '¡¡1%% prevent the D ivision from establishing ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED com pliance schedule REQUIREMENTS for the control OR INVESTIGATION of acute to x ic ity when the D ivision determines that such actions are necessary to prevent adverse impacts to waters of the state OR TO PROVIDE MORE REASONABLE TIME APPROPRIATE FOR A TOXICITY INCIDENT RESPONSE.

(ix ) Where the perm ittee demonstrates effluent to xicity to be the pass through of to xicity from the intake water source, the perm ittee shall be e lig ib le for an equivalent credit. Where water treatm ent for potable or industrial purposes is provided, the credit would be based on to xicity levels present follow ing such treatm ent. To qualify for credit, the water must be discharged to the same segment from which it was withdrawn, or to downstream segments w ith equal or lesser standards. ( b ) Testing Requirements

i)* Routine DEFINITIVE Testing - Permits shall require that routine acute DEFINITIVE to x ic ity tests be performed quarterly, w ith two species. Tests shall be required only during those quarterly periods when a discharge occurs. When failure of a scheduled quarterly DEFINITIVE test results in a detection of a pattern of to xicity and a toxic incident response is in itia te d , normal quarterly biom onitoring shall be required. A failure at this point is not subject to accelerated testing provisions.

( i i ) Accelerated SCREENING Testing - When the acute to x ic ity lim it is exceeded during quarterly DEFINITIVE TESTING, the perm ittee shall notify the D ivision verbally w ithin 24 hours and in w riting w ithin 5 days after becoming aware of the test result. The perm ittee shall perform an accelerated schedule of acute biom onitoring to establish whether a pattern of to xicity exists. Accelerated SCREENING TESTS w ill begin within seven days a fte r the perm ittee becomes aware of the QUARTERLY DEFINITIVE test resu lt. Accelerated SCREENING testing shall be conducted as defined under 6.9.7{1)(h).

(c) T oxicity Incident Response

(i) Prelim inary Toxicity Investigation

(A) When a pattern of to x ic ity is detected in accordance w i t h 6 . 9 . 7 ( 1 ) / $ / ( h) and 6 . 9 . 7 ( 4 ) ( b ) ( i i ), the perm ittee w ill orally notify the D ivision w ithin 24 hours and in w riting w ithin 5 days and begin an evaluation of the possible causes of the to xicity. The perm ittee w ill have 15 working days from dem onstration of the pattern of to xicity to complete a prelim inary to xicity investigation and submit to the D ivision, in w riting, the results of the prelim inary to xicity investigation. The prelim inary to xicity investigation may include, but is not lim ited to: Additional chemical and biological m onitoring, exam ination of pretreatm ent program records, exam ination of discharge m onitoring reports, evaluation of treatm ent processes and chemical use, inspection of m aterial storage and transfer areas to determine if a s p ill may have occurred, and sim ilar procedures.

(B) If the prelim inary to xicity investigation identifies a probable toxicant and/or a probable source of to xicity, the perm ittee shall submit, as part of its fina l report results, w ritten notification to that e f f e c t t o t h e Division. W ithin th irty (30) days of completing the prelim inary to xicity investigation the perm ittee shall submit for the D ivision's approval a control program to control effluent to xicity as described under 6.9.7(4)(c)(iii) , and shall proceed to implement such plan w ithin seven days follow ing approval by the D ivision. The control program, as submitted to or revised by the D ivision, may be incorporated into the perm it in CR14-234 accordance w ith the provisions of Section 6 .9 .3 (1 0 ).

- 12 - (C) I f no probable explanation for to xicity is identified in the 15-day prelim inary to xicity investigation, the perm ittee shall notify- the D ivision^ as part of its fina l report, of its intent to proceed w ith the Phase I TRE as described under 6.9.7(4)(c)(ii)(A).

(D) I f to xicity spontaneously disappears during the prelim inary to xicity investigation, the perm ittee shall submit w ritten notification to that e f f e c t t o t h e Division. The to xicity incident shall be resolved in accordance w ith 6.9.7(4)(c)(v).

( i i ) T oxicity Reduction Evaluation

(A) Phase I TRE

( I ) \e Phase I TRE performed by the perm ittee shall be iu general accordance w ith Methods For T oxicity Reduction Evaluations, Phase I, T oxicity Characterization Procedures / I9 9 $ f published by EPA or in accordance w ith procedures approved by the D ivision. If only one species demonstrated to x ic ity during accelerated testing, then that species alone may be used in the Phase I TRE. The perm ittee has 45 days from the submission of the fin a l report on the prelim inary to xicity investigation to complete the Phase I TRE and submit a report to the D ivision.

(II) The Phase I TRE report shall indicate the results of the study.

1. f the Phase I TRE identifies a probable to. _cant and/or a probable source c: to xicity, the perm ittee shall submit w ritten notification to t h a t e f f e c t to the D ivision as part of the report. W ithin th irty (30) days of completing the Phase I TRE the perm ittee shall submit for the D ivision's approval a control program to control WET as described in 6.9.7(4)(c)(iii) and shall proceed to implement such plan w ithin seven days follow ing approval by the D ivision. The control program, as subm itted to or revised by the D ivision, may be incorporated into the perm it in accordance w ith the provisions of Section 6 .9 .3 (1 0 ).

2. I f the Phase I TRE fa ils to identify a probable toxicant and/or a probable source of to xicity, the perm ittee shall notify the D ivision of its findings. The D ivision shall determine whether to require the perm ittee to proceed w ith a Phase II TRE as described under 6 . 9 . 7 ( 4 ) ( c ) ( i i ) ( B ) , and s h a ll notify the perm ittee of this decision in w riting w ithin 60 days of receipt of the perm ittee's fin a l report on the results of the Phase I TRE.

( I l l ) I f to xicity spontaneously disappears during the Phase I TRE, perm ittee shall submit w ritten notification to that e f f e c t to the D ivision, and the to xicity incident shall be resolved in accordance with 6.9.7(4){c)(v).

) P h a s e I I TRE

(I) A plan for a Phase II TRE shall be submitted to the D ivision by the perm ittee w ithin sixty (60) d a y s of no tificatio n from the D ivision that a Phase II TRE w ill be required. The Phase II TRE Plan, as submitted to or revised by the D ivision, shall be incorporated into the perm it in accordance w ith the provisions of 5 CCR 1002-2.

(II) The Phase II TRE plan shall include the scope, methods, procedures, reporting requirem ents, and schedules. A Phase II TRE may follow either of two directions, as appropriate: Toxicant tre a ta b ility studies or source id en tification and control studies. Toxicant tre a ta b ility studies are designed to assess the fe a sib ility of elim inating WET via addition or m odification of treatm ent processes at the wastewater treatment fa c ility .

Source id e n tification and control e f f o r t s are designed to identify toxicants, identify the sources of toxicants, and control whole effluent to xicity by elim inating the introduction of toxicants into the wastewater treatm ent fa c ility . The Phase II TRE perm it conditions may be amended, consistent w ith the provisions of Section 6 .9 .3 (1), i f so requested and ju stifie d by the perm ittee.

( I l l ) The Phase II report shall indicate the results of the Phase II TRE study. If the Phase II TRE results in the identification of the toxicants and the sources of toxicants, the perm ittee shall submit for D ivision approval a control program to control WET as described in 6.9.7(4)(c)(iii) w ithin 60 days of discovering the cause(s) of effluent toxicity, and shall proceed to implement such plan w ithin seven days follow ing its approval by the D ivision. The control program, as submitted to or revised by the D ivision, may be incorporated into the perm it in accordance w ith the provisions of Section 6.9.3.(10). ( I V ) If to xicity spontaneously disappears during the Phase II TRE, the perm ittee shall submit w ritten notification to that effect to 'the D ivision. The to xicity incident shall be resolved in accordance w ith 6.9.7(4)(c)(v).

( i i i ) Toxicity Elim ination

(A) If the to xicity incident response identifies the toxicants and th e ir sources or id en tifies feasible treatment options, then the perm ittee shall submit for D ivision approval a control program. The control program along w ith cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the costs of construction bear a reasonable relationship to the resulting benefits shall be submitted w ithin the specified tim e frames. The control program, as submitted to or revised by the D ivision, shall be incorporated into the perm it in accordance w ith the provisions of 5CCR 1002-2. THE DIVISIO N'S APPROVAL OF A CONTROL PROGRAM DOES NOT RELIEVE THE PERMITTEE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE ACUTE TOXICITY LIM IT.

(B) A control program may include, but shall not be lim ited to: Additional pretreatm ent requirements imposed on specific in dire ct perm ittees by POTW's, m odification of internal source control programs by industries, m odifications of treatm ent plants, and/or best management practices for sp ills, leaks, :c. Following the implementation of the control x- jgram under the terms of the compliance s?;.edule and following verification that no pattern of to xicity exists as specified under 6.9.7(1)/#/(h), t h e to xicity inci Jant is closed and normal quarterly biom onitoring shall resume.

(C) If study results indicate that the toxicant(s) may be controlled w ith specific numeric lim its the perm it shall be m odified to include additional or m odified numerical lim itations adequate to assure that acute WET w ill not occur. The biomc toring test protocol shall be modified so that the st is not sensitive to compounds fo r which numeric perm it litt i ts have been established, but only after sufficient: verificatio n as to the cause of to xicity and only if the m odification is specific to the compound and not an entire fraction. A fter m odification of the perm it to include appropriate numeric lim its and follow ing the com pletion of any compliance schedule necessitated by the establishment of new effluent lin r ations, the toxicity incident is closed and normc uarterly biom onitoring shall resume. (iv ) Request For R elief

— —.—Upon' satisfactory completion of the required portion of the to xicity incident response, w ith diligence, compliance w ith other perm it conditions and proper operation and maintenance of treatm ent fa c ilitie s , the perm ittee may request re lie f from further investigation and testing. In requesting such re lie f, the perm ittee shall submit m aterial sufficient to establish the follow ing:

(A) It has used diligence as defined in Section 6.9.7 ( l ) ( d ) , in implementing a to xicity incident response;

(B) During the period of the to xicity incident it has been in compliance w ith a ll other perm it conditions, including, in the case of a POTW, pre-treatm ent requirem ents;

{C) During the period of the to xicity incident it has properly maintained and operated a ll fa c ilitie s and systems of treatm ent and control; and

(D) Despite the circumstances described in paragraphs (A) through (C) above, the source and/or cause of to xicity could not be located or resolved.

If deemed appropriate by the D ivision, the perm it OR THE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE MAY BE MODIFIED TO REVISE THE ONGOING MONITORING AND TOXICITY INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO AVOID AN UNPRODUCTIVE EXPENDITURE OF THE PERMITTEE'S RESOURCES, PROVIDED THAT THE UNDERLYING OBLIGATION TO ELIMINATE ANY CONTINUING TOXICITY SHALL REMAIN,

um tM tm itm /w/twM iim /ttm m /m M witm m /wm tiim iiittm m m iwim m M im M ii+M M itm n/ttiM iitwm m iim

M ittm iwii-wiwuM Uiii in n iu w u m m M nteitniuuiwiM ituiM W M M tm iwn

uuuum tuium uH tiuniH uuim ui wm m iiwnm iM M ii-M iM utm M w u w t m i u m / iw itiw w m m i im ittn tm iim wiitM iwim wiM iim M ituiuwni m im iwtm iitim m iiunm niim itw im niititM U teiwiw+uniwnM tim tiuuutM m t a u m u i ( v ) Spontaneous Disappearance of T oxicity

If to x ic ity spontaneously disappears'-fronr the «¿fluent either during the prelim inary to xicity investigation, during a Phase I TRE, during a Phase II TRE, or after adm inistrative closure of a to xicity incident, the D ivision may require the perm ittee to conduct accelerated testing (as defined under 6.9.7(1)(h)) t o demonstrate that no pattern of to xicity exists. If no exceedance of the acute to xicity lim it is found to exist the to x ic ity incident RESPONSE is closed and normal quarterly biom onitoring shall resume.

(v i) Nothing in the preceding sections w ill preclude the D ivision from authorizing a perm ittee to deviate from the schedule of tiered requirements outlined for a to xicity incident response if the D ivision determines that such deviation is warranted by the facts and is in the best interest of protecting the waters of the State.

(d) Reporting Requirements

The perm ittee shall provide the inform ation requested on the biom onitoring report forms for to xicity testing. This shall include reporting of quarterly test results as w ell as additional testing conducted as part of a to xicity incident r e s p o n s e .

(5) CHRONIC TOXICITY-BASED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

(a) A pplicability - The D ivision shall determine if chronic to xicity tests are required to be performed by the perm ittee based upon the type of discharge, the classification of the receiving stream and the appropriate low flow to effluent ratio . New industrial fa c ilitie s , where it is known or believed that the wastewater w ill have a complex mix of toxic or hazardous constituents, w ill be required to conduct chronic testing regardless of the classification of the receiving stream. In cases where the type of fa c ility is not an im portant consideration, the receiving stream w ill be the determ ining factor. Any discharge to a Class 1 Aquatic L i f e s t r e a m segment w ill have chronic biom onitoring requirem ents included in the discharge perm it. Any discharge to a Class 2 Aquatic Life stream segment, w ith a ll of the appropriate aquatic life-based numeric standards, w ill have chronic m onitoring included in the perm it, unless the low flow to effluent ratio is greater than 19:1. Chronic biom onitoring w ill not norm ally be required for any discharge to a stream segment assigned no aquatic life use cla ssificatio n. The D ivision shall m aintain the discretion to require chronic testing for perm ittees to other stream segments without aquatic life numbers if it is determined that the beneficial uses of the stream segment may be adversely impacted by the discharge. Factors to be considered include, but are not lim ited to: classification of the receiving waters, low flow to effluent ra tio , and proxim ity to downstream Class 1 Aquatic L ife Segments. ( b ) Incorporation into Permits - Following the effective date of th is Section 6.9.7# routine testing and reporting requirements shall be incorporated into new and renewal discharge perm its in accordance w ith Subsection 6 .9 .7 (2 ), and as provided in this Subsection 6.9.7(5)(a). Permits shall require that routine chronic toxicity tests be performed once every six months, w ith two species, so as not to coincide with acute testing. A fter the firs t year, the m onitoring requirements w ill require testing w ith only the more sensitive species, if neither species has demonstrated chronic to xicity further chronic biom onitoring tests shall use Ceriodaphnia sp. A fter the third year of m onitoring the chronic testing requirements w ill no longer be required unless applicable regulations require inclusion of a chronic to xicity lim it.

(c) Reporting Requirements - The perm ittee shall provide the inform ation requested on the Biom onitoring Report Forms for chronic to xicity testing. CR14-241 y r o t a l u n g o e i r t c e e s s e h t h t i f w o e n c n o i a t d p r o o c d c a a r n i o f , d y t e i t r p o o d h a t u o a s l a y r n o io t s is u t m a m t o C w s ie v e r h c e T i v f i O c e . p s s n o i e s i h t v o r e p d i v o r p s n o i t c e s f o s n o i s i v o r p e h T ssi s a h t i , d i l a v e r e w d e t s p n o o d n i a a t le c C a s n l s o a i u r t o e i a l v d u e e r f g p e r e h s l t t a i r f e o t d a e f s h t t n e g s m n i e e r v d i e u u i l l q c e e r g n b i n i r n h t o io , i t s i s is w n n m o o m t i o t m n C a o e l i t u b e s i g h t s e r n e o h f c g i g u l n i in o t h n t l e c e i A t r m a a le u p q n m i a o i t d l n a a l a u i t g t c i e A r n r i t e t a a e W h h 's t t o d f f a r o o o l o e C s i c r d e e t x p o e d a n io s is m m o C e h T C.R.S. ), (4 3 0 -1 -4 4 2 STATEM EN T O F B A S IS . S P E C IF IC STATU TO RY A U T H O R IT Y . AND PURPOSE PURPOSE AND . Y IT R O H T U A RY TO STATU IC IF C E P S . IS S A B F O T EN STATEM e effluent toxicity y t i c i x o t t n e u l f f e le o h w h t i w d r a w r o f e v o m o t o t s d e n a g n e y l l s a r h e c v o r l t n a o g c e l d e g d n in e d t l n x e o e p r t d n i o o v c a o t EPA has argued that several provisions s n o i s i v o r p l a r e v e s , r e b t m a e v o h t N d n e i u g r a s n s o i a t h a l A u P E g e R . e m m te a s s y S e t h i t m r t e P e . r e p e r c g r a e l a t h p c n i s i D d n a e h t s d r f a o d n a t t r s a p d n a s a s t n e m e r i u q e r s that were the subject of this proceeding in an n a n i g n i d e e c o r p s i h t f o t c e j b u s e h t e r e w t a h t ts n e m d n e m a e h t d e t p o d a e h t o t t c e j b u s n y l o i t t c a l e u r i g e d r t l o n a n i e r e g i w r — o t i e m h t i l r e d y n t u i c i t a x h o t t s a e w t u c EPA a y b e h t d e f s i o a r e c n n r a d e e c e n c y o x t c e i l i r o b j a a m i L e h T t n e m e t c r e o f n , E 8 6 8 3 2 . g e R . d e F after the original Col n i e r e w s n o i s i v o r p g n i r o t i n o m o i b o d a r lo o C l a n i g i r o e h t r e t f a , 9 8 9 1 , e n u J n i 1988. y r o t a g i t s e v n i t . n s e r u u q r d c e o e c s r b o i u u s d q n e e t d r o n c i a t e s r e a i r g l u d s n o i - a i e u n v m n o i i t y e s n i n s o a n v c i o e p r D w v s e e i n v e t s r e i i n r e f o n h t i o w f n y t t e e i s , s d i d s c n e i e c t o i n m x i e s a i r o n f e v i t t e o v y r u i m t i t e i t p o i h r t c n i i e t f x r e h t c e h e i o h t t t r d e y t b h f d s w n o y a l d r d e e n e v n a t l g i r o n m i a s r t t e e u i t r s q e c e i d t l s e i p n d i x t e n t r u e a e r o c r e n l n o i e c a c h t c i s a i n i h w T h t s i e c w n a . d t e n e e c x m e e c r f o f o n e r o f l a i t n e t o p d not be permit violations. The concept t p e c n o c e h T . o t s n g o s i t n e i i t a t l s i o e v i t i v t c g t i n a i n m r e f e e o r p c s e n b o t i l t d t a e u t t o s n n a r e e r e m l ld e e l u a c o p c w m a i s a , t g r g n n u n n i i c o a r i d c t u c o u i l d a x l c y a o r n m o i t i u c v c s e o , h e n t t l i u o t i m d t r a y e e f h a h i l t p c t s o i n a s v e e e c e b d r n t i i u lia y l m a i p r m o e m a t f o p c t i t s a , t s m y s i l y e l l e b t t a c g i d y f t n e i i i r r i c c o u i t e i q x p n e o r o S t m o i e t B u . t c n a e m e e h c t r d o e f t f c n u e o . d n s o e o n c c t n o a t i d t t s e e c a e c t e t x i j e b m u g i e s l n l s i r n g o o i n t g t i i n c s n i e r o s o t b i m u n o i s o b m l o i a b u l d i i a v i f / d s n i s a p t s e t e l g n i s e s o p im A P E y b d e t s e g g u s y l l a n g i r o s a w g n i , n n e e o r i t c s a l o d i e t v a r t i e l e m r c e c p a e h t . s n . h o c i t a o r a l p p o a i v l t a n n e o i u t l i f f t d e n a e r t c u i l f i f f e c h e e t p s le n - l o a h a h t w c t i n t f m e o n e r e h e c e g f r f n u i i t r r d t a o n s f t a h e w s s e r h e m t u o e l s c c t o o e a n r h a n t e s t i f s d e o n in o n i n m o s r i i a t e v t h a t e l o r d u p s g s e e a g h r c r i a f i n h io c s c s i s e i is h d m p t m s o C n i e e s h e T h d t e d i t v a . o r h s t p n o s i e t t o a l n o i n v io s is m m o C e h T f!990 the whol m a r g o r p e h t , le o h w e h t n O . e c n e r e f f i d s i h t s t n a r r a w s n o i t a l o i v y t i c i x o t e will result in more rapid elimination of toxicity from point source e c r u o s t n i e o c n p lia p m m o r o f c e y l t b i a c e i c r x o f o n t e f d t o n i a m n c i i o l t i t a a m t o n t i n u e m a i l u l e f e f h t e d i f p c o i a f r i c n e e r o i o t p m a s t - l n e n a i c m i e l t m p l e u m i h s c e t r a o t h l t l i d d e i e l w t p c e p p le a x u e d e y h l c s l s i a n t I o i t i d a r t e s o h t . m m o a r r f g o r p s i h t r o f ssi lawful l u f w a l a d e t u t i t s n o c s t n e m e r i u q e r e s o h t t a h t s e v e i l e b n io s is m m o C e h T s! ts n e m d n e m A s n o i s i v o r P a n l r o t l n o m o l B . s t r o f f e . t s e t b ad . ) v ( ) a ( ) 4 ( and (b) ) 1 ( 7 . 9 . 6 i , e l u d e h c s e c n lia p m o c c i t a m o t u a n a r o f e d i v o r p s n o i t a l u g e r e h T y l t n e r r u c e h t d l u o h s d e r e d i s n o c e r e b l l a h s n o i t a l u g e r s i h T at 's te ta S . e s o p r u P d n a s i s a B f o t n e m e t a t S g n i w o l l o f e h t e.. sea. s n o i t a c i f i s s a l c y t i l a u q r e t a w n w o s t i t e s o t y t i r o h t u a g n i g n e l l a h c n i l u f s s e c c u s e v o r p , t s e t , t s e t 8- 1)(d) {1 2 0 -2 -8 5 2 EPA's ests s te . e . i — " s e r u l i a f " ch is a permit violation, versus s u a s r e t v o n , n s u o h i t t a d l n a o i v t s t i e t m r e d p e t a a i v e r s i b b a h ic n h a w s f i o h ic e h r w u l i a f J u n e 2 , 1 9 8 9 , r e g u l a t i o n p u b l i s h e d a t 54 54 t a d e h s i l b u p n o i t a l u g e r , 9 8 9 1 , 2 e n u J T h e s e s e c t i o n s n o w p r o v i d e t h a t a a t a h t e d i v o r p w o n s n o i t c e s e s e h T - 1 - o t 1 0 5 - 8 - 5 2 d n a f f a t s n a n i g n i t l u s e r l l e w k r o w o t s m e e s d n a 25-8-504, C.R.S. C.R.S. 25-8-504, EPA's o t y t i r o h t u a t r o f f e W hen chem ical-specific to xicity is detected in an effluent, there is an immediate target for corrective measures— i.e . the chemical for which the effluent lim itation has been exceeded. When whole effluent to xicity is detected, additional investigations are necessary to determine the nature and cause of that to xicity prior to implementing corrective measures to elim inate the to xicity. Because of the need to expeditiously complete th is extra step to achieve water quality control, the Commission has taken the unique step of including in the regulation specific and tig h t deadlines that w ill apply to a ll perm ittees for implementing accelerated testing and to x ic ity incident r e s p o n s e e f f o r t s . For chem ical-specific effluent lim itation violations, the im position of response requirements is typ ica lly handled in a more flexib le , and more time-consuming, manner. At the same tim e, the Commission has sought to encourage a prompt and aggressive response to the detection of whole effluent to xicity by providing that test failures occurring as a part of compliance schedule implementation are not perm it violations. As a result, the perm ittee is encouraged to conduct additional necessary testing without fear of recurring days of violation. The dictated deadlines in the compliance schedule provide the perm ittee w ith the impetus to conduct tim ely investigations, since each day of delinquent reports and to xicity incident response actions would constitute an additional day of violation. In addition, subsequent quarterly test exceedances w ill constitute perm it violations, providing an additional incentive for prompt elim ination of the t o x i c i t y .

If a situation should arise where the D ivision feels that quarterly test violations in combination w ith compliance schedule requirem ents are not creating an adequate incentive for prompt resolution of a serious pollution problem, the regulation also provides the authority for the D ivision to direct that additional biom onitoring tests be conducted. Any exceedances occurring in these D ivision-directed tests would constitute additional days of violation. If necessary in an extreme situation, the D ivision could direct that substantial additional testing be conducted, creating the potential for substantially increased lia b ility if a problem were not otherwise being adequately addressed. The Commission contemplates that the need for such extreme measures would be rare, and that in addressing such situations the D ivision would be guided by the provisions of its Biom onitoring Enforcement Guidance Document. The Commission contemplates that the need for substantial additional D ivision-directed tests during the period of a compliance schedule would like ly arise only in instances involving severe to xicity in the effluent or actual use impairment, in combination w ith the failure of the perm ittee to expeditiously investigate and elim inate the to xicity.

The Commission has provided in section 6.9.7(4)(a){v) that "generally" there w ill not be additional enforcement for conditions present during the course of compliance schedule im plem entation, so long as the perm ittee is meeting the compliance schedule requirem ents. The D iv is io n 's Biom onitoring Enforcement Guidance Document appropriately contains c rite ria that provide general guidance to perm ittees and the public regarding when such additional enforcement may be appropriate. The Commission contemplates that factors such as the severity of the to xicity, the presence of actual use impairment, a history of to xicity recurring over time for a specific discharger, and any intentional wrongdoing by a discharger would be taken into account in the crite ria established by the D ivision. A l t hough the regulation now provides that single test exceedances -jZ the acute to xicity lim it may be perm it violations potentially subject to the fu ll range of enforcement and penalties, the Commission believes that th is authority must be u tilize d w ith discretion. Because of the unique nature of ih la im portant new program, the Commission believes it is p a rticularly im portant for the D ivision to give the public clear notice of its intended approach to im plem entation through its Biom onitoring Enforcement Guidance Document, which was submitted for inform ational purposes in th is hearing. The Commission recommends that document not be amended w ithout providing a public brie fin g to the Commission regarding proposed changes, and an opportunity fo r public comment to the D ivision.

A related enforcement lia b ility issue concern that was raised by EPA was the "pattern of to xicity" concept in Colorado's regulation. The EPA concern was that m ultiple exceedances of the acute to xicity lim it were allowed prior to corrective action being required. W ith the revised provisions discussed above, the in itia l failure is a violation and the tests for demonstration of a pattern of to xicity are s till necessary, a concept supported by top EPA experts in the fie ld . The pattern tests are not for confirm atory purposes, but rather are intended to see if to xicity is s till present. Such proof is im portant so that investigatory e fforts and monies are not wasted looking for something that is no longer present. As previously discussed, however, failures on such screening tests are not enforceable violations.

The "diligence" concept in Colorado's regulation was another item of concern to EPA when it was the prim ary basis for enforcement. The a b ility to enforce based upon diligence is retained w ithin the regulation, but it is now in addition to the enforcement authority triggered by the failure of the in itia l acute to xicity t e s t . The diligence provisions are now form ulated as enforceable compliance schedule requirem ents.

General A pp licability Provisions

The introductory language in section 6 .9 .7 (2 ) has been revised to provide that biom onitoring requirements w ill be applied in individual perm its when the D ivision makes a threshold determ ination that the discharge would reasonably be expected to interfere w ith the attainm ent of applicable water quality classifications or standards. This should help assure the efficiency of this program, by applying these requirements where they are most needed. The Commission intends that in making th is determ ination the D ivision would take into account available inform ation regarding the nature of the discharge, site-specific classifications and standards adopted for the receiving waters, applicable statewide standards, and the nature of the inform ation acquired by biom onitoring. The record demonstrates that the biom onitoring required by s e c t i o n 6 .9 .7 is a useful indicator of toxicity to aquatic life . No evidence was submitted demonstrating that th is form of biom onitoring is a useful indicator of to xicity to other beneficial uses.

For segments not classified for aquatic l i f e use, the D ivision should also consider any available inform ation regarding why that use was not deemed attainable. If attainability is lim ited by nonpoint sources of pollution, or other point sources, the impact from which may be elim inated or minimized in the future, biom onitoring may be required. The Commission determined such m onitoring requirements may be appropriate to assure that th is perm itted discharge w ill not cause to xicity that lim its the options for overall improvement of the water quality. A s revised, subsections 6 . 9 . 7 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( i ) and ( b ) ( i ) enumerate certain categories of discharges fo r which the biom onitoring requirements are presum ptively inapplicable. These categories have been liste d as a m atter of efficiency since, as elaborated below, the best current inform ation indicates that significant to xicity w ill not generally be expected for these types of discharges. However, the new introductory language for section 6 .9 .7 (2 ) g i v e s the D ivision the authority to require biom onitoring inform ation from anv perm ittee, e .g . i f there is reason to believe that the general presumption of no to xicity may not apply to a particular discharge that fa lls into the s e c t i o n 6.9.7(2)(a)(i) and (b)(i) categories. If that inform ation indicates that to xicity or the reasonable potential for to xicity are present, permit requirements, including the acute to xicity lim it, w ill be imposed.

Several general perm its are liste d in sections 6 . 9 . 7 ( 2 ) ( a ) ( i) and ( b ) ( i ) . T h e D ivision has indicated that it expects a lack of significant pollutants and toxics in "typical" effluents from such activities. Additionally, the application for certification for a specific fa c ility is conditioned so as to require screening of the effluent and site conditions to identify nontypical conditions. If such conditions warrant, these fa c ilitie s are then required to obtain individual perm its. The follow ing are additional factors that warrant a presumption of biom onitoring inapplicability for fa c ilitie s covered by these general perm its.

1) Placer M ining plus Sand and Gravel Mining and Processing. Water associated w ith this type of a ctivity results from groundwater encountered in mining or process water resulting from washing of the gravels. The nature of this a ctivity does not introduce toxics into the water, because of the lack of chemical additives and the lack of m ineralization in the ore. Total suspended solids is the primary concern of these a ctivitie s. Chemical additives u tilize d to control to ta l suspended solids are subject to D ivision approval.

2) construction Dewatering. Water from this type of a ctivity is groundwater associated w ith a construction a ctivity. As such, the addition of pollutants to the effluent should not occur except for to ta l suspended solids plus o il and grease.

3) Coal Mining. Water from this type of activity is lim ited to precipitation runoff and does not allow for the discharge of mine water. Such waters in Colorado have typ ica lly only demonstrated trace levels of dissolved metals or low pH. The prim ary concern w ith runoff is to ta l suspended solids, which is typica lly controlled by simple settling. Chemical additives for enhanced settling of solids are subject to Division approval.

4) Potable Water Treatment Plants. Water from these fa c ilitie s is typically associated w ith bypass waters and backwash waters. P ollutants of concern are to ta l suspended solids and chlorine. The likelihood of unknown toxics in such waters is very lim ited.

5) Domestic Treatment F a cilitie s which Discharge to U nclassified Waters, Domestic Treatment F a cilitie s which Discharge to State Waters C lassified for Class 2 Aquatic Life. F acilities eligible for coverage under this grouping of perm its must prim arily receive domestic waste. Acceptance of industrial waste is a basis to deny ce rtifica tio n and require an individual perm it for the fa c ility . As such, the likelihood of toxics in the effluent should be lim ited. A s to cnree other categories of industrial a ctivitie s that are exempt from biom onitoring requirements, the follow ing factors are the basis for the presumptive in a p p lica b ility of biom onitoring requirem ents:

1) Aquaculture. Aquaculture a ctivitie s are effectively continuous biom onitoring tests. The presence of toxics in the effluent should be observed in the contained organisms. The most obvious impairment would be m ortality, although it could be growth or reproduction related.

2) Water Treatment Plants. This grouping is simply larger fa c ilitie s that are not e lig ib le for coverage under the general perm it for water treatm ent plants. The nature of the waters should be the same and thus free of toxics.

3) Exploratory Mines (where there is historic drainage). Toxicity in mine drainage is routinely associated w ith heavy m etals. As Colorado has a very extensive system for acute and chronic water quality metals standards, chem ical-specific effluent lim itations should be protective of the existing receiving stream during exploration. Should active m ining prove viable, WET lim itations would be applied concurrent w ith the federal technology-based lim itations and other water quality standard-based lim itations.

The discussion in the regulation regarding the basis for the other categories of presumptive in ap plicab ility of biom onitoring requirements should be self-explanatory.

Timing of Acute Lim it A pplicability

S e c t i o n 6 .9 .7 (4 ) has been revised to c l a r i f y the tim ing of applicability of the acute to xicity lim it for different categories of dischargers. For new discharges, the lim it w ill be incorporated into perm its and become effective immediately. For discharges liste d pursuant to section 304(1)(1)(C) o f t h e federal Clean Water Act, where biom onitoring is determined to be an appropriate component of an individual control strategy, the lim it w ill become effective w ithin a timeframe to allow compliance w ith the federal deadlines for these segments.

For other existing dischargers, the acute to xicity lim it w ill be incorporated into perm its at renewal or reopening and become effective three years later. This tim ing is appropriate to allow these existing dischargers tim e to levelop experience w ith th is new type of m onitoring and to implement any changes necessary to comply with the acute to xicity lim it requirement. This is pa rticularly appropriate since the segments affected by these dischargers were not liste d under section 304(1), and therefore were not believed to have a significant to xicity problem. Moreover, this approach is consistent with the approach being implemented by EPA Region V III. During the firs t three years, should acute to xicity be identified the perm ittee w ill be required to conduct a to xicity incident response and identify a control program if possible. The control program w ill be expected to be implemented w ithin a tim ely manner, which may be prior to the time that the lim it becomes effective. In addition, if no acute to xicity is found in the effluent during such three-year period, this would be one factor taken into account by the D ivision in determ ining whether there is a continuing need for biom onitoring requirements in the perm it, in accordance w ith section 6 .9 .7 (2 ). Q u e stions have arisen regarding the relationship between biom onitoring re«pii-rementff-used--be help implement a narrative water q u a lity standard and traditional numerical water quality standards. Section 6.9.7(4)(a)(vii) h a s been revised to cla rify that numerical water quality standards are s till intended to be determ inative where applicable. If the acute to xicity lim it is exceeded due to a substance for which a num erical standard exists, that standard w ill govern for assessing compliance.

The Commission has determined that th is approach is appropriate as a m atter of policy, to help preserve the v ia b ility of the overall, comprehensive Colorado water quality standards system. Substantial inform ation, tim e and e f f o r t h a v e gone into development of the existing acute and chronic num erical standards. At the same tim e, the Commission notes that exceedance of the acute to x ic ity lim it, in spite of compliance w ith a numerical standard for a substance that has caused the exceedance, generally w ill indicate that the num erical standard in question should be reassessed. In such circumstances the numerical standard may need to be tightened to help assure protection of the classified uses, and the results of the WET testing would be taken into account in the next review of the numerical standard.

The revised regulation also provides the option for the D ivision to establish an interim effluent lim it to control a specific substance that is determined to cause acute to xicity, but for which no numerical water quality standard e x is ts , u n til the Commission can adopt such a standard.

Chronic T oxicity

W ith respect to chronic to x ic ity biom onitoring, the Commission has continued to include only testing requirements in the regulation at this tim e. The regulation does not establish a chronic to xicity lim it. As discussed in the Statement of Basis and purpose for the original biom onitoring provisions, legitim ate questions have been raised regarding the se n sitivity and re lia b ility of the chronic test methodology. In addition, standarized to x ic ity characterization methods have not yet been developed for chronic t o x i c i t y .

Chronic lim its were not considered appropriate for several reasons. Test va ria b ility is considered to be high and laboratory and site variables in test conditions, such as type of d ilu tio n water and food quality may influence test results and lead to excessive false positives or false negatives. Through its complex effluent to xicity testing program, EPA has claimed that the results of chronic testing of effluents is predictive of adverse ecological impacts of toxic discharges. However, this claim is being questioned in those studies where results are based on the non-lethal test endpoints of growth and reproduction. Moreover, if chronic to xicity were to be found, Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) procedures are not available for investigating the cause of chronic to xicity. U ntil these issues are resolved, the results of chronic tests must be used w ith caution and are best used to obtain supplemental inform ation about a discharge impact to receiving waters, but not as a perm it lim it. EPA regulations {40 C.F.R. s e c t i o n 12 2.45(d)) provide that water quality standards be translated in to da ily maximum, weekly average, and/or monthly average perm it lim its, "unless im practicable.” In view of the lim itations on the current state of the science as described^ abQ

Therefore, section 6.9.7(4)(a) has been revised to cla rify that the acute to xicity lim it w ill be incorporated into perm its as a daily maximum effluent lim itation, and that an acute to xicity lim it violation resulting from a singlo test failure would constitute one day of violation.

A concern arose on the part of the D ivision and the regulated community over how the fa ilure of a quarterly test would be interpreted in view of the court decision in Gwaltnev of S m ithvllle Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bav Foundation. 791 F2d 3 0 4 (4th C i r . 1986). In order to cla rify that the failure of such a test would constitute but one day of violation, language was added to paragraph 6.9.7(4)(a) indicating that the toxicity lim it shall be applied as a daily maximum lim ita tio n and any exceedance thereof shall be considered a single-day violation. This is consistent with the a b ility of EPA and the state to interpret the appropriate application of effluent lim itations.

Other Revisions

Several additional provisions of the original regulation have been revised, either to respond to concerns raised by EPA or to provide additional cla rifica tio n . In other instances, the Commission has determined that concerns raised by EPA did not warrant revisions in the regulation.

Use of the term "spontaneous disappearance" of to xicity was another item of concern to EPA. The EPA interpretation was that if to xicity spontaneously disappeared and the incident was closed, the exceedances also disappeared from the records. This was an erroneous interpretation, as the provision simply allows the perm ittee re lie f from continued investigation when the to xicity is no longer present. To address this concern, section 6.9.7(4)(c)(v) h a s b e e n amended to c la rify that the re lie f is simply from further investigation.

EPA also expressed concern that the provisions in section 6.9.7(4)(c)(iv) regarding "requests for re lie f" could be interpreted to allow --in certain circumstances— to xicity that violated the acute to xicity lim it to continue to be discharged, w ith no continuing obligation to elim inate the to xicity. The Commission has revised th is section to cla rify that this is not the intent. Rather, the "re lie f" potentially provided is w ith respect to further chemical and biological investigation and testing requirements. Of course, if a perm ittee has taken a ll appropriate measures that it and the D ivision have b e e n able to id en tify and has been unable to id en tify and elim inate the source of the to xicity, those facts should be taken into account by the D ivision in exercising its enforcement discretion. That situation is one appropriately addressed in the D ivision's Biom onitoring Enforcement Guidance Document.

"C ost/benefit analysis" associated w ith the control program, as referenced in s e c t i o n 6.9.7(4)(c){i i i ), was another item of concern to EPA. EPA believed that D ivision review of such data would be a basis for not requiring compliance w ith the acute WET lim it. This was not the case, as the D ivision would s till expect implementation of the control program regardless of cost. The reason for subm ittal of the cost/benefit analysis was to make the data available to the Commission should the m atter end up before them as a beneficial use issue. No m odification to the regulation is proposed.

The Commission also rejected a proposal by the League of Women Voters to revise the "pattern of to xicity" provisions to require four "passing" tests after one "fa ilin g " test before a perm ittee would be relieved from further accelerated testing and to xicity incident response requirements. This proposal would have had the effect of putting much greater reliance on "fa ilin g " tests than on "passing” tests — I . e . , two failing t e s t s w o u ld b e deemed to conclusively establish that to xicity is present and warrants extensive to xicity incident response actions, but two passing tests would not be relied on to determine that to xicity is no longer present. The Commission could find no scientific ju stificatio n for this distinction.

F inally, the Commission adopted three revisions to the provisions regarding test methods. The previous language in the acute to xicity definition regarding acceptable levels of m ortality in the control samples has been deleted. This m odification is appropriate, as the provision is more suitably addressed w ithin the D ivision technical guidance document and the adjustment may save a perm ittee the cost of retesting based upon excessive control m ortality when a ll other aspects of the test appear normal.

Second, a cita tio n to an EPA guidance document regarding short-term methods for estim ating to xicity has been moved from a d e fin itio n in section 6.9.7(1)(a) do the Test Methods provisions in section 6 .9 .7 ( 3 ) . T h i r d , language has been added to section 6.9.7(3)(a) providing that the Division w ill advise the perm ittee w ithin fifteen days if a retest is required due to unacceptable m ortality in the control. (5) When applicable, each permit shall include conditions meeting the following requirements. Such conditions may be any requirement in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or standards under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of the Federal Act necessary to:

(a) Achieve established water quality standards, including narrative standards for water quality.

(I) Limitations must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters (either conventional, nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Division determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any water quality standard, including narrative standards for water quality.

(II) When determining Whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative or numeric water quality standard, the Division shall use procedures which account for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the pollutant or pollutant parameter in the effluent, the sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing (when evaluating whole effluent toxicity), and where appropriate, the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water.

(iii) When the Division determines, using the procedures in subsection (5)(a)(ii) of this section, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above the allowable ambient concentration of a numeric water quality standard for an individual pollutant, the permit must contain effluent limits for that pollutant.

(iv) When the Division determines, using the procedures in subsection (5)(a)(ii) of this section, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above the numeric criterion for whole effluent toxicity, if any such criterion has been adopted, the permit must contain effluent limits for whole effluent toxicity.

(v) Except as provided in this subparagraph, when the Division determines, using the procedures in subsection (5)(a)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing data, or other information, that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative water quality standard, the permit must contain effluent limits for whole effluent toxicity. Limits on whole effluent toxicity are not necessary where the Division demonstrates in the rationale of the permit, using the procedures in subsection (5)(a)(ii) of this section, that chemical-specific limits for the effluent are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable numeric and CR14-249 narrative water quality standards. (vi) Where a water quality standard has not been established for a specific chemical pollutant that Is present In an effluent at a concentration that causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above a narrative water quality standard, the Division must establish effluent limits using one or more of the following options:

(A) Establish effluent limits on a case-by-case basis, using EPA*s water quality criteria, supplemented where necessary by other relevant Information, In a manner that will attain and maintain applicable narrative water quality standards and will fully protect the classified use(s); or

(B) Establish effluent limitations on an indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern, provided:

(1) The permit identifies which pollutants are intended to be controlled by the use of the effluent limitation;

(2) The permit rationale sets forth the basis for the limit, including a finding that compliance with the effluent limit on the indicator parameter will result in controls on the pollutant of concern which are sufficient to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards;

(3) The permit requires all effluent and ambient monitoring necessary to show that during the term of the permit the limit on the indicator parameter continues to attain and maintain applicable water quality standards; and

(4) The permit contains a reopener clause allowing the Division to modify or revoke and reissue the permit if the limits on the indicator parameter no longer attain and maintain applicable water quality standards.

(vii) When developing water quality-based effluent limits under this section the Division shall ensure that:

(A) The level of water quality to be achieved by limits on point sources established under this section is derived from, and complies with all applicable water quality standards; and

(B) Effluent limits developed to protect a narrative water quality standard, a numeric water quality standard, or both, are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available wasteload allocation for the discharge. 6.27.0 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND PURPOSE (1991 WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY REVISIONS)

In 1988, Section 6.9.7, Aquatic Life Biomonitoring, was adopted by the Commission to address a new federal focus for the discharge permit program. EPA challenged the validity of the adopted regulation, taking the position that It was inconsistent with the existing federal statute and later that It was inconsistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 122.44(d) which were adopted June 2, 1989. This disagreement has led to numerous permits being vetoed by EPA, with dual state and federal permits resulting for an Increasing number of permittees. To resolve this matter, the permit regulation is being revised to delete section 6.9.7 and add a new section 6.9.2(5), which is basically a mirror image of 40 CFR 122.44(d). If necessary, additional detail regarding the Division's approach to Implementing whole effluent toxicity requirements can be provided in Division policy guidance documents.

The federal regulation is currently the subject of lawsuits that have been filed, challenging certain provisions. If such lawsuits ultimately result in revisions to the current federal regulation, appropriate changes to the state regulation would be considered. Resolution will aet precedent EPA'S REJECTION OF STATE’S WATER TESTING REG LIKELY TO MOVE DISPUTE TO COURTS The latest attempt by a trend-setting state to satisfy EPA’s wastewater effluent toxicity testing regulations is expected to be rejected by the agency, making it likely the debate will soon shift to the courts, according to EPA and state sources. The debate between EPA and Colorado over effluent testing regulations is being closely watched by other states, who view resolution of the dispute as a precedent that will determine how stringent a state's effluent testing regulations must be. These sources add that the agency will soon deny Colorado's administrative appeal of EPA’s rejection of the current state testing law, a move also likely to spur legal action from the state. Colorado is at the forefront of the debate because its proposed testing scheme rejects EPA’s regulation, which states have argued is too strict in triggering enforcement actions after a single test failure. Over the past year EPA and Colorado have been locked in a dispute over the agency’s Clean Water Act 304(1) requirements. The conflict revolves around Colorado's approach for testing "whole effluent toxicity," a measurement of the hazard posed by complex mixtures of chemicals in wastewater. Colorado officials, reflecting the position of many states, argue that EPA’s testing approach - which triggers an enforcement action after a permittee fails a single toxicity test - is unworkable and should instead allow water treatment managers time to solve toxics problems before fine.? begin accruing. EPA’s Region Vm water office is currently vetoing all wastewater permits issued under the current state regulations. Colorado's draft toxicity testing regulation was thwarted by the state's attorney general, who ruled at a Sept. 9-10 state Water Quality Commission meeting that the proposal did not meet federal regulations (Inside EPA. Oct. 4, pl2). In an attempt to address that opinion, the Commission, following deliberations at an Oct. 7-8 meeting, is leaning toward a new regulation that sources say triggers enforcement actions for effluent toxicity test failures detected during planned, quarterly effluent testing. But EPA sources, who say the proposal will likely satisfy the state attorney general’s concerns, doubt the "straw man" regulation will satisfy EPA’s requirements that any test failure should automatically trigger an enforcement action. EPA sources also note that the agency will soon formally rule on Colorado’s existing toxicity testing regulation, which was the subject of EPA-Colorado negotiations in late 1990. The talks failed when it became apparent that state and agency officials could not agree to a state regulation which met the "single-test failure" standard. The existing state regulation has been under administrative review since early 1991. EPA sources say the agency is nearing completion of its review of public comments presented at an April public hearing on the issue, and will render a decision prior to the Commission’s Nov. 4-5 meeting. While one EPA source says no final decision has been rendered, other EPA sources say the agency will reject the state’s testing regulations. EPA’s rejection of Colorado’s regulations means the issue will soon move to the courts, EPA sources say. The formal rejection of the state's current regulation exhausts all administrative appeals and forces Colorado to fight the dispute in court. Several states and the Assn. of Municipal Sewerage Agencies have already sued EPA over the agency’s testing regulation, and an "alternative dispute resolution" - an out- of-court negotiation of issues in the case - is currently being conducted to attempt to reach a settlement, state sewer officials say. One source close to the negotiations was hopeful a resolution could be reached, perhaps as early as next month.

EPA STAFF SAY EFFORT TO ASSESS ECOSYSTEM RISKS DRIVING MAJOR RESEARCH SHIFT A proposed EPA system for deciding how ecosystems can be best protected will necessitate a major shift from the agency's current program-specific research to a single, broad-based ecosystem research effort, according to EPA and independent scientists familiar with the proposal. The proposal - the ecological risk assessment framework - will soon be reviewed by EPA’s Risk Assessment Council (RAC) chaired by deputy administrator Henry Habicht and attempts to provide a systematic approach for determining how ecosystems would be best protected, these scientists and EPA sources say. These sources call the framework a prelude to the development of ecological risk assessment guidelines the agency will eventually use to determine if an ecosystem is threatened by human stresses, according to EPA sources. EPA administrator William Reilly has identified risk-based environmental protection as a top priority for the agency. The framework has been developed by the Research & Development Office’s risk assessment forum, a panel of EPA and independent scientists charged with revising the agency’s approach to ranking

INSIDE EPA • October 18,1991 11 environmental risks. Over the past year, the forum has been developing the ecological risk assessment framework, which describes the wide range of factors -- from single point sources to global wanning - that must by considered in determining the risks posed to ecological systems. The original draft framework was reviewed by scientists and other risk assessment experts over the past few months. The comments from that review have been incorporated into a second draft framework, which will undergo additional review by agency and independent scientists, and then go to the RAC, according to scientists who reviewed the framework. EPA sources were unable to say when the RAC would examine the document, or what action that group plans to take in relation to the framework. The broad range of threats and their complex interactions with ecosystems will move EPA away from research initiatives focused on specific pollutants or environmental challenges - usually sponsored by specific program offices - to an approach embracing a broad-based analysis of human impacts on ecosystems, scientists familiar with the framework say. "Most ecological risk research has been funded by specific program [offices], and focuses on a specific problem and usually one specific chemical" one scientist says, adding that problems impacting ecosystems are generated by all media and often interact with one another. The framework demonstrates that "the agency must begin integrating research" initiatives, says one framework reviewer, who adds that "all the agency will use [the framework] eventually, and support for risk assessment research will also have to be agency-wide." Other scientists say the framework moves away from the widely accepted "human chemical risk assessment" model which determines risk by examining a combination of hazard and exposure for determining risk. Scientists who reviewed the document say the framework considers a broad range of human stresses to ecosystems, including climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, habitat alteration as well as chemical-related problems. But the framework "goes in a different direction" than the National Academy of Science’s human risk framework described in that group's 1983 publication, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government; Managing the Process, which is widely seen as the basis for the agency's human chemical risk assessment activities, according to scientists. That document says rjsk to humans can be determined by combining the hazard posed by a substance with the actual human exposure. But ecosystems do not fit that "paradigm," scientists say, because ecosystems do not follow the human dose and response model, adding that the ecological risk framework reflects that difference. Ecosystems experience multiple stresses, and often contain innumerable species that may respond differently to different stresses. The framework, while incorporating some aspects of the NAS risk assessment model, expands on that idea by considering stress and effects characterizations, sources say. Stress characterization includes an examination of how stress relates to the ecosystem including frequency of stress occurrence, the duration of a stress, how human stress differs from a natural stress - for example how global warming would differ from natural temperature variation - and what types of ecosystems will be affected by human stress. Effects characterization examines the impact that can be expected from numerous stress and analyzes potential for recovery from a stress. Such a system is more inclusive than a human dose and response, and "is the only model that we know of that might demonstrate ecosystem responses," according to one source.

EPA EXTENDS COMMENT PERIOD ON WETLANDS MANUAL 60 DAYS UNTIL DEC. 14,1991. Responding to numerous requests from interested parties who sought an extension, the agency postponed the deadline for comments from Oct. 14,1991. The manual, used to identify and delineate wetlands subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, was proposed in the Aug. 14 Federal Register and so far has generated approximately 11,000 letters, mostly from private citizens.

Chief Editor: Jane Moody Rachal SUBSCRIPTIONS: Managing Editor; David Clarice 703-892-8500 or Associate Editors: Paul Singer, Jim Jones Toll-free 800-424-9068 Contributing Editor: Julie Edelspn NEWS OFFICE 703-892-1012 Inside EPA is published every Friday by Inside Washington Publishers, P.O. Box 7167, Ben FAX: 703-685-2606 Franklin Station, Washington, D,C. 2(X>44. Subscriptioniates: $760/yr in U.S. and Canada; $795/ yr elsewhere (air mail). Copyright 1991 by Inside Washington Publishers. All rights reserved. To order environmental Reproduction in any form whatsoever forbidden without express permission of the copyright documents, call (703) 892-8507 owners.

12 INSIDE EPA - October 18,1991 FROM:HDMESTAKE GOLDEN, CO 3030323804 I 6, 1991 9:28AM «670 P,0l

AN XNVmriCH - ON VERY SHORT NOTICE! SUBJECT* ’•SENATE BILL 181" AND MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION - CMA MEETING 0730 - 0830 HRS, FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1991 AT HCKESTAKE MINING OCMPANY OFFICES. THE WATER QUAUTY SUBCXaMKTTTEE OF THE COICRADO MXKH4C3 ASSOCIATION 16 HOLDING AN INITIAL MEETING OF INTERESTED MINING AND MINING SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS TO ADCRESS THE SCORE AND DETAILS OF A GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROGRAM IN 7KB INITIAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT BY THE MINED IAND RECLAMATION DIVISION. BECAUSE IHE NEXT MEETING OF THE MLRD ON THIS SUBJECT IS MARCH 12, 1991, WE WANTED TO MEET BEFOREHAND TO (1) DETERMINE IF WE CAN ESTABLISH A GROUP TO PROVIDE THE CMA WITH DIRECTION ON A ROUTINE BASIS AND (2) TO BEGIN TO IDENTIFY COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE BELTEVE ARE POTENTIALLY ACCEPTABLE, NECESSARY AND APEEQH*IATE. IHE MLRD HAS UNDERTAKEN »NEGOTIATISD RUIiMAKTNG" WHH A GROUP WHOSE MEMBERSHIP IS OPEN, THE CMA IS ATTENDING TOE BIWEEKLY MEETINGS OF THE <®OUP. WHIIE YOU ARE WELCOME TO REPRESENT YOUR ORGANIZATION CN TOE MIRD GROUP, WE HOPE TOA.T CMA CAN AISO m OF SCME SERVICE TO YOU. HOWEVER, THAT REQUIRES SOME ««MEETING OF THE MINDS“ BEFOREHAND. THIS CMA MEE1TO3 WILL BE HEU) AT HCttESTAKE MINING COMPANY'S OFFICES IN GOIDEN - BUILDING 22 f DOWER WEST OFFICE PARK (1726 COLE BIND. J TOE OFFICE BUILDING OFF COLFAX AVENUE NEXT TO THE PEPPERMILL RESTAURANT). SEOCND FIOORf TO HCMESTAKE’S RECEPTION AREA; AND THEN TO OONFERE^CE ROOM. WE HAVE SCHEDULED THE MEETING FRCM 0730 TO 0830 ON FRIDAY, MARCH 8 . PtfiASE 03ME OR SEND YOUR PROXY IF WE HAVE CREATED A O W lIC r. CALL JOHN HARDAWAY IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS (277-0700), IF YOU CAN NOT CCME BIT WISH 10 PARTICIPATE IN IHE CMA GROUP, PLEASE LET JOHN KNOW WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. FILE: CMAMLRD.FAX

M t f t r ' 303-2. £>$■'•

- y b o - i t ' t b AGENDA

SB 181 Advisory Committee

Informal Conference

1313 Sherman Street, Room 318

March 12, 1991

Call to Order: 1:30 P.M.

Summary of Meeting with Water Quality Control Commission

1. Division 's Presentation

2. Comnisslon's Concerns

New Business

1. Definition of SB 181 Requirements

a. Elements necessary to comply with SB 181.

I. Groundwater

II. Surface Water

b. Rules which currently address these elements

I. Minerals

II. Coal

c. New regulations required to capture these elements

2. Other

Next Meeting: March 26, 1991

Adjourn STATE OF COLORADO

MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION “ to. M ining ASSN. Department c< Natural Resources 1313 Sherman S t. Room 215 Denver. CO 60203 0£C 2 1 1990 302 866-3567 FAX 3C3 632-81 06 ftoyflon«-. Gowmor Fr*d fl Bar.:« Otvntion 0>rec:o' December 5 t 1990

Mr. Paul Frohardt, Administrator Water Quality Control Commission Colorado Department of Health 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver,• Colorado ------80220-3716 RE: Senate^BIIV? 181 Initial Report and Plan for Implementation

Dear Mr. FjWiarot: Please find enclosed two (2) Individual reports prepared by the Mined Land Reclamation Division for the Water Quality c ?i ?Si* A separate which comprise the plans for Implementation of Senate Bill 181. A separate reDort has been prepared for each of the statutes administered by MLRD. ( ) The Mined Lana Reclamation Act; and, (2) the Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. These reports are submitted accordance with the terms outlined in the Memoranda of Agreement executed on August 2o, 1990. Ac reauested 1n vour memorandum dated Septerrber 9, 1990, we look forward to SUu1s?n?ourplans fo?implementation I f Senate Bill 181 «t tht M * . 1 o n meeting on February 5, 1991. The two individual reports can be discussed at this meeting. t would be interested to know your comments on the reports and any suggestions yoiTmlgh t have on format or content of the presentation to the Commission. Please let me know after you have reviewed the reports.

Sincerely,

/RED R. BANTA Director ‘

FRB/JTD/scg

Enel osure

cc: Dave Holm, WQCD First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report

Pertaining to the Regulation of Mineral Mines

November, 1990

Submitted to;

Water Quality Control Commission and Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716

Submitted by:

Fred Banta, Director Mined land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215 Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 INTRODUCTION

This is the First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report pertaining to the regulation of mineral nines by the Mined Land Reclamation Division (MIRD). This report discusses the plan for Implementation of Senate B111 181 (SB 181} by the MLRO 1n Its adninistration of mineral mining and reclamation operations under the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act.

This report 1s submitted under the terms of the "Memorandum of Agreement for the Implementation of SB 181 Amendments to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et seq.) pertaining to the Regulation of Mineral Mines.* The MOA was s1gned~Kugust 28, 1990 by the Colorado Department of Health (COOH), Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB), and Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD). Section S.1(h) of.the MOA specifies that MLRD will provide a report that describes how its program will assure compliance with water quality standards and classifications for activities under its jurisdiction Including Identification of any relevant proposed or existing regulations. The report will be updated annually by MLRD.

LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW AND OBLIGATIONS

In its administration of the Mined Land Reclamation Act (34-32-101 et seq., CRS, 1973, as amended), the MLRD 1s specifically mandated to ensure“lhair "Disturbances to the hydrologic balance of the affected land and surrounding area and to the quality and quantity of water in surface and ground water systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation shall be minimized.11

MLRD is also conrnitted by the "Memorandum of Agreement Between Colorado Agencies for the Protection of Ground Water Resources of the State," dated March 19, 1985, to carry out the provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and related regulations to protect the ground water resources of the state.

Following passage of Subsection 25-8-202(7) of the 1989 amendments to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (SB 181), MLRD became recognized as an "Implementing agency. As such, it is responsible for implementing the numeric standards and classifications for state waters in the areas of jurisdiction by MLRD. The establishment of water quality standards and classifications was clearly defined as the responsibility of the WQCC. The issuance of discharge permits for point sources was clearly defined as the responsibility of the WQCD. The MLRD has the responsibility for assuring that the activities which occur at mining operations will meet tne numeric standards and classifications for ground water and nonpoint sources of discharge to surface water.

SB 181 requires that the Implementing agencies adopt "points of compliance" based on criteria defined through ruiemaking and public hearings and consultation with the WQCC and WQCD. Establishing the criteria for appropriate points of compliance 1s the key element that all Implementing agencies must meet to effect compliance with SB 181.. The WQCC and WQCD can not regulate activities within the jurisdiction of Implementing agencies unless the agency fails to provide "reasonable assurance" that compliance with the provisions of SB 181 has been obtained through the program. PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The Mined Land Reclamation Board and MLRD 1n the Joint administration of the Mined Land Reclamation Act are responsible for assuring that all mineral mines C o l o r a d o obtiii reclamation perSts (34-32-109(7)) and that v olatlons of the statute, regulations, permit conditions or Board orders are subject to enforcement actions (34-32-123 and 124). The pertinent r e l a t i o n s are sunmarlzed 1n the Addendum to this report. The approach for assuring eonnllince w11ii the requirements of SB 181 would parallel this regulatory S S i S S ! After Initial permitting, the MLRD will conduct Inspections and take enforcement actions as necessary to ensure that m ine ^ t — . 1 s ...a wHth wfttfir Quality standards and classifications applicable to that ooeratlon tote? Ta l l S y ¿mltoMng or other verification reports will be reviewed as * p ! r t of annual report $J»m1ttals. If an Inspection or annual reoort Indlcates an activity which has resulted 1n a violation, an enforcement action can be taken to assure compliance with the requirements of SB 181.

Prior to the passage of SB 181, MLRB and MLRD have been responsible f°r fulfilling its obligations under the Act and the MOA of 1985 by of the oermlttlng, performance, Inspection and enforcement provisions of 1the Act Regulations. The adoption of points of compliance will !'*

3) MLRD will pU>11sh and propose additions to the Mineral Rules and Reaulatlons at a public hearing. Oral presentations from Interested parties will be heard by MLRB. The MLRB will pass rules defining the criteria for points of compliance as It deems appropriate. A) MLRD will require all new applications, permit amendments and permit conversions (less than 10 acre limited-Impact operations converting to regular operations) to propose points of 1n the applications. MLRD will review the proposals for technical adequacy, and approve of plans only when these comply with the new rules as developed. 51 MLRD will act to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance and the Quantity and quality of surface and ground water by means of S t of conpl 1a n « for the activities under Its Jurisdiction until water quality standards and classifications are provided by the ViQCC. The MLRB and MLRD have had to consider the potential for adverse Impacts to surface and ground water in the permit applications approved since the enactment of the Mined Land Reclamation Act 1n 1973. This has been accomplished primarily through requirements for designs of structures at mine facilities protective of receiving waters. In certain Instances, guidelines for acceptable water quality concentrations in effluent discharged from facilities has been required which are consistent with WQCC criteria. Information on ac1d-generat1ng potential of overburden, waste rock and mine tailings have been required based on disposal plans for these facilities. Where net acid-producing conditions and increased metals mobilization are possible, control measures have been Included to protect the drainage system from pollution. Establishing criteria for points of compliance through rulemaking may further clarify the level of Information required in an application.

The rules to be added to the existing Mineral Rules and Regulations will be the subject of discussion during the Informal conferences but are expected to Include the following:

Definition: A point of compliance means one or more points or locations at which compliance with applicable ground water standards must be achieved.

Requirement: Polnts-of-compllance shall be established for all aquifers in the vicinity of a mine. More than one point of compliance may be required if multiple activities occur within that aquifer.

Criteria: A point of compliance for mineral mining or reclamation must be located within the affected area of the mining operation. Criteria more restrictive (closer) may be considered based on the type of activity, potential for contamination, effect of sorption, reaction and dilution and hydroloalc conditions (effective porosity, hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient and Interconnections between aquifers).

SCHEDULE

The following is a proposed schedule for the plan for implementation of SB 181 amendments pertinent to the regulation of mineral mines. The numbers correspond to the sequence of steps outlined In the plan.

(1) January 19S0 meeting of MLRB

(2) February - May 1990 Informal conférences to be held fbr four (4) hour duration every other week for approximately three months total time.

(3) Publish notice May 10, 1990, hearing scheduled for June 26, 1990.

(4) If rules adopted during June hearing, new rules would become effective July 30, 1990,

(5) Implementation would begin inmedlately following the permit, amendment or conversion approval date, as appropriate. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS

Mining 1s an activity which has significant potential to adversely Impact water quality* The challenge for the NLRD and WQCD under SB 181 1s to adaress mining Impacts from nonpoint sources and upon groundwater in an effective manner* As the assignment of use classifications and numeric water quality standards Is the responsibility of the WQCC, the task before the MLRO and MLR8 1s to define the criteria and rules for addressing the flow regime and points of compliance and the effect of any mitigation measures proposed by operators on resulting water quality expected from a mine site.

For this first report and prior to final rulemaking, the following 11st of challenges and concerns has been identified by MLRO which will need to be addressed.

1. No ground water standards or classifications other than statewide standards for organics and radionuclides have been assigned. Now can MLRO evaluate whether proposed mining activities can meet non-existent standards?

2. To what extent are management practices acceptable in lieu of monitoring? Will monitoring of all nonpoint sources and ground water be required for all mineral mines?

3. To what extent should economic reasonableness be considered in defining requirements consistent with the legislative declaration of 34-32-102(2)?

4. To what extent are activities "grandfathered" prior to the effective date of new regulations?

5. Water quality Impacts are evaluated based on relative or absolute changes. W111 ground water standards be based on relative changes (baseline vs. mining) or absolute (concentration exceeds standard)?

6. Water quality conditions are variable over time. Ground water varies slowly, while runoff varies extremely rapidly. To what extent will temporal variations need to be addressed?

7. Will geochemical characterizations of water quality impact be acceptable based on modeling of hydrologic conditions? To what extent will verification of impact be based on a requirement for monitoring?

8. For runoff controls, a design event (frequency and duration of rainfall) needs to be established to set performance standards. Which storm levels are exempt? What chemical constituents need be considered? What guidelines can be provided by WQCC or WQCD on the effectiveness of various runoff controls 1n reducing negative effects? Are standards to be measured based on chemical concentrations or load reductions compared to basel 1ne? Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board

As required by Section 5.1(h) of the 1990 MOA pertaining to regulation of mines m l r d 1s orovidlng the WQCC end VIQCD an Identification of relevant exIstlM regulations. TS se T t o g e t h e r w l t h the additional retaliations proposed in the Plan far Implementation of SB 181, should be considered 1n determining whether assurance Is provlded that compliance with water quality standards and classification for activities within the jurisdiction of MLRD will be attained. Rule 1 contains the definition.of terms, notice requirements for Board

required as a part of rulemaking on SB 181. Rule 2 specifies application requirements for regular operations (greater than 16 acres). The following rule sections cited below are pertinent:

2.1.2(4) Pre-mining and mine plan map Information 2.1.2(4) (b) Identify the name and location of all creeks 2.1.2(4)(c) The existing topography of the area 2.1.2(4) (f) Further water resources Information 2.1.2(5) 2.1.2(5)(c) Identffy all water diversions and Impoundments 2.1.2(5)(e) 2.1.2(5)(f) (1) Nature,tdepthband thickness of deposit and overburden 2.1.2(5)(f)(11) Nature of stratum Immediately beneath the material to be mined 1n sedimentary deposits 2 .1 . 2( 6 ) 2.1.2(6)(c) Description of how plan will be Implemented to meet performance standards (Rule 6) 2.1.2(7) (a) Hap of proposed post-m1n1ng topography 2.1.2(B) 2 .1 .2.8 (a) Statement°1 f*act?v 1 ty not expected to directly affect 2 .1 .2(8)(b) (1 ) iSiS'AKSS.riSSiff“ !»*. reservoirs, ditches 2 .1.2(8)(b)(11) Identify all known aquifers p i w showing how water from dewatering operations or 2.1.2(8) (b) (ill) runoff from disturbed areas will be managed to •gainst pollution of surface or ground water both during and after operations. 2.1.2(8) (c) Project water requirements . . ( ) (d) 2 1 2 8 Statement of'afflrmatlon on acquisition or application 2.1.2(8) (e) for NPDES permit 2 .1. 2(10) Soil Information 2 .1 .2(11) Vegetation Information 2 .1. 2( 12) Climate information 2.1.2(13) Reclamation costs Rule 3 specifies application requirements for limited impact operations. Rule "3'.2 1s for the category between 2 and 10 acres, whereas Rule 3.3 is for less than Z acre operations. Two-acre operations cannot: (a) extract sand, gravel or quarry aggregate, (b) be located 1n or adjacent to a stream channel, or (3) process minerals by acid or toxic-forming means. Rule 3.1(3) is for composite applications for counties which are seldom used. Additional Information on water quality 1n Rule 3 may be necessary to fully Implement SB 181. The following rule sections cited below are pertinent:

3,2(f) Map 3.2(h) Mining plan 3.2(1) Reclamation plan addressing the measures to be taken to comply with Rule 6 3.2(k) List of other permits and licenses applicant holds or will be seeking (eg. effluent discharge, 404, permit to construct a dam, well permit) 3.3(c) Mining plan 3.3(g) Reclamation plan describing the measures which will be taken to reclaim all affected land consistent with Rule 6 3.3«) Map

Rule 4 1s fbr special operations requiring sand, gravel or quarry aggregate materials %tfiich are limited to highway or utility projects by governmental agencies. If these are not exempted from the requirements of SB 181, then the rule sections cited below are pertinent:

4.1.1(5) Hap 4.1,1(7) Mining plan 4.1.1(9) Reclamation plan addressing measures to be taken to comply with Rule 6

Rule 5 is for prospecting operations. A permit is not Issued but rather a "rtotfce of Intent to Conduct Prospecting Operations" and bond 1s submitted. All Information is kept confidential. Bonds are released following completion of reclamation and HURD inspection. Very specific requirements for drilling wells, sealing wells, converting exploratory wells to water wells, and reports of well plugging are required. A full description of the requirements are Included in the statute and regulations. Prospecting activities may be considered for exemption from the requirements of SB 161, The following rule sections (as abbreviated) cited below are pertinent:

5.1.1 (6) Type of operation description 5.1.1(7) Reclamation measures to be taken to comply with Rule 6 5.3.1 (2) Drilling to prevent cuttings and fluids from entering dry or flowing stream channels 5.3.1 (3) Timely abandonment 5.3.1(5) Backfilling of pits 5,3,7 Requires compliance with water quality laws and regulatlons 5.4.1 Permanent abandonment requirements 5.4.1 (1) When artesian flow 5,4.1(2) When volcanic or sedimentary aquifer encountered 5,4.1(3) In unconsolidated material 5.4,1(4) Prevent Intermixture of aquifers 5.4.1(5) Capping dry holes 5.4.2 Temporary abandonment 5.4.3 Conversion to a monitoring well Use as, or conversion to, a water well 5.4.4 5.4.5 Surface reclamation of drill sites 5.4.6 Final report Rule 6 are performance standards. The following rule sections cited below are pertinent: Backfilling to Insure compaction and prevent leaching of 6 .1 (1 ) toxic materials 6 1 2 Grading to control erosion . ( ) Refuse and acid-forming or toxic-producing materials 6.1(4) that have been mined shall be disposed of in a manner that will urotect drainage from pollution Drill holes plugged to prevent polluting dralnageways. 6.1(5) Adits and shafts sealed, and where practicable,

Maximum^siope^angles? * especi al 1 y for lake shorelines 6 .1( 6 ) 6 .2( 1 ) Minimize disturbance to (for full definition, see 34-32-116(7)(g)> 6.2(1)(a) Reau1res compliance with water laws Requires compliance with federal and state water quality 6.2(1 )(b) laws and regulations 6.20)(c) ssirs xsrÆ ï'io S ïir,« 6.2(1 )(d) arainageways after revegetation and stabilization 6 . 2( 2) Impoundment construction 6.3(1) TopfollSalvage^nd storage to prevent contamination by 6.4(1) a d d or toxic material 6.4(3) Erosion control for topsoil stockpiles 6.4(5) Topsoll replacement to prevent mass »IJPPye Fertilizer application according to soil tests 6.4(7) 6.5 Revegetation requirements 6.5(5) Mulching 6.5(6) Weed control Limitation on planting requirement 6.5(8) Rule 7 pertains to bonding requirements. No »pedal rule changes are expected SsilsT » sneclf1c orovlslon for bonding the cost of monitoring well construction or water quality monitoring are -„1^*18 181** discussed 1n Informal conferences on rulemaking to Implement SB 181.

Rule 8 soecifles Inspection, monitoring and enforcement provisions. Ho S i T T l c cltatlons ar. listed as this entire section woulo apply for Implementation of SB 181. First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report

Pertaining to the Regulation of Coal Mines

November, 1990

Submitted to:

Water Quality Control Commission and Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 60220-3716

Submitted by:

Fred Santa, Director Mined Land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St.. Rm. 215 Denver, Colorado 80203*2273 INTRODUCTION

& nrÆ «-V ^S ^J25-"U aJ5i s* the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act. <« under the terms of the “Memorandum of Agreement for

wassg signed ^AuguSt"^, ifeSaS^ 1 9 » Dy tne w « ' iaSffiijE control Division (UQCD)

LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW AND OBLIGATIONS

• »¿mini strati on of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act

a , 5 7 water systems both during ana m « r surra« \* » ^ ^ coal

; . s a ,,so iiej,ct “ this provision of the Act ana fall under MLRD jurisdiction.

s S H S H ra a s c ssrar^sfs sa-s..

with the WQCD and HQCC. F m t t m p . J - 1c4^ # r o un d water standards must be

Kpublic Æ hearing » ^ and ^ consultation V j n«ÏM with *£ the UQCDw», îandS SwqcccT. 1* r” "! PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Prior to the passage of SB181 and the signing of the f o r Its Implementation (1990 MOA), MLRD was successful In M f i l l i n g 'Its

made, ana permits w i t h h e l d until MLRD couia V ^lUnce outs1de 1ts perml^area* V Z o ) S a T d ^ r L promulgated by the WQCC were Incorporated into the MLRD assessments of material oamage.

discharge Its obligations under SB181.

" S S S S S S a s •• these points Is necessary.

21 Ktswrss “ ¡r«rtii5“ (STtew"WSSifssis.r(>i ussi,»! «»<<« Including the WQC£> specifically. 31 MLRD will publish and propose additions to the Rules and Regulations for

criteria for points of compliance as It deems appropriate.

41 MLRD will undertake, once such revisions to existing ire?i I * n i « L “of ’ «Droved by MLRB, to secure the necessary approvals by the O ffice of Surface Mining (OSM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

m l r d will require the adoption of suitable points of « mPll4n“ ^?'!nthe

ssarsrs ■!!»-■ 7) MLRD will act to protect the prevailing hydrologie balance and prevent material damage by means of the points of compliance for the activities under Its jurisdiction until water quality standards and classifications applicable to these are provided by the WQCC.

To this point, the MLRB and U R O Have experienced no difficulty 1n fulfilling Its obligations under the Act and 1985 MOA. Reasonable water quality standards have been applied by MLRD in order to protect local groundwater uses from the adverse effects of subsurface discharges by coal mining and exploration operations. Non-po1nt surface discharges from such activities are limited by applicable receiving stream standards and controlled, with MLRD approval, by the use of the Best Currently Available Technology. Consequently no changes in the Act and current regulations are considered to be necessary 1n order that MLRD apply the water quality standards or classifications adopted by the UQCC. However, consultation with the WQCC and WQCD regarding changes, as required by SB181 and the 1990 MOA, can be managed, 1f <*es(Jre^» ^y means of the informal conferences or public hearings proposed in Step 2 of this plan. MLRD, on the other hand, does consider that changes in the regulations may be necessary to include a requirement for the adoption of points of compliance fbr activities regulated by K.RD and to specify the criteria by which these points of compliance will be established. Since MLRD Is required by the 1990 MOA to consult with the WQCC and WQCD prior to rulemaking regarding the criteria to be adopted for points of compliance, 1t 1s believed that this consultation can be accomplished during the Informal conferences proposed In Step 2. The definition, requirement and criteria for a point of compliance to be proposed by MLRD for Incorporation Into the regulations for coal mining consist of the following at this time: Definition: A point of compliance is a point at which compliance with applicable "ground water standards must be achieved. Requirement: Points of compliance shall be established on a site specific basis for all aquifers having the potential for significant adverse impact by coal mining, coal mine reclamation, and coal exploration activities. More than one point of compliance may be required by the Division fbr an activity or aquifer, for good cause shown.

Criteria: 1) A point of compliance for coal mining and reclamation activity must be located within the permit area approved for the operation. A point of compliance for coal exploration must be located within reasonable proximity to the operation,

2) A point of compliance 1s a bore hole of acceptable construction and depth open to the aquifer for which compliance with applicable ground water standards is to be achieved or 1s a surface or subsurface discharge of ground water from such an aquifer. The point of compliance for each aquifer will allow the recovery of or will provide a sufficient amount of representative ground water In a reasonable length of time for compliance to be demonstrated at the required frequency. 3) A point of compliance shall be located in a position in the aquifer for which compliance with applicable ground water standards is to be achieved down hydraulic gradient from the corresponding coal mining and reclamation site, or coal exploration activity. The point of compliance shall also be located where acceptable modeling and analyses indicate that water quality monitoring can occur.

SCHEDULE

The following is a proposed schedule for the plan for implementation of SB 181 amendments pertinent to the regulation of coal mines. The nuofcers correspond to the sequence of steps outlined in the plan.

1) January 1990 meeting of HLRB

2) February-May 1990

3) Publish notice May 10, 1990, hearing scheduled for June 26, 1990.

4) Immediately following MLRB approval (The WQCD and WQCC, however, must recognize that any changes in a Federal program, which in this case Includes both the Act and related regulations, requires QSM and EPA approvals. It is a process that requires careful preparation and considerable time, probably months.]

5) As part of the permitting of new coal mining and coal reclamation operations, and coal exploration operations. For currently permitted coal mining and reclamation operations, at the time of the next midterm permit review or permit renewal and by means of a technical revision to the permit.

6) July 1, 1990

7) Immediately following the permit approval or revision approval date, as appropriate. Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining

As required by Section 5.1(h) of the 1990 MOA pertaining to the regulation of coal mines, MLRD is providing the UQCC and WQCD by means of the Addendum to .the First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report, an Identification of relevant existing regulations. These, together with the additional regulations proposed In the M.RD plan for implementation of SB181, are currently regarded by MLRD as providing assurance that compliance with water uality standards and classifications for activities subject to MLRD Durisdlctlon will be attained. Rule 1 contains direction on the state's regulatory authorities and responsibilities under the Act. The rule 1s general and established the MLRD jurisdiction« Relevant portions of that rule are as follows:

Authority 1.02 p.3

Responsibilities: 1.03 p.3 1.03.1 p.3 1.03.1(1 )(a) p.4 1.03.1 (1 )(d) p.4 1.03.1 (1 )(e) p.4 1.03.1(l)(f) p.4

Rule 2 contains the requirements for permit applications for MLRD decisions regarding coal mining and reclamation operations 1n the state. The rule also addresses coal exploration. Two levels of coal exploration as well as actual coal mining and reclamation are sii>ject to MLRD permitting and approvals. The portions of Rule 2 cited below are organized as they apply to these separate activities.

Coal Exploration Involving Removal of 2£0 Tons or Less of Coal

Notice of Intent to Explore: 2.02.2(1) p.53 Description of Environmental Protection Practices: 2.02.2(2)(f) p.54 Description of Operation 2.02.2(2)(g) p.54 Division Review and Determination 2.02.2(3) p.54 Need for Division's Determination 2.02.2(7) p.60 Operations Subject to Regulations 2.02.6(1) p.59 Division Environmental Investigation 2.02.6(2) p.59 Reports of Operation and Certification of Reclamation 2.02.6(3) p.59-60 Coal Exploration Involving Removal of More than 250 Tons of Coal

p.55 Requirement for Application 2.02.3 p.58 Conditions of Approval 2.02.4(3) p.58 Terns of Approval 2.02.4(4) Activities Subject to Enforcement 2.02.6(1) p.59 Division Environmental Investigation 2.02.6(2) p.59 Report of Operation and Certification p.59-60 of Reclamation 2.02.6(3)

Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations

p.49 Permit 2.02.3(1) p.61 Permit Application 2.03.2 p.62 Nature of Application 2.03.3(1)-{4) Certification of Truth and Correctness 2.03.3(g) p.63 p.70 Informatl on 2.04.2(1) p.70 Environmental Information 2.04.3(1) p.72 General Hydro and Geology Information 2.04.5(1)(a)-(c) Geology and Surface and Ground Water 2.04.6(1) p.73 p.73 Geology to First Aquifer 2.04.6(2)(a) p.74 Test Boring Data Report 2.04.6(2)(b)(1)(A) 2.04.6(3)(a)(111)(B) p.76 Report Subsurface Water 2.04.6(3)(a)(1v)(A) p.76 Report Surface Water p .77 Ground Water Information 2.04.7(1) p.78 Surface Water Receiving Discharges 2.04.7(2)(b)(11) p.79 Alternative Water Supply Infbrmatlon 2.04.7(3) p.79 Map of Reservoirs and Wells 2,04.7(4)(a) p.80 Map of Subsurface Water 2.04,7(4)(c) p.80 Data Collection 2.04.7(5) p.89 Plans for Impoundments, Ponds, Drainages 2.05.3(4)(a) p.98 Plans for Reclamation 2.05.4(1) Description Compliance Clean Water Act 2.05.4(2)(h) p.99 p.102-105 Protection Hydro Balance 2.05.6(3) p.138 Facilities Outside Permit Area 2.06.10 p.138-139 Requirements for In-situ Activities 2.06.11(2) Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued)

Compliance with 4.29 2.06.11(3) p.139 Division Review 2.07.6(2)(a)-(c) p.150-151 Mining Impacts to Environment 2.07.7 p.155-156 Periodic Review of Permits 2.06.3(1 )-(2) p.157 Authority to Revise Existing Permits 2.08.3(3) p.157 Revisions to Permits 2.08.4(l)(a)-(b) and p. 158 and 2.08.4(5)(aMb) P.159

Rule 4 contains environmental and other performance standards that apply to coal exploration and coal mining and reclamation operations. These standards establish the minimum requirements for such activities and adherence to such performance standards becomes the obligation of the activity once it receives the required approval or permit. Failure to comply with such standards subjects the activity to the provisions of the enforcement regulations.

Coal Exploration

Both levels of coal exploration are siAject to the following performance rules:

Compliance With Rules Required 4.21.2(1 ) and (2) p.316 Environmental Values 4.21.4(1) P.316 Sealing Holes or Openings According to Rule 4.07 4.21.4(8) p.318 Minimize Disturbance to Hydrologie Balance 4.21.4(10) p.319 Requirement for Permit 4.21.5 p.319 Sealing Drilled Holes and Underground Openings 4.07 p.263 Discharges of water from such operations, other than those Involving point sources, and hydrologie Impacts are covered by the following:

General p. 208 Requirements to Meet Standards 4.01.3.(2)

Haul Roads 4.03.1 (1)(a) p.210 General Environmental p.210 Affect Environmental Values 4.03.1(l)(b) Design and Construction 4.03.1(3) p.212 4.03.1 (3) (c>(11 ) p.212 Road Cuts 4.03.l(3)fd)(1v) p. 213 Road Embankments 4.03.1 (3) (d) (x) p.215 Erosion Control 4.03.1 (4)(a>(111 )4(1v) p.216 Minimize Erosion Measures to Control Erosion 4.03.1 (4) (b) P.216 4.03.1 (5)(b) p.218 Surfacing 4.03.1(6)(a) p.218 Maintenance

Access Roads General Environment 4.03.2(1 )(a) p.219 Affect Environmental Values 4.03.2(1)(b) p.219 Design and Construction 4.03.2(3) P-2II 4.03.2(3)(c)(11 ) P.222 Road Cuts 4.03.2(3)(d)(x) p.223 Road Embankments 4.03.2(4)(2)(111)4(1v) p.224 Minimize Erosion Measures to Control Erosion 4.03.2(4)(b ) p.225 4.03.2(5)(b) p.227 Surfacing Maintenance 4.03.2(6)(a ) P -227

Light Use Roads 4.03.3(1)(a ) p.228 General Environment Environmental Damage 4.03.3(1 )(b) p.228 4.03.3(3)(d) p .230 Embankments 4.03.3(4)(a)(11) p.230 Sediment Control 4.03.3(5)(b) p.23 Surfacing 4.03.3(6)(a ) and (b) p.231 Maintenance and Use

Support Facilities 4.04(1)(a ) and (b) p.232 Environmental Damage Diminution and Degradation Water 4.04(2) P.232 Minimize Erosion 4.04(3) P*232

Hydrologie Balance 4.05.1(1),(2),(3).(4) P-233 General Requirement Water Quality Standards and Effluents 4.05.2(1)-{3) p,234-235 4.05.2(6) P*236 Effluent Limits 4.05.2(7) P.236 Compliance Water Quality Act 4.05.2(8) p. 236 F a c ilitie s

Diversions 4.05.3(3 P-2 Additional Suspended Solids 4.05.3(7 P.238 D ivert Underground Mines Minimize Impacts Hydro Balance 4.05.3(a p. 238 Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued)

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those Involving point sources» and hydrologic Impacts are covered by the following:

Sediment Control Measures Prevent Additional Sol ids 4.05.5(1 )(a) p. 241 Meet Effluent Limits 4.05.5(1)0») p.241 Minimize Erosion, Protect Hydro Balance 4.05.5(1 )

Discharge Structures 4.05.7 p. 246

Ac1d-Form1ng and Tox1c-Form1ng Spoil 4.05.8 p.246-247

Underground Mine Entry and Access Discharge Prevent or Control Discharge 4.05.10(1) p.251 Restrictions on Discharge 4.05.10(2) p.251-252 Restrictions on Acid or Iron Discharge 4.05.10(3) p.252

Ground Water Protection 4.05.11 p.252

Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Ground Water 4.05.13(1) p.253-254 Surface Water 4.05.13(2) p.255-256

Transfèr Wells Responsibility to Plug 4.05.14(3)(b) and (c) p. 257

Discharge Into Mine L1m1tat1 ons 4.05.16(1) and (2) p. 258 Minimize Disturbance Hydro Balance 4.05.16(5) p.258

Stream Buffer Zone 4.05.18(1 )(b) p.259

Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings 4.07 p.263-265

Disposal Excess Spoil Minimize Adverse Effects Leachate 4*09.1(1 p . 2 7 6 Comply With Effluent Limits 4.09.1(1 )(b) p.277 Provide Slope Protection 4.09.1(5) p.277 Configure Properly 4.09.1(9) p.277

Coal Mine Waste Banks Show Adverse Ënvlronmental Effects 4.10.1(2)(a) and (b) p*284 Water Control on Slopes 4.10.3(3) p.286 Water Discharge Compliance 4.10.3(4) p. 286

Coal Mine Waste Disposal Non-Coal Waste 4.11.4(1) p.288 Final Disposal Non-Coal Waste 4.11.4(2) p.288 Coal tlining and Reclamation Operations (continued)

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those Involving point sources, and hydrologic Impacts are covered by the following:

Dams and Embankments . .,1Wk. w 9fl0 Limitations on Material 4.11-5(1 )(b) p.289

Backfilling and Grading ...... 9Q9 Prevention LeacnYng Toxics 1*11*1/2! I t*\ E'fol Control Erosion 4.14,2(2)(a)-(c) p.294

Covering Coal and A d d and Toxic Forming Materials Cover------47T4.3(1) p.2»; Stabilization 4.14.3(2) p.295

Regrading or Stabilizing Rills and Gullies • Violation Receiving stream stanoards 4.14.6(3) p.298

Protection Fish. Wildlife, and Related Environmental Values ----- General Requirement T W T T P-309

Protection of Underground Mines «i« Variance From Requirements 4.19(1 )(b) p.312

Subsidence ...... Mining Under Aquifer 4.20.4(2) p.315

Requirement to Plug Holes 0*323 324 ISlSSn'W "»..«., i:§:ii!K .) !:«

Alluvial Valleys * « M i Protection Essential Hydro Functions p « 7 Reestablish Essential Hydro Functions 4.24.2(2} P.3Z4 Protection Water Quality or Quantity 4.24.3(3] P - 3 « Monitoring 4.24.4(1 )(c) P -3 2 6

Mountalntop Removal ■ Hydro! ogle Balance 4.26.2(4)(c) p.332

Coal Processing Plants and Facilities Wot Within Permit Area ----- RoIHs---- 1------4.Ztt.1J

-vl- Coal Wining and Reclamation Operations (continuea)

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those Involving point sources, and hydrologie impacts are covered by the following;

In Situ Processing Protection Hydrologie Balance 4.29.2(2) p.339 Disposal 4.29.2(3) p.339 Process Recovery Fluid 4.29.2(4) p.339 Restoration Ground Water 4.29.2(5) p.339 Monitoring 4.29.3 p.340

Cessation Operations ¿oropVlance 4.30.1(1) p.340

Rule 5 Involves inspection, enforcement, and civil penalty provisions as they apply to the activities under the jurisdiction of MLRD. By means of these regulations, not only can inspections be made of exploration, mining, and reclamation operations for compliance but enforcement actions can be taken to bring an operation found to be in violation into compliance. Such action could, at the extreme, involve revocation of approval or permit and cessation of operations. In addition, civil penalties can be assessed against an operator in violation to induce compliance with the conditions of approval and permits issued by MLRD.

Coal Exploration

Applicability and Responsibilities Acttvities Subject to Rule h 5.01.2 p.342 Responsibilities of MLRD 5.01.3(1) p.342*343

Inspections Frequency 5.02.2(5) p. 344 Filing of Reports 5.02.2(7) p.345 Right of Entry 5.02.3(2) p. 345 Inspections Based on Citizens Request 5.02.5 p.346*347 Adequacy of Inspections 5.02.6 p.347

Enforcement Cessation Orders 5.03.2(1) p. 348 Notice of Violation 5.03.2(2) p.349 Service of Orders and Notices 5.03.4 p.356-357 Formal Review by Board 5.03.5 p.357-360 Insufficient Grounds 5.03,7 p.361-362

Penalties When Answered 5.04.2 p.362 Procedures 5.04.3 p.362-365 Public Hearings 5.04.4 p.365-367 System for Assessment 5.04.5 p.367-369 Assessment Separate Violations Each Day 5.04.6 p. 369 Injunctive Relief 5.04.7 p.370 ***** This document from Headquarters has been retyped for clarity because it was unclear to read when faxed to our office* Bob Shankland 8WM-C 03/18/91 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS PERMIT8DIVI3I0N BRANCH 401 M. STREET# 8-W> WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 STORM WATER PERMITS - GROUP APPLICATIONS FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY Extension of Part 1 Deadline Announcement of Final Rule Changes: The Administrator signed a Federal Register Notice, effective immediately, which changes the November 1990 storm water application rule to: 1. Extend the March 18, 1991 Part'1 group application deadline for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity to September 30, 1991; and 2. Establish a fixed deadline of no later than May 18, 1992 for Part 2 group applications. These changes are final rule changes. These final rule changes are an Agency decision to provide more time for submitting Part 1 of the group application for NPDES storm water discharge permit. This decision was made in response to the numerous requests for an extension received in the three weeks prior to the original deadline. Announcement of Proposed Rule; The Administrator also signed a Federal Register notice proposing the following changes to the November 1990 rule: 1. proposing to extend the deadline for submission of individual industrial storm water applications from November 1991 to May 18, 1.992? and 2. proposing to establish a firm deadline of May 16, 1992 for submission of individual applications from rejected members of storm water groups. The deadlines for applications for municipal set era[tercstp^n>\. sewer svstems are not chanqed. U U:. 1.1 \ i ' j; 1 U . )! MAR 2 8 I i w ) Page - 2 - Storm Water Permits Announcement

Thee« notices should appear in the Federal Register midweek this week* We will send copies of all Federal Register notice out to you as soon as possible* If you have any questions please call Ephraim Xing at FTS 475-9541 or Bill Swietllk at FTS 475-9529. Cynthia C* Dougherty, Director Dated: March 18, HU Permits Division# OWSP TOt AMC Member Mining Companies and Consultants Fromi James Miller, Chairman y Water Quality Committee r Raissa V« Kirk/ AMC Counsel Datei March 4, 1991 Roi Group Application for Stormwater Discharge permit

At a February 28, 1991, meeting of the AMC Water Quality Committee it waa decided that AMC should, on behalf of AMC member mining companies, forthwith coordinate and submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") one or more "group permit applications* which would urge EPA to develop "general permits" covering stormwater discharges from both active and inactive mining operations in accordance with EPA's recent Clean Water Act stormwater discharge rule. 55 Fed. Reg, 48006 (Nov. 16, 1990), The deadline for submission to EPA of group applications is March 18, 1991. we apologize for the timing of this request, but due to conflicting information from SPA and the state permitting authorities, it was not at all clear that such a group application approach would be advantageous to AMC members until very recently. Absent this submission, each member company would likely be required to submit a full individual permit application with site- specific sampling data for each of its active and inactive mines by November 16« 1991. This memorandum first briefly describes the purpose and approach of AKC'e contemplated group application and it requests specific information from AMC members who wish to participate. The group application will be most likely to succeed if there is a high level of member participation. We request your response by facsimile as soon as possible and no later than Friday, March 8/ 1991, especially for your active mine sites. A draft of the group application a) will be submitted to all participating members on or about Tuesday, March 12, 1991, for your review and comment.

AMC has previously prapar«d and distributed to the Water Quality Committee comprehensive memoranda, dated November 19, 1990/ and February 19, 1991, on the stormwater discharge rule and the group permit application process. Anyone desiring a copy of these should contact Raissa Kirk at AMC.

m m a m imoas omi ie,fr ¡¡vw Concurrentlyi with the filing of this group application, AHC will be initiating legal action challenging the application of EPA's otonawQter rule to long abandoned, Inactive mines* However, it is the judgment of the Water Quality Coaamittee that a group application submission should also be made to minimise the compliance burden and protect AMC member companies from possible Clean Water Act enforcement sanctions. PurpQ6_o_flnd Approaah The purpose of this group application submission is to reduce the compliance burden which would otherwise fall upon each member company if individual site-specific permits must be prepared and filed by November 16# 1991, for all active and inactive mine sites in the nation. The group application submission would urge EPA to develop model general permits which could then be issued in authorized NPDES states for active and inactive mines according to# at least, the following three effluent guideline categoriest 1) coal mining (40 C.F.R. Part 434)? 2) ore mining and dressing (40 C.F.R. Part 440): and 3) mineral mining and processing (40 C.F.R. Part 436). Given the time constraints and conflicting information from EPA in connection with this rule, AMC believes it will likely not be feasible to further subdivide this group permit application submission according to effluent guideline subcategories (e.g.< uranium, borax, phosphate, etc«)* while we cannot be certain that this group application approach will be successful, EPA has been encouraging various industrial trade associations to coordinate the submission of such applications, and EPA has expressed a willingness to develop industry-specific general permits to minimize the compliance burden to individual industrial companies (and the corresponding administrative burden on EPA and the states). Under EPA's rule, EPA will have 60 days to determine whether the proposed group is appropriate. If the group is accepted, member companies will then have one year to submit further site- specific data from as few as 101 of the sites in the group. This data collection would be conducted on a cost-shared basis among the participating members. Any member who participates in this effort now would be free to withdraw in the future. If the proposed group is rejected by EPA, members would have one year from the rejection to submit individual permit applications.

Active Mines For purposes of this AMC group application, an active mining operation includes all mining operations which are engaged ini 1) actual mining and associated mineral processing; and 2 ) reclamation operations prior to state or federal bond release); as well as, 3) mine sites which are only seasonally or temporarily shut-down (we acknowledge this may require a case-by- case judgment). In the case of active mines, the AMC Water Quality Committee strongly encourages each AMC member company to promptly provide the modest level of data sought on the attached information form for submission to EPA. By way of example only, we have included a completed form for Homestake Mining Company. Please feel free to add supplemental or more detailed information on additional pages as you deem appropriate. Please be sure to identify the applicable EPA precipitation zone from the attached map. Also, please indicate whether you will allow your site to serve as a source of quantitative sampling data* The AMC! Water Quality Committee will then make an assessment as to which sites should be nominated as quantitative data sources to e p a „ Inactive Mines With regard to inactive mines, the AMC Water Quality Committee encourages each member company to provide readily available information which you deem appropriate. (The same information form enclosed can be used, but be sure to clearly mark the form as applying to inactive mines.) After receipt of the data on inactive mines the Water Quality Committee will, within the next week, make an assessment as to whether it is advisable to submit the inactive mine data to EPA in this group application submission. The reason for this uncertainty ils that It is AMC's primary position that it is infeasible, if not impossible, to reliably identify which inactive mines, among the hundreds of thousands of long abandoned, inactive mines in the nation, are indeed subject to this Clean Water Act permitting requirement. (In addition, it is AMC's legal position that e p a lacks authority to require stormwater permits from inactive mines.) On this point, AMC Intends to cite to e p a various statistics compiled by the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement (for coal), the U.S. Bureau of Mines (for non-coal] and other government agencies, documenting the vast numbers of inactive mines and explain why submission of a standard group application, as contemplated by EPA's rule, is completely Infeasible. AMC will then urge EPA to promulgate one or more general permits covering inactive mine sites which should initially require nothing more than an inventory of sites. AMC has learned that EPA 1b already contemplating such a general permit for inactive mines on federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") and the U.S. Forest Service. Therefore, depending on the nature of the AMC member's response, in identifying inactive mines, the submission to EPA may simply be made based upon generic government statistics on these sites.

Conclusion It will be a challenge to all of us to prepare and submit this group application to E P A by Monday, March 18, 1991, but with your cooperation we believe it can be done, if you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please telephone Raissa Kirk, AMC Counsel, at (202) 861-2878 (fax: (202) 861-7535). STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION Department cf Natural Resources

1313 Sherman S t. Room 2 15 Denver. CO 80203 3 C2 865-3567 FAX 3C3 832-8106 Roy Römer. Governor Fred R. Banta. December 5, 1990 Division Director

Mr. Paul Frohardt, Administrator Water Quality Control Commission Colorado Department of Health 4210 E . 11 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 8Q22Û-3716

RE: Senate^BIl 1/181 Initial Report and Plan for Implementation

Please find enclosed two (2) individual reports prepared by the Mined Land Reclamation Division for the Water Quality Control Commission and Division which comprise the plans for implementation of Senate Bill 181, A separate report has been prepared for each of the statutes administered by MLRD: (1) The Mined Lana Reclamation Act; and, (2) the Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act. These reports are submitted in accordance with the terms outlined in the Memoranda of Agreement executed on August 28, 1990.

As requested in your memorandum dated Septenfcer 9, 1990, we look forward to discussing our plans for implementation of Senate Bill 181 at the Commission meeting on February 5, 1991. The two individual reports can be discussed at this meeting.

I would be interested to know your comments on the reports and any suggestions you might have on format or content of the presentation to the Commission. Please let me know after you have reviewed the reports.

Sincerely,

BANTA Director *

FRB/JTD/scg

Enelosure

cc: Dave Holm, WQCD First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report

Pertaining to the Regulation of Mineral Mines

November, 1990

Submitted to:

Water Quality Control Commission and Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716

Submitted by:

Fred Banta, Director Mined Land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215 Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 INTRODUCTION

-M e j c +hp First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report pertaining to the regulatim of mineral mines by the n/ned l L Reclamatior¡ Division MLRD) t m c renort discusses the plan for implementation of Senate Bill 181 (SB 181} by the MLRD In Its administration of mineral mining and reclamation operations under the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act.

TVlii k ciihmit.tAd under the terms of the "Memorandum of Agreement for thl impl^enlltlon SB " n d m e n t s to the Colorado Water; Q^.Control

A« the^olorado Department of Health (CDOH), WateraQuality^ntrol Comission (WQCC) Water Quality iContr-ol ^vision (WQCD) Denartment of Natural Resources (DNR), Mined Lana Reclamation Board (MLRB), 2 E a s i s w w . . n S ? s " p . n V proposed or existing regulations. The report will be updated annually by MLRD.

LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW AND OBLIGATIONS

in its administration of the Mined Land Reclamation Act (34-32-101 et se^., rns 1973 a' amended) the MLRD 1s specifically mandated to ensureThafT "Disturbances to the hydrologic balance of the affected land and surrounding area and to the qual1 ty and quantity of water 1n surface and ground water systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamatio shall be minimized." MLRD is also comnitted by the "Memorandum of Agreement Be ^" C o l o r a d o Aaencies for the Protection of Ground Water Resources of dated March 19 1985, to carry out the provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation Act and related regulations to protect the ground water resources of the state.

Following passage of Subsection 25-8-202(7) of the 1989 amendments to the ColoradoWater Quality Control Act (SB 181), MLRD became recognized as an "implementing agency. As such, it 1s responsible for imple.ent n the numeric standards and classifications for state waters in ™ e areas ot

discharge to surface water.

SB 181 requires that the Implementing agencies ^ P ^ ' P ^ ^ ^ a n d 1

Is a s -.? is s ss«“csi.’’.is lA eir7a;.";5« v s « *

the provisions of SB 181 has been obtained through the program. PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The Mined Land Reclamation Board and MLRD in the joint administration of the Mined Land Reclamation Act .are responsible for assuring that all mineral mines in Colorado obtain reclamation permits (34-32-109(7)) and that violations of the statute, regulations, permit conditions or Board orders are subject to enforcement actions (34-32-123 and 124). The pertinent regulations are summarized 1n the Addendum to this report. The approach for assuring compliance with the requirements of SB 181 would parallel this regulatory structure. After initial permitting, the MLRD wi 1 conduct inspections and take enforcement actions as necessary to ensure that mine operations are In- compliance with water quality standards and classifications applicable to that ODeration. Water quality monitoring or other verification reports will be reviewed as a part of animal report submlttals. If an Inspection or annual report indicates an activity which has resulted 1n a violation, an enforcement action can be taken to assure compliance with the requirements of SB 181.

Prior to the passage of SB 181, MLRB and MLRD have been responsible for fulfilling its obligations under the Act and the MOA of 1985 by means of the nermittlno performance, Inspection and enforcement provisions of the Act and Regulations. The adoption of points of compliance will require changes to the Mineral Rules and Regulations. The MLRD proposes the following plan ^ Implementation of Its obligations pertaining to regulation of mineral mines under SB 181. 1) MLRD will petition the MLRB to initiate a rulemaking process for developing criteria for establishing points of compliance at mineral mines; 2) MLRD will propose that an informal conference procedure be initiated as referenced 1n the Administrative Procedures Act (24-4-103(4), CRS, 1988). Three groups of interested parties would be encouraged to participate: (1) industry, (2) environmental, (3) governmental agencies including the WQCD specifically. The MLRB fray request assistance from other state agencies as provided for under Sections 106(2) and 107(1).

3) MLRD will publish and propose additions to the Mineral Rules and Reaulations at a public hearing. Oral presentations from interested parties will be heard by MLRB. The MLRB will pass rules defining the criteria for points of compliance as it deems appropriate. 4) MLRD will require all new applications, permit amendments and permit conversions (less than 10 acre 1imlted-impact operations converting to regular operations) to propose points ^compliance in the applications. MLRD will review the proposals f°r technical adequacy, and approve of plans only when these comply with the new rules as developed. 5) MLRD will act to minimize disturbance to the hydrologic balance and the quantity and quality of surface and ground water by ¡jeans of the points of compliance for the activities under its Jurisdiction until water quality standards and classifications are provided by the WQCC. s s r r s « ’ % £ $ £ ? "

ff'Æ iîS'.SiîSEÎ^SgfÆ r

E’iîîsH i: Æ îs -..« s% r£*SS?3œ x--aÆ nS;a^

5!;Æ£tSï£ ^ ¡raw ^ A r» V -“^ rulemaking may'further clar1 fy the level of in f e c t i o n required in an appl 1 catl on,

1ncl ude the following: nof-in 1 tion• A point of compliance means one or more points or locations a t W T ch compliance with applicable ground water standards must be achieved. Requirement: Points-of-r.ompl iance shall be «tabljshedjtor all

SÎî255?feïlSpS SuW!,me Criteria: A point of compliance for mineral mining or reclamation

conductivity,hhydraulic ^ « “ « n ^ K w n n & s ¿et*een aquifers).

SCHEDULE

cor res pond to the sequence of steps outlined in the plan.

(1) January 1950 meeting of MLRB

(2) Informal 'conferences to be held for four (4) hour duration every other week for approximately three months total time.

(3) Publish notice May 10, 1990, hearing scheduled for June 26, 1990.

(4) if rules adopted during June hearing, new rules would become effective July 30, 1990. (51 ImDlementation would begin imnedlately follow ing the permit, 151 amendment or conversion approval date, as appropriate. SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS

addressed. ! no ground water standards or classifications other than statewide HLRo'evaluate wheïer*proposed*mlnlng^ctlvltle^ca^meet^on-exlstent-

standards? 2 To what extent are management practices acceptable in lieu of . monitoring? Will monitoring of all nonpoint sources and ground water required for all mineral mines? To what extent should economic reasonableness be considered In ^ " ’"9 3. requirements consistent with the legislative declaration of 34-32-102(2)7

To what extent are activities "grandfathered" prior to the effective date 4. of new regulations? Water quality impacts are evaluated based on relative or absolute 5. ehanaes Will ground water standards be based on relativ® (baseline vs. mining) or absolute (concentration exceeds standard)?

6 Water quality conditions are variable over time. Ground water varies slowly, while runoff varies extremely rapidly. To what extent wi temporal variations need to be addressed? 7 will geochemical characterizations of water q u a l 1mPa^ b® ^ ceptab1e ;ïîî,s,S".i"?Ærct,re5

to baseline? Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board

As required by Section 5.1(h) of the 1990 MOA pertaining to regulation of mineral mines, MLRD is providing the WQCC and WQCD an identification of relevant existing regulations. These, together with the additional regulations proposed in the Plan for Implementation of SB 181, should be considered 1n determining whether assurance is provided that compliance with water quality standards and classification for activities within the jurisdiction of MLRD will be attained.

Rule 1 contains the definition.of terms, notice requirements for Board meetings, and procedures for submitting changes during the application process, amendments, technical revisions, requests for temporary cessation, determinations on whether activities are considered mining, declaratory orders and reconsiderations of board orders. Additional definitions of terms may be required as a part of rulemaking on SB 181.

Rule 2 specifies application requirements for regular operations (greater than 10 acres). The following rule sections cited below are pertinent:

2.1.2(4) Pre-mining and mine plan map Information 2.1.2(4)(b) Identify the name and location of all creeks 2.1.2(4)(c) The existing topography of the area 2.1.2(4) (f) Further water resources information 2.1.2(5) Mining plan 2.1*2(5)(c) Identify all water diversions and impoundments 2.1,2(5){e) Mining timetable 2.1.2(5)(f)(i) Nature, depth and thickness of deposit and overburden 2.1.2(5)(f)(1i) Nature of stratum immediately beneath the material to be mined in sedimentary deposits 2 .1 .2( 6 ) Reclamation plan 2.1.2(6)(c) Description of how plan will be implemented to meet performance standards (Rule 6) 2.1.2(7) (a) Map of proposed post-mining topography 2 .1 .2 (8 ) Water information , ^ ^ 2.1 .2.8(a) Statement 1f activity not expected to directly affect surface or ground water system 2.1 .2(8)(b)(i ) Locate tributaries, wells, springs, stockwater ponds, reservoirs, ditches 2.1.2(8){b)(ii) Identify all known aquifers 2.1.2(8)(b) (111) Plan showing how water from dewatering operations or runoff from disturbed areas will be managed to protect against pollution of surface or ground water both during and after operations. 2.1.2(8)(c) Project water requirements 2.1.2(8)(d) Source of water supply 2.1.2(8) (e) Statement of affirmation on acquisition or application for NPDES permit 2 . 1 . 2 ( 10) Soil information 2 . 1 . 2( 1 1 ) Vegetation information 2 . 1 . 2 ( 12) Climate information 2.1.2(13) Reclamation costs Rule 3 specifies application requirements for limited impact operations. Rule "S'.2 is for the category between 2 and 10 acres, whereas Rule 3.3 is for less than 2 acre operations. Two-acre operations cannot: (a) extract sand, gravel or quarry aggregate, (b) be located in or adjacent to a stream channel, or (3) process minerals by acid or toxic-forming means. Rule 3.1{3) 1s for composite applications for counties which are seldom used. Additional Information on water quality in Rule 3 may be necessary to fully implement SB 181. The following rule sections cited below are pertinent: 3.2(h)3.2(f) MiningMap plan , « 3,2(1) Reclamation plan addressing the measures to be taken to comply with Rule 6 3 2(k) List of otherpermits and licenses applicant holds or will be seeking (eg. effluent discharge, 404, permit to construct a dam, well permit) 3.3(c) Mining plan 3 3(q) Reclamation plan describing the measures which will be * taken to reclaim all affected land consistent with Rule 6 3.3(j) Map

Rule 4 is for special operations requiring sand, gravel or quarry aggregate materials which are limited to highway or utility projects by governmental agencies. If these are not exempted from the requirements of SB 181, then the rule sections cited below are pertinent:

4.1.1(5) Map 4,1.1(9)4.1,1(7) MiningReclamation plan plan addressing measures to be taken to comply with Rule 6

Rule 5 1s for prospecting operations. A permit 1s not issued but rj*ther a "Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting Operations" and bond is submitted. All information is kept confidential. Bonds are released following completion of reclamation and MLRD inspection. Very specific requirements for drilling wells, sealing wells, converting exploratory wells to water wells, and reports of well plugging are required. A full description of the requirements are included 1n the statute and regulations. Prospecting activities may be considered for exemption from the requirements of SB 181. The following rule sections (as abbreviated) cited belcw are pertinent: 5,1.1(6)5.1.1(7) ReclamationType of operation measures description to be taken to comply with Rule 6 5^3.1(2) Drilling to prevent cuttings and fluids from entering dry or flowing stream channels 5.3.1(3) Timely abandonment 5,3,75.3.1 (5) BackfillingRequires compliance of pits with water quality laws and regulations 5.4.1 Permanent abandonment requirements 5*4.1 (1) When artesian flow 5.4.1 (25 When volcanic or sedimentary aquifer encountered 5*4*1 (3) In unconsol idated material 5,4.1(4) Prevent intermixture of aquifers 5.4.1 (5) Capping dry holes 5,4,2 Temporary abandonment 5#4,3 Conversion to a monitoring well 5*4*4 Use as, or conversion to, a water well 5*4*5 Surface reclamation of drill sites 5V .6 Final report

Rul e 6 are performance standards. The following rule sections cited below are pertinent: 6.1(1) Backfilling to insure compaction and prevent leaching of toxic materials 6 1(2) Grading to control erosion 6*1(4) Refuse and acid-forming or toxic-producing materials that have been mined shall be disposed of 1n a manner that will protect drainage from pollution 6 K 5) Drill holes plugged to prevent polluting drainageways. Adits and shafts sealed, and where practicable, backfilled and graded. 6.1(6) Maximum slope angles, especially for lake shorelines 6 2(1) Minimize disturbance to hydrologic balance (for full definition, see 34-32-116(7)(g)), 6,2(1 )(a) Requires compliance with water laws 6*2(1)(b) Requires compliance with federal and state water quality laws and regulations 6.2(1)(c) Compliance with dredge-and-f1ll requirements 6.2(1 )(d) Removal of temporary or large siltation structures from drainageways after revegetation and stabilization 6,2(2) Impoundment construction 6.3(1) Wildlife protection 6,4(1) Topsoil salvage and storage to prevent contamination by acid or toxic material 6,4(3) Erosion control for topsoil stockpiles 6*4(5) Topsoil replacement to prevent mass slippage 6*4(7) Fertilizer application according to soil tests 6^5 Reve ge ta t1on r eq u i remen ts 6.5(5) Mulching 6.5(6) Weed control 6.5(8) Limitation on planting requirement

Rule 7 pertains to bonding requirements. No special rule changes are expected unless a specific provision for bonding the cost of monitoring well construction or water quality monltorina are necessary. These Issues will be discussed in Informal conferences on rulemaking to implement SB 181.

Rule 8 specifies inspection, monitoring and enforcement provisions. No specific citations are listed as this entire section woula apply for implementation of SB 181 First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report

Pertaining to the Regulation of Coal Mines

November, 1990

Submitted to:

Water Quality Control Commission and Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716

Submitted by:

Fred Banta, Director Mined Land Reclamation Division Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215 Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 INTRODUCTION

This is the First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report pertaining to the regulation of coal mines by the Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD). This report discusses the plan for implementation of Senate Bill 181 (SB 181) by the MLRD in its administration of coal mining and reclamation operations under the Colorado Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act.

This report is submitted under the terms of the "Memorandum of Agreement for the Implementation of SB 181 Amendments to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (25-8-101 et seq.) pertaining to the Regulation of Coal Mines." The MOA was signed AugustTZff, 1950 by the Colorado Department of Health (CDOH), Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC), Water Quality Control Division (WQCO) Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB), and Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD). Section 5.1(h) of the MOA specifies that MLRD will provide a report that describes how Its program will assure compliance with water quality standards and classifications for activities under its jurisdiction including identification of any relevant proposed or existing regulations. The report will be updated annually by MLRD.

LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW AND OBLIGATIONS

In the administration of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (34-33-101, et seq., CRS, 1973, as amended), the MLRD is specifically mandated to require coal mining and reclamation operations to "minimize the disturbance to the prevailing hydrologie balance at the mine site and 1n associated off-site areas and to the quality and quantity of water 1n surface and ground water systems both during and after surface (and underground) coal mining operations and during reclamation." In addition to the coal mining and coal mine reclamation operations, coal exploration activities are also subject to this provision of the Act and fall under MLRD jurisdiction.

MLRD is also committed by the March 1985 Memorandum of Agreement Between Colorado Agencies for the Protection of the Quality of Ground Water Resources of the State (1985 MOA) to carry out the provisions of the Act and relateo regulations (Regulations) to protect the ground water resources of the state.

Following passage of Subsection 25-8-202(7) of the 1989 Amendments to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act (SB181), MLRD becomes recognized as an "implementing agency". As such, MLRD is obligated to implement water quality standards and classifications through its own programs, after consultation with the WQCD and WQCC. Further, SB181 requires that MLRD adopt points of compliance, where compliance with applicable ground water standards must be achieved, 1n accordance with criteria established through rulemaking after public hearing and consultation with the WQCD and WQCC. PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Prior to the passage of SB181 and the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement for its implementation (1990 MOA), MLRD was successful in fulfilling its obligations under the Act and the 1985 MOA by means of the permitting, performance, inspection and enforcement provisions of the Act and the related Regulations, Those regulations have been suntnarized in the Addendum to this report. By means of ground water quality, quantity, and use data provided with applications for coal exploration approvals and coal mining permits, the probable hydrologic consequences of proposed or revised activities were evaluated, and suitable monitoring and mitigation measures were required. Assessments of the cumulative hydrologic Impact of all mining 1n an area were made, and permits withheld until MLRD could find that a proposed operation had been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside its permit area. The use of standards promulgated by the WQCC were Incorporated into the MLRD assessments of material damage.

While the provisions of the existing Act and related Regulations, therefore, can be utilized to Implement the water quality standards and classifications adopted by the WQCC, for the areas and aquifers potentially impacted by coal mining, coal mine reclamation and coal exploration operations, the adoption of points of compliance by MLRD for these activities and the establishment of criteria for these points of compliance may require changes in the existing regulations. With this 1n mind, MLRD proposes the following plan 1n order to discharge Its obligations under SB181.

1) MLRD will petition the MLRB to initiate a public process to review the existing regulations so as to determine whether the adoption of points of compliance and the incorporation of criteria for the establishment of these points 1s necessary.

2) MLRD will propose that an informal conference procedure be initiated as referenced in the Administrative Procedures Act (24-4-103(4), CRS, 1988). Three groups of interested parties would be encouraged to participate: (1) Industry, (2) environmental, (3) governmental agencies Including the WQCD specifically.

3) MLRD will publish and propose additions to the Rules and Regulations for Coal Mining at a public hearing. Oral presentations from interested parties will be heard by MLRB. The MLRB will pass rules defining the criteria for points of compliance as 1t deems appropriate.

4) MLRD will undertake, once such revisions to existing regulations are approved by MLRB, to secure the necessary approvals by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

5) MLRD will require the adoption of suitable points of compliance for the activities under its jurisdiction through the permitting or revision process once the necessary regulatory modifications are fully approved.

6) MLRD will furnish to the WQCC a map of the areas in the state where coal mining and coal exploration are conducted together with identification of the aquifers potentially impacted by these operations in order that the WQCC establish applicable water quality standards and classifications. 7) MLRD will act to protect the prevailing hydrologic balance and prevent material damage by means of the points of compliance for the activities under its jurisdiction until water quality standards and classifications applicable to these are provided by the WQCC.

To this point, the MLRB and MLRD have experienced no difficulty in fulfilling its obligations under the Act and 1985 MOA. Reasonable water quality standards have been applied by MLRD in order to protect local groundwater uses from the adverse effects of subsurface discharges by coal mining and exploration operations. Non-point surface discharges from such activities are limited by applicable receiving stream standards and controlled, with MLRD approval, by the use of the Best Currently Available Technology. Consequently no changes in the Act and current regulations are considered to be necessary in order that MLRD apply the water quality standards or classifications adopted by the WQCC. However, consultation with the WQCC and WQCD regarding changes, as required by SB181 and the 1990 MOA, can be managed, 1f desired, by means of the informal conferences or public hearings proposed in Step 2 of this plan. MLRD, on the other hand, does consider that changes in the regulations may be necessary to include a requirement for the adoption of points of compliance for activities regulated by MLRD and to specify the criteria by which these points of compliance will be established. Since MLRD 1s required by the 1990 MOA to consult with the WQCC and WQCD prior to rulemaking regarding the criteria to be adopted for points of compliance, it is believed that this consultation can be accomplished during the informal conferences proposed in Step 2. The definition, requirement and criteria for a point of compliance to be proposed by MLRD for incorporation into the regulations for coal mining consist of the following at this time:

Definition: A point of compliance 1s a point at which compliance with applicable ground water standards must be achieved.

Requirement: Points of compliance shall be established on a site specific basis for all aquifers having the potential for significant adverse impact by coal mining, coal mine reclamation, and coal exploration activities. More than one point of compliance may be required by the Division for an activity or aquifer, for good cause shown.

Criteria: 1) A point of compliance for coal mining and reclamation activity must be located within the permit area approved for the operation. A point of compliance for coal exploration must be located within reasonable proximity to the operation.

2) A point of compliance 1s a bore hole of acceptable construction and depth open to the aquifer for which compliance with applicable ground water standards 1s to be achieved or 1s a surface or subsurface discharge of ground water from such an aquifer. The point of compliance for each aquifer will allow the recovery of or will provide a sufficient amount of representative ground water in a reasonable length of time for compliance to be demonstrated at the required frequency. 3) A point of compliance shall be located in a position 1n the aquifer for which compliance with applicable ground water standards is to be achieved down hydraulic gradient from the corresponding coal mining and reclamation site, or coal exploration activity. The point of compliance shall also be located where acceptable modeling and analyses indicate that water quality monitoring can occur.

SCHEDULE

The following is a proposed schedule for the plan for implementation of SB 181 amendments pertinent to the regulation of coal mines. The numbers correspond to the sequence of steps outlined in the plan.

1) January 1990 meeting of MLRB

2) February-May 1990

3) Publish notice May 10, 1990, hearing scheduled for June 26, 1990.

4) Immediately following MLRB approval (The WQCD and WQCC, however, must recognize that any changes in a Federal program, which 1n this case includes both the Act and related regulations, requires OSM and EPA approvals. It 1s a process that requires careful preparation and considerable time, probably months.)

5) As part of the permitting of new coal mining and coal reclamation operations, and coal exploration operations. For currently permitted coal mining and reclamation operations, at the time of the next midterm permit review or permit renewal and by means of a technical revision to the permit.

6) July 1, 1990

7) Immediately following the permit approval or revision approval date, as appropriate. Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining

As required by Section 5.1(h) of the 1990 MOA pertaining to the regulation of coal mines, MLRD is providing the WQCC and WQCD by means of the Addendum to .the First Annual Water Quality Compliance Report, an identification of relevant existing regulations. These, together with the additional regulations proposed 1n the MLRD plan for implementation of SB181, are currently regarded by MLRD as providing assurance that compliance with water quality standards and classifications for activities subject to MLRD jurisdiction will be attained.

Rule 1 contains direction on the state's regulatory authorities and responsibilities under the Act. The rule is general and establ 1 shed the MLRD jurisdiction. Relevant portions o* that, rule are as follows:

p.3 Authority 1.02

p.3 Responsibil it1 es: 1.03 1.03.1 p.3 1.03.1(1 )(a) p.4 1.03.1 (1 )(d) p.4 1.03.1 (1 )(e) p.4 1.03.1 (1 ) (f Î p.4

Rule 2 contains the requirements for permit applications for MLRD decisions regarding coal mining and reclamation operations In the state The rule also addresses coal exploration. Two levels of coal exploration as well as actual coal mining and reclamation are subject to MLRD permitting and approvals. The portions of Rule 2 cited below are organized as they apply to these separate activlti es. Coal Exploration Involving Removal of 250 Tons or Less of Coal

p.53 Notice of Intent to Explore: 2.02.2(1 ) Description of Environmental p.54 Protection Practices: 2.02.2(2)(f) p.54 Description of Operation 2.02.2(2)(g) Division Review and Determination 2.02.2(3) p.54 Need for Division's Determination 2.02.2(7) p.60 p.59 Operations Subject to Regulations 2.02.6(1) Division Environmental Investigation 2.02.6(2) p.59 Reports of Operation and Certification p.59-60 of Reclamation 2.02.6(3) Coal Exploration Involving Removal of More than 250 Tons of Coal

Requirement for Application 2.02.3 p.55 p.58 Conditions of Approval 2.02.4(3) p.58 Terms of Approval 2.02.4(4) Activities Subject to Enforcement 2 . 0 2 . 6 (1 ) p.59 2 .02. 6( 2) p.59 Report of Operation and Certification p.59-60 of Reclamation 2.02.6(3)

Coal Mining and Reclamationi Operations

p.49 Permit 2.02.3(1) p.61 Permit Application 2.03.2 p.62 Nature of Appl 1 cation 2.03.3(1 )-(4) Certification of Truth and Correctness 2.03.3(g) p.63 p.70 Information 2.04.2(1 ) Environmental Information 2.04.3(1) p.70 General Hydro and Geology Information 2.04.5(1 )(a)-{c) p.72 p.73 Geology and Surface and Ground Water 2.04.6(1) p.73 Geology to First Aquifer 2.04,6(2)(a) p.74 Test Boring Data Report 2.04.6(2)(b)(1)(A) p.76 Report Subsurface Water 2.04.6(3)(a)(1i1){B) p.76 Report Surface Water 2.04.6(3)(a)(1v) (A) p.77 Ground Water Information 2.04.7(1) p.78 Surface Water Receiving Discharges 2.04.7(2)(b)(ii) p.79 Alternative Water Supply Information 2.04.7(3) p.79 Map of Reservoirs and Wells 2.04.7(4)(a) p.80 Map of Subsurface Water 2.04.7(4)(c) p.80 Data Collection 2.04.7(5) Plans for Impoundments, Ponds, Drainages 2.05.3(4)(a) p.89 p.98 Plans for Reclamation 2.05.4(1) p.99 Description Compliance Clean Water Act 2.05.4(2)(h) p.Î02-105 Protection Hydro Balance 2.05.6(3) « A A p.138 Facilities Outside Permit Area 2.06.10 p.138-139 Requirements for In-situ Activities 2.06.11(2) Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued)

Compl iance with 4.29 2.06.11(3) p.139 Division Review 2.07.6(2)(a)- (c) p.150-151 Mining Impacts to Environment 2.07.7 p.155-156

Periodic Review of Permits 2.08.3(1)-(2)i p.157 Authority to Revise Existing Permits 2.08.3(3) p.157 1 o> 0 CD ______Revisions to Permits ro • (b) and p.158 and 2.08.4(5)(a)- (b) P.159

Rule 4 contains environmental and other performance standards that apply to coal exploration and coal mining and reclamation operations. These standards establish the minimum requirements for such activities and adherence to such performance standards becomes the obligation of the activity once it receives the required approval or permit. Failure to comply with such standards subjects the activity to the provisions of the enforcement regulations.

Coal Exploration

Both levels of coal exploration are subject to the following performance rules:

Compliance With Rules Required 4.21.2(1 ) and (2) p.316 Environmental Values 4.21.4(1) P.316 Sealing Holes or Openings According to Rule 4.07 4.21.4(8) p.318 Minimize Disturbance to Hydrologie Bal an ce 4.21.4(10) p.319 Requirement for Permit 4.21 .5 p.319 Sealing Drilled Holes and Underground Openings 4.07 p.263 Discharges of water from such operations, other than those involving point sources, and hydrologic impacts are covered by the following:

General Requirements to Meet Standards 4.01.3.(2) p. 208

Haul Roads General Environmental 4.03.1

Access Roads 4.03.2(1 219 General Environment )(a) p. Affect Environmental Values 4.03.2(1 Mb) P.219 Design and Construction 4.03.2(3) p.221 4.03.2(3)(c)(11) p.222 Road Cuts 4.03.2(3) 223 Road Embankments (d)(x) p. 4.03.2(4)(2)(111 )&(1v) 224 Minimize Erosion p. Measures to Control Erosion 4.03.2(4)(b ) p.225 4.03.2(5)( b ) p.227 Sur facing 4.03.2(6) 227 Maintenance (a) p.

Light Use Roads General Env1ronment 4.03.3(1 )(a) p .228 Environmental Damage 4.03.3(1)(b) p.228 Embankments 4.03.3(3)(d) p.230 Sediment Control 4.03.3(4)(a)(11) p.230 Sur facing 4.03.3(5)(b) p.231 Maintenance and Use 4.03.3(6)(a) and (b) p.231

Support Facilities Environmental Damage 4.04(1 )(a) and (b) p.232 Diminution and Degradation Water 4.04(2) p.232 Minimize Erosion 4.04(3) p.232

Hydrologie Balance General Requirement 4.05.1(1),(2),(3),(4) p.233 Water Quality Standards and Effluents 4.05.2(1)-(3) p.234-235 p.236 Effluent Limits 4.05.2(6) 4.05.2(7) p.236 Compliance Water Quality Act p.236 FaclHti es 4.05.2(8)

Diversions p.237 Additional Suspended Solids 4.05.3(3) 4.05.3(7) p.238 Divert Underground Mines p.238 Minimize Impacts Hydro Balance 4.05.3(a) Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued)

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those involving point sources, and hydrologic impacts are covered by the following:

Sediment Control Measures Prevent Additional Solids 4.05.5(1 )(a ) p.241 Meet Effluent Limits 4.05,5(1)(b) p.241 Minimize Erosion, Protect Hydro Balance 4.05.5(1 )(c) p.241

Discharge Structures 4.05.7 p. 246

Acid-Forming and Toxic-Forming Spoil 4.05.8 p.246-247

Underground Mine Entry and Access Discharge Prevent or Control Discharge 4.05.10(1) p.251 Restrictions on Discharge 4.05.10(2) p.251-252 Restrictions on A d d or Iron Discharge 4.05.10(3) p.252

Ground Water Protection 4.05.11 p.252

Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Ground Water 4.05.13(1 1 p.253-254 Surface Water 4.05.13(2) p.255-256

Transfer Wells Responsibility to Plug 4.05,14(3)(b) and (c) p.257

Discharge Into Mine Llmitati ons 4,05.16(1 ) and (2) p. 258 Minimize Disturbance Hydro Balance 4.05,16(5) p. 258

Stream Buffer Zone 4.05.18(1 )(b) p.259

Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings 4.07 p.263-265

Disposal Excess Spoil Minimize Adverse Effects Leachate 4.09.1(1 )(a) p.276 Comply With Effluent Limits 4.09.1 (1 ) (b) p.277 Provide Slope Protection 4.09.1(5) p.277 Configure Properly 4.09.1(9) p.277

Coal Mine Waste Banks Show Adverse Environmental Effects 4.10.1(2){a) and (b) p. 284 Water Control on Slopes 4.10.3(3) p.286 Water Discharge Compliance 4.10.3(4) p.286

Coal Mine Waste Disposal Non-Coal Waste 4.11.4(1) p. 288 Final Disposal Non-Coal Waste 4.11.4(2) p. 288 Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued"]

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those involving point sources, and hydrologic impacts are covered by the following:

Dams and Embankments Limitations on Material 4.11.5(1 )(b) p.289

Backfilling and Grading Preventioh_’Leach'Tng Toxics 4.14.1(2)(b) p.292 Control Erosion 4,14.2(2)(a)-(c) p.294

Covering Coal and Acid and Toxic Forming Materials Cover T7T4.3(1) p.295 Stabilization 4.14.3(2) p.295

Regrading or Stabilizing Rills and Gullies Violation ftece'ivfng Stream Standards 4.14.6(3) p.298

Protection Fish, Wildlife, and Related Environmental Values General Requirement 47T&TTJ p.309

Protection of Underground Mines Variance From Requi rements 4.19(l)(b) p.312

Subsidence Mining Under Aquifer 4.20.4(2) p.315

Auger Mining Requirement to Plug Holes 4.23.2(4) p.323 Variance from Plugging 4,23.2(5) p,323-324 Limitations on Auger Mining 4.23.2(b)(a) p.324

Alluvial Valleys Protection Essent1al Hydro Functions 4.24.2(1) p.324 Reestablish Essential Hydro Functions 4,24.2(2) p.324 Protection Water Quality or Quantity 4.24.3(3) p.325 Monitoring 4.24.4(1){c) p.326

Mountaintop Removal Hydro)ogic Balance 4.26.2(4)(c) p.332

Coal Processing Plants and Facilities Not W1 thin Permit Area ftoads 4.28.3(2) p.337 Sediment Control 4.28.3(4) p.337 Water Wells 4,28.3(6) p.338 Coal Processing Waste 4.28.3(7) p.338 Discharge Structures 4,28.3(8) p.338 Environmental Values 4.28.3(10) p,338 Buildings 4,28.3(14) p.338

-vl- Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations (continued')

Discharges of water from such operations, other than those involving point sources, and hydrologic impacts are covered by the following:

In Situ Processing Protection hydrologic Balance 4.29.2(2) p.339 Disposal 4.29.2(3) p.339 Process Recovery Fluid 4.29.2(4) p.339 Restoration Ground Water 4.29.2(5) p.339 Monitoring 4.29.3 p. 340

Cessation Operations Compliance 4.30.1(1) p. 340

Rule 5 involves inspection, enforcement, and civil penalty provisions as they apply to the activities under the jurisdiction of MLRD, By means of these regulations, not only can inspections be made of exploration, mining, and reclamation operations for compliance but enforcement actions can be taken to bring an operation found to be in violation into compliance. Such action could, at the extreme, Involve revocation of approval or permit and cessation of operations. In addition, civil penalties can be assessed against an operator in violation to induce compliance with the conditions of approval and permits issued by MLRD.

Coal Exploration

Applicability and Responsibilities Activities Subject to RuleT 5.01.2 p. 342 Responsibilities-of MLRD 5.01.3(1 ) p.342-343

Inspections Frequency 5.02.2(5) p.344 Filing of Reports 5.02.2(7) p.345 Right of Entry 5.02.3(2) p. 345 Inspections Based on Citizens Request 5.02.5 p.346-347 Adequacy of Inspections 5.02.6 p. 347

Enforcement Cessation Orders 5.03.2(1) p. 348 Notice of Violation 5.03.2(2) p.349 Service of Orders and Notices 5.03.4 p.356-357 Formal Review by Board 5.03.5 p.357-360 Insufficient Grounds 5.03.7 p.361-362

Penal ties When Answered 5.04.2 p. 362 Procedures 5.04.3 p.362-365 Public Hearings 5.04.4 p.365-367 System for Assessment 5.04.5 p.367-369 Assessment Separate Violations Each Day 5.04.6 p.369 Injunctive Relief 5.04.7 p.370 STATE OF COI PRADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Phone (303) 33M S25

NOTICE OF 2ND SUBCOMMITTEE m e e t i n g

R elating to the Basic Standards and Methodologies fo r Surface Water? focusing on the relationship between the Colorado water qu ality standards framework and water quality improvement goals.

The subcommittee is chaired by Commissioner McGrath, w ith Commissioners Ela, Harrison and Sturges participating. A ll interested persons are encouraged to attend and particpate.

Wednesday, October 10, 1990 1 ) 0 0 p . m . R o o m 1 5 0 Colorado Department of Health B uilding 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado

A copy of a d ra ft Issues Paper is available upon request in the Commission O f f i c e .

Dated th is 18th day of September, 1990, at Denver, Colorado.

Water Q uality C ontrol Commission

O X h d * ( V {, A ) * /f ^ ra. \ I MarlaM arla L. L, Bi&srstine, BiiSSrstine, wv Staff Assistant . i 15 0 s U /*?/, K

^rrOU-^ &jit; Ju^r.

X xU+, *. ijO- Tl/x o^J

^ ii, f e J l 1 ^/Jm r/. DRAFT COPY ISSUES PAPER ON THE RELATION OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SYSTEM

The Water Q uality Improvement Subcommittee held its firs t meeting 8 August 1990. The Subcommittee was not whelmed by the response from the public and hopes this is due to the vague nature of the notice. In an e ffo rt to better inform potentially interested members of the public, th is issues paper outlines the problem as it is perceived by the Commission (or at least by the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the Adm inistrator of the Commission). It also discusses examples of areas that might be affected by potential changes, and outlines a few possible solutions. The solutions are offered as non-lim iting examples to further help potentially interested members of the public discern the general direction of the Subcommittee.

The Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface W ater, 3.1.0 (5 CCR 1002-8), contain several sections which, in the last several rive r basin trie n n ia l reviews, have le ft the Commission w ith alternatives that did not o f f e r solutions w ell-suited to several segments. Section 3.1.6(l)(e) allows the Commission to set classifications and standards based on the potential of the segment in the next 20 years and section 3.1.7(3)(a) allows the Commission to set temporary m odifications of standards for which the underlying standards w ill be attainable w ithin 20 years. In the original rounds of triennial review most segments where these sections were at issue were set w ith ambient standards. In recent reviews the Commission has, for several stream segments, chosen table value standards (TVS) w ith ambient standards aB temporary m o d i f i e r s .

Constrained by the current regulations, the Commission has expressed a general discom fort w ith the extremes of choosing either ambient standards or TVS in segments where some improvement is expected but the degree of improvement is d iffic u lt to predict. We seem to be l e f t w ith the dilemma of either sending the message that we find the status quo acceptable by setting ambient standards or that we expect the stream segment to reach TVS w ithin 20 years when the actual degree of cleanup is d iffic u lt to identify w ith certainty. To pick any m iddle ground on a solely factual basis seems even less ju stifia b le , due to the dearth of inform ation generally available.

The Subcommittee w ill also explore ways in which the Commission m ight become more proactive, instead of its usual reactive role, in establishing p rio rity stream segments where nonpoint source cleanup e f f o r t s m ight best be focused. It was also suggested that we attempt to devise a method that would allow moneys otherwise spent to make sm all improvement in point discharges to be spend on nonpoint improvements where the impact would be much larger (the m ore-bang-for-the-buck philosophy).

Areas where the Commission p o tentia lly might find such changes to the Basic Standards useful follow :

1. In p rio ritizin g nonpoint source focus areas for the use of state and federal clean-up funds to insure that the lim ited funds are spent in areas where the impact w ill be the greatest. 2 . In h isto ric m ining d is tric ts w ith ambient standards where some nonpoint source work haa been done or is being contemplated and improvements need to be protected,

3. For new or reactivated mines in areas w ith ambient standards. To focus on the problem of when the clean-up should sta rt, w ith point sources or nonpoint sources.

4. In Superfund or NRD sites where the goal-classifications and underlying standards would set targets for clean-up e f f o r t s .

Possible elements of a solution follow :

R e v is e 3.1.6(l)(e) to allow classifications w ith a goal q u a lifie r even where a tta in a b ility cannot be d e fin itive ly demonstrated w ithin a 20-year period if there is a potential for a tta in a b ility and the Commission decides as a policy m atter that the goal classification should drive regulation of impacts on the segment and influence .nonpoint p rio ritiza tio n .

R e v is e 3,1.7(3)(a) to allow temporary m odifications (w ith more stringent underlying standards) even where a tta in a b ility in 20 years has not been d e fin itiv e ly demonstrated, but where the Commission has determined that actions should be directed toward seeking water qu a lity improvements.

Devise a method to allow the trade-off of expensive point source controls fo r higher impact nonpoint source controls.

F inally, the Commission recognises that improvements in water quality w ill have a financial impact. Although there are also many other im portant considerations in setting water quality standards, clearly any revisions to the current system should strive to assure that clean-up dollars are.spent as effectively as possible.

2805m/214m/dg la ■ Roc*» Mountain Sews Thur«.. Seot. 20, 199C S cien c e & environment George Douglas, Assistant City Editor ■ 192-274)

SCIENCE WATCH

C A N CE R TR E A T M E N T Mountain mines pose toxic plight rrotectiProtection of trea urged Environmental State officials groups and cancer The "easy’'cleanup HI researchers yester­ call it thorniest day asked for federal protec* of the Eagle Mine tion for the Pacific yew, a tree cleanup problem with bark that provides a became a case scarce new cancer-fighting facing Colorado drug. The petition could open study of what can By Janet Day another front in the battle over logging in the old-growth Stui Eneironminlal Writer go wrong. forests of the Pacific North* BRECKENRIOtiE — Abandoned west, which so far has focused creased concentrations of pollut­ mines scattered throughout Colo­ on protecting the northern ants turning the river orange. rado's high country that are drain­ Officials last year built a water spotted owl,Industry officials ing toxic metals into rivers are the and the U.S. Forest Service, treatment plant to remove the largest, most complex, most frus­ however, said the yew, Taxua metals from the seepage, but ex­ trating pollution problems for the cess sludge has reduced its effec­ brtvifolia, is so abundant that state's environmental engineers. it needs no protection. tiveness. “ Mining sites are some of our Other old mining sites around BIOTECHNOLOGY worst because they're so large and the state and the West are running into similar problems in efforts to Statepushes expansion so complex," said Dick Parachini of the Colorado Department of restore the Arkansas. Eagle and H n f B Colorado is spend* Health, "We’ve learned that when other nvers to the point where p i i ing an estimated S3 you go in and further disturb 100 they can support trout and other ■ million a year to en­ years' worth of disturbance, there aquatic life. courage biotechnology devel­ are a lot of unknowns, and it's The worst sites are being opment. state officials say. going to be hard, if not impossible, cleaned up under the federal Su- That's a threefold increase to control it all." perfund law, which governs the over last year, and includes nation's most toxic waste sites. more money from the state, Parachini Is project manager for the cleanup of the Eagle Mine near Many of Colorado's 16 Superfund matching grants from indua* sites are old mining operations. Vail and one of the speakers at this try and new grants to expand The rest are sites polluted by toxic week's conference on mine recla­ ongoing research. Biotech re* chemicals and generally confined mation. The cleanup was i searchers and manufacturer« to a few acres or few square miles. to be one of the state's small, will meet at Colorado State “ The problem is trying to clean . managed projecta, Parachini University today to look at up these huge mining areas with a , but instead has turned into a CSU's new bioprocessing cen­ law made for 2-acre drum sites,” I study of what can go wrong. ter, where small firms con­ said Robert Hanson, of Idaho’s tract to test the latest equip­ Cleaning up the 65 miles of Department of Environmental ment for turning genes and workings lias been plagued with Quality, which is trying to clean up enzymes into useful product*. bungled activities, hidden pollution several old mining sites, problems and uncooperative Even sfter mining pollution ia ARCHEOi.OOY weather. The 2-year-okl cleanup is Okf high-country mines are draining toxins into state rivers, pos­ halted, reduced or treated, years Santa F t Plaza dug up going to cost the mine owners ing one o f most frustrating pollution problems for officials. could pass before the environment about $30 million and has resulted rebounds, trees and grasses be­ An archeological in a $300 million 1 come established and fish popula­ team Tuesday be­ tions stabilize in (he rivers, health gan the first of sev­ The zinc mine produced 12.5 into the Eagle River at a rate of up to the piles and pumped polluted to 204 gallons a minute. The pol­ water into nearby wetlands, officials warn. eral exploratory digs on the million tons of ore when it operat­ "You're not going to see a cor­ Santa re Plaza, which is sur­ ed from around the turn of the luted water contained up to Plans to pump the polluted wa­ 60,000 parts per million of lead, responding improvement in the rounded by museums, bou­ century until the early 1980s. At ter back into the mine fo r ' the same time, it produced more killing all life in the river. environment, Parachini said. tiques and gift shops. Within ended up spewing even “ These area's didn't become pol­ than 8 million tone of waste that hours, volunteer diggers were A system of pipes designed to amounts of metals Into the luted overnight and they won't toxic metals such as unearthing shards of pottery, divert clean water around polluted Revegetation efforts have rebound overnight. This is a very including s button-size chip df lead, zinc ai waste piles was installed too close and low runoff levels led to in- long term thing. a type of clay used in pottery since the 17th century. Exca- vatfon leader David Snow said diggers could find Indian arti­ Nobel winner’s essays put science fraud in perspective facts and evidence of frontier life. Santa Fe was a distant Fraud, cheating tions for science fraud; Conversely, "There is no one helped along by shading from i outpost of civilization for moat and bias by-scien­ ■ Sarte to “ the natural eonse- felt-tip pen. of its 380-year history. who does not roll out the welcome tists are in the quence ai the prosecution of sci­ mat with a flourish for those who i again, and it ence in an abrasively competitive Summerlin once showed the bring evidence that upholds our board a rabbit that, he said, had A s tre d a ta I 't be a bet­ world with limited research MitHael Roterttn favorite preconceptions." received a corneal transplant. ter time for s new funds." Research is expensive; ■ Poor aetf-poUemg, He cites The Andromeda galaxy it the book of essays by "This rabbit looked at the board farthest object the eye can winning (grants) is the only game Sir Cyril Burt's lifetime of scientif­ Sir Peter Meda- in town. with the candid and unwavering see, s pinwhee! galaxy SOH ic fraud, aimed st proving that IQ gaze of which only a rabbit with an ■ Personal advancement. The ia 90% a genetic tra it A graduate larger than our Milky Way, Medawar, who BntCO absolutely dear conscience is ca- yet it looks about the width of latest scandal, detailed last week atudent « I N I I M I W I WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN 8 TOOLEY, RC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DOUGLAS P. RUEGSEGGER ROBERT F. WELBORN EDWARD D. WHITE PHILIP G. DUFFORD SUITE 1700 PEGGY J. ANDERSON THOMAS G. BROWN 1700 BROADWAY KEITH D. TOOLEY DALE TOOLEY (1933-1985) DENVER, COLORADO 80290-1701 SASHA A. KARPOV DAVID W. FURGASON KATHERINE F. BECKES WILLIAM C. ROBB TELEPHONE (303)861-8013 SCOTT J. MIKULECKY JOHN F. WELBORN FACSIMILE (3 0 3) 832-3804 JO H N S. COWAN BEVERLY J. OUAIL M ARL* E. VALDEZ RICHARD L.FANYO TAMAS VISKt-HANKA KATHRYN L. POWERS PHILLIP D. BARBER GREGORY A. RUEGSEGGER JOHN F. MECK RANDALL J. FEUERSTEIN S. KIRK INGEBRETSEN STEPHEN J. SULLIVAN December 29, 1989 GERALD PADMORE

Mr. Bill Goodhard Resident Manager San Juan County Mining Venture Sunnyside Mine P. 0. B o x 177 Silverton, CO 81433

Dear Bill: While it won't fall into the classification of "enjoyable viewing" I thought you would be interested in the enclosed item from the Denver Post today. The Channel 6 broadcast will be on January 9, 1990 in the Denver area, and I suspect you will be able to get it as well. The environmental community and the agencies continue to establish a political base to remediate historic mining impacts.

Very truly yours,

WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN & TOOLEY, P.C.

William C. Robb

WCR/kg En c l o s u r e

cc: Larry Perino

1212Q/45

bcc: S A K a r p o v NYONE who’s driven near rain or snow, and rec­ Leadville in recent years hgs reational develop­ lion people in the cities of Colorado A Dan Fogelberg song plays in the back­ quel to move up the Colorado River to the , stared with horrified fascination ment. Springs and Pueblo,” the script says. ground as Coyote recounts the arrival of high country,” he said. kat the other-worldly landscape. In another instance, a permit granted to gold prospectors — and what they subse­ He considers the situation in the Rockies The valley is marked by pools of eerily Miners won’t like it, mining giant AMAX in 1983 allowed quently did to the mountains and waters. “a metaphor for the planet: All the big is- ; beautiful yellow-and-orange water, acid bureaucrats will be spring runoff from the tailings to bypass a According to a 1988 Colorado Health De­ sues are being played out in the Rocky waste from mine shafts and piles of sand* irked, condo owners in water treatment plant and flow directly partment report cited in the film, more Mountain West. Everybody’s got a sense like residue, or “tailings,” left over from Telluride, Aspen/ into Ten Mile Creek. “That meant that . than 1,300 miles of streams in the Rockies that the planet is an infinite resource. Of the milling process. Breckenridge and each spring, water containing zinc, cop­ are biologically damaged by acid mine course that’s not true of the Rockies, the Colorado’s dirty little secret is going na­ elsewhere will be ner­ per, manganese and other toxic heavy drainage. oceans, or any place.” tional next month. PBS’ “Nova” will air vous. Frankly, we all metals continued to flow off the tailings AMAX and other multinational mining “Poison in the Rockies,” a hard-hitting should be a little scar­ and into Dillon Reservoir, which holds corporations put in their two cents. “I’m What reaction does he expect from Joanne Ostrow ed. drinking water for the city of Denver.” proud of the Climax mine,” says Pat viewers in Colorado? documentary about pollution of the Hocky The visuals are shocking. You’ll want to “It will be a tough pill to swallow.” Mountain waters that should make the The Yak Tunnel Wadsworth, AMAX community relations TODAY MARKS the passing of an era: state’s powers-that-be queasy. After all, (near Leadville) and the Leadville Drain subscribe to a mineral water delivery ser­ director. But viewers are likely to be more Jane Pauley completes her run as the this sort of bad news isn’t good for tour­ discharge 3 million gallons of acid mine vice immediately after the program. impressed by the downside: There are bil­ most likable person on morning television, • ism. drainage per day into the Arkansas River, “The rape of the West,” as former gov­ lions of tons of mining waste out there, relinquishing co-anchor duties on NBC’s Channel 6 will broadcast “Poison in the the film notes. “Every 24 hours this waste ernor Dick Lamm calls it, is “a history of and the cleanup is in its infancy. “Today” after 13 years. ; Rockies” at 7 p.m. on Jan. 9. water carries 1 ton of heavy metals.... exploitation” that has come back to haunt “I wasn’t an environmentalist when I According to the Colorado Division of us. “The degradation of the water system started making films 10 years ago,” Pauley will meet with TV critics con- , In the hour-long program narrated by Wildlife, aquatic life has been adverse'/ in the United States generally and jn the vening in Los Angeles in the next few actor Peter Coyote^ filmmaker Christo­ a fected for 100 miles below Leadvillt West specifically,” Lamm says onUam- McLeod said by phone from San Francis­ weeks to examine midseason program­ pher McLeod enumerates three main The Arkansas flows into Pueblo Reservoir, co. His first film, “The Fout Corners: A ming changes. She is expected to unvVI threats to the high country: mining, acid which holds drinking water for half a mil- era, “is one of the undertold stories in National Sacrifice Area?”«cbncerned ener­ plans for an NBC prime-time news show America.” gy development. “It seemed a logical se­ that she will anchor. WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN 8 TOOLEY, R C DOUGLAS P. RUEGSEGGER ROBERT F. WELBORN ATTORNEYS AT LAW EDWARD D. WHITE PHILIP G. DUFFORD SUITE 1700 PEGGY J. ANDERSON THOMAS G. BROWN 1700 BROADWAY KEITH D. TOOLEY DALE TOOLEY (1933-1985) DAVID W. FURGASON DENVER, COLORADO 80290-170! SASHA A, KARPOV KATHERINE F. BECKES WILLIAM C. ROBB TELEPHONE (303)861-8013 JOHN F, WELBORN SCOTT J. MIKULECKY FACSIMILE (303)832-3804- BEVERLY J. QUAIL JO H N S. COWAN RICHARD L. FANYO MARLA E.VALDEZ KATHRYN L. POWERS PHILLIP D. BARBER GREGORY A. RUEGSEGGER JOHN F. MECK RANDALL J, FEUERSTEIN S. KIRK INGEBRETSEN STEPHEN J. SULLIVAN June 26, 1989 GERALD PADMORE

Benjamin R. Parkhurst, Ph.D. General Manager Western Aquatics, Inc. 203 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 546 Laramie, WY 8207 0 Dear Ben: Enclosed is the memorandum I mentioned on Colorado's efforts to deal with Nonpoint Sources, particularly old mining sources. Attached to it are general descriptions of the mining projects which may be funded. I hope this is of interest to you. Very truly yours, WELBORN DUFFORD BROWN & TOOLEY, P.C

William C. Robb

WCR/kg Enclosure 1212Q/8 MEMORANDUM ?. TO: Vater Quality Control Commission Q uArt***j Jhcutu+\ b & l F

FROM: Water Quality Control Division HS^n

DATE: AprtrtC 1989 jL io ^ lf*U /« **'**■ SUBJECT: Use of Governor's Discretionary Fund (201g(l)B for Nonpoint Sources)

Introduction At the Commissions1 request the Division has analyzed the potential of invoking, for FY90, the Governor's Discretionary Fund for nonpoint source purposes. Section 201g(l)B of the Federal Act allows up to 202 of the wastewater construction grant funds to be transferred through the Governor's Discretionary Fund, for nonpoint source projects* It is anticipated that 15 million dollars will be available to Colorado through the construction grant program in FY90. Half of these funds (7.5 million) must be used to capitalized the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (WPCRF). The other half of these fundB may be used for construction grant purposes. Based on these figures a maximum of 1.5 million (7.5 x .20) may be transferred through the Governor’s Discretionary Fund. FY90 is the last year in which the Governor's Discretionary Fund may be Invoked to make grants for nonpoint source purposes. The remainder of this memo will focus on: 1) A list of potential nonpoint source projects which could utilize FY90 funds; 2) The Impact of invoking the Governor's Discetlonary Fund on the WPCRF;

3) The Division recommendation to the Commission.

1, Potential Nonpoint Source Projects Which Could Utilize FY90 Funds The Division working with the Colorado Nonpoint Source has prepared the following list of projects which we feel may be prepared to utilize FY90 funds for nonpoint source projects. Many of these projects are in the formulation stage and will require additional study and work to propose site specific Improvements. Since F790 does not begin until October 1, 1989 there Is adequate time to conduct any additional studies necessary to finalize these projects. The projects are listed by the name of the Impacted stream, county, category of nonpoint source problem (abandoned mining, agriculture, urban runoff), type of project, (demonstration of BMP's or educational), project sponsor, and estimated project costs. Estimated . Stream/Project County Type of Project Project Sponsor CoutB l* ° 0h £ fcn tsf

Chalk Creek Chaffee Demonstration/Mining MLRD t 76,800 E. Fork Willow Creek Hlneral Demonstratlon/Mlnlng MLRD * 50,000

Hosqulto Creek Park Demons tra 11on/Mining MLRD Í 45,000 Kerber Creek Saguache Demonstratlon/Mlnlng HLRD Í 125,000

Preach Gulch Suanlt Demonstration/Mining HLRD Í 90,000 Badger Creek Park/ Demonstration/ Sangre de Cristo RC & D t 206,200 Fremont Agriculture

Dry Creek Boulder Demonstration/ Boulder Valley SCD t 60,000 Agriculture

Founalle Creek Teller/ Demonstration/ Teller/Park SCD I 62,000 Park Agriculture

Boulder Creek Boulder Demonstration/ City of Boulder t 75,000 Agriculture

White River Rio Blanco/ Demonstration/ Douglas Creek SCD t 49,500 Hoffat Agriculture White River SCD

Tounge Creek Delta Demonstration/ Delta SCB Í 9,000 Agriculture

Irrigation Boulder, Education/ NCWCD t 28,500 Management Weld, Agriculture Logan, Larimer, Morgan, Sedgwick

Groundwater Research/ WQCD Í 60,000 Monitoring Gr< ;ter

Turkey Creek/Bear Jefferson Demonstration/ t 90,000 Creek Reservoir Urban & Construction Estimated Strcan/Project County Type of Project Project Sponsor Costs

Blue River Suonit Demonstration/ Town of Silverthorne * 30,000 Urban & Construction

Dillon Reservoir Sumit Demonstration/ Frisco Sanitation i 38,400 Urban & Construction District

Statewide Statewide Education/Urban & DRCOG j 57,000 Construction Projects Total il,232,400 ä

... D Z C û b umimrmh é ' ^ T Cu_tl ■

e X X i T - v U ^ <31 . « « . ii'r ^ - fhmiJ*.. Suffit 4 L

^ S-. o. w ®i^XÎ-ÎÂ 1 W -«.“r"1-“ < 'V. t o * - - ß. ¿2 *r<*Xu tirvT*,

1*1*« «Vrf- 4

‘ yO.J. y / O l b In addition to the j. >cts listed above, many other . ntl&l projects exist which have not been fu*.±y explored* These include additional demonstration projects for mining, agriculture and urban and construction runoff* The Division anticipates that an additional ten projects nay emerge In the coning year* 2. Impact of Invoking the Governor’s Discretionary Fund on the WPCRF

The Division has worked very had to establish the WPCRF (revolving loan fund) In Colorado* This activity has Included convincing many communities that in the long run loans for the construction of wastewater facilities are more beneficial to the State than grants. It has therefore been the goal of the Division to use as much as possible of the approximately 15 million dollars of FY90 funds to capitalize the loan program* Any dollars that are moved to the discretionary fund for nonpoint source purposes will directly lessen the dollars available for WPCEF loans* The WPCRF is being capitalized from funds made available through the Federal Construction Grant and State Revolving Loan Fund programs. From FY89 to FY94, 74 million dollars are anticipated to flow from these sources to capitalize the program. FY90 is the last year in which any funds may be utilized for construction grants rather than loans. This is therefore the last year that the discretionary fund may be utilized for nonpoint source purposes. Below is a list of projects anticipated for funding through the WPCRF. This list is the Commissions officially adopted list of projects for WPCRF purposes * Estimated Eligible Entity Cost

Colorado Springs i 2,000,000 Metropolitan Denver S.D.D. #1 16,000,000 Alamosa 750.000 Longmont 1.150.000 Paonla, Town of 213.000 Woodland Park 2,704,938 Durango W. Metro Dists* 1 & 2 400.000 Cucharas S & W Dist* 6 ,000,000 Littleton/Englewood Jnt. Sewer 10,000,000 Lafayette 727.000 Louisville 3.400.000 Divide Water & S.D. 695.000 Buena Vista S*D* 1 .200.000 Georgetown, Town of 200.000 Trinidad 3,050,000 Wray, Town of 245.000 Nucla, Town of 550.000 Dolores« Town of 340.000 Saguache, Town of 200.000 Central Clear Creek S.D* 380.000 San Luis, Town of 150.000 Sanford, Town of 150.000 Ouray, Town of 585,530 Castle Rock/Castle Pines Eligible Entity Cost

Palmer Lake S.D* 2*518>000 Weld County (Galeton) 242,000 Arapahoe Vater & S.D. 1*840,000 Cottonwood Vater & S.D. 350,000 Denver Southeast Suburban 4,930,000 Erie Water & S.D. 750,000 Larkspur, Town of 300,000 Tellurlde, Town of 1,000,000 Alma, Town of 200,000 Blackhawk/Central City 200,000 Hotchkiss S.D. 300,000 Mountain Water & S.D. 420,000 Nederland, Town of 240,000 Pagoaa Springs S.D. 5,000,000 Redcliff Water & S.D. 908,000 Romeo, Town of 51,000 Rye, Town of 150,000 St. Mary's Glacier 100,000 Crested Butte, Town of 126,000 Kitfredge S.D. 1,050,000 Perry Park Water & S.D. 100,000 Roxborough Park Metro 1,500,000 Summit County (Snake River) 1,000,000 Willowbrook S.D. 1,300,000 Brush, City of 100,000 Larimer County (Mt. Range Shadows) 2,000,000 Las Animas, City of 50,000 Ovid, Town of 33,000 Seibert, Town of 25,000 Wellington, Town of 500,000 Cheyenne Wells S.D. 60,000 Ft. Lupton, Town of 2,981,000 St. Charles Mesa S.D. 10,000,000 Crook 350,000 Eads 100,000

Total $ 96,264,468 The Division recognizee that the nonpoint source program and the WPCRF are competing for limited funds. The Division is also committed to seeing both of these programs become successful in ameliorating serious water pollution problems In Colorado* Therefore the Division recon&ends to the Commission that: 1) the Governor*! Discretionary fund be Invoked and, provide $800,000 of FY90 funds for nonpoint source projects; 2) the $800,000 be split into two 1400,000 fundings segments, one for use In FY90, one for use in FY91; 3) the remainder of the FY90 funds available for construction grants be used to capitalize the WPCRF. No dollars should be made available fpr wastewater construction grants. 7 The Division feels this course of action will provide for continuation of the nonpoint source program without endangering :he WPCRF. The amount of dollars (74 million) which are expected to flow to the WPCRF in the next five fiscal years are great when compared to the $800,000 requested for nonpoint sources. In fact this number represents Just slightly more than IX of the anticipated 74 million. Nonpoint sources are a serious water quality problem which require a fiscal committment for thier solution. The Division is hopeful that Federal funding for nonpoint sources (Section 319) will become available by FY92. The two year time frame for spending the recommended $800,000 will accomplish two things. First, a bridge will be built to FY92 when it is anticipated that nonpoint source funding may occur. Second, additional projects will become well documented and provide for intense competition for the limited funds. This competition w i l l insure that high quality nonpoint source projects w i l l proceed during both years. The Division also recommends that no new grants for construction of wastewater treatment be made in FY90. In order for a successful loan program to proceed »ti funds not transferred to nonpoint sources must be used to capitalize the WPCRF rather than make grants for wastewater construction. STATE OF COLORADO Roy Römer, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION FRED R. SANTA, D irector May 2, 1989

Dr. Robert Pearson, Chairman Water Quality Control Coimnlsslon 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Dear Dr. Pearson: It has recently come to my attention that the Water Quality Control Division Is recommending that $800,000 be allocated for nonpoint source projects In FY 1990 through the Governor’s Discretionary Fund. As has been pointed out, 20 percent of the $7,500,000 construction grant can be made i nonpoint source demonstration projects. This amount, $1,500,000, Is appropriate for allocation at this time. Seventeen projects totalling $1 232 400 have already been proposed. That figure 1s a rough estimate and It is'very likely that more refined plans and designs will result In a higher figure. Many more projects can and have been Identified as teljg °J funding. The $300,000 of FY 1989 along with this requested $1,500,000 1s less than 2,5% percent of the total $74,000,000 expected to flow to the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund.

The mining/resource extraction projects could clean up approximately 35 miles of stream suitable for fisheries. These projects require little or no future maintenance plus provide a valuable opportunity to demonstrate best management practices. This is an educational Investment. If the full amount being requested, $1,232,400, 1s not approved, it will be very difficult to select deserving projects. The Water Quality Control Division's Nonpolnt Source Program and sponsoring agencies need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the various treatment systems and technologies as these projects have a very rrign long-term benefit to cost ratio. In fact, given a little more time ana staff we could double the number of projects. We have the ability to undertake these projects and I am sure the other sponsoring agencies are similarly committed.

Again, I urge the Commission to allocate the full $1,500,000 available for nonpoint source projects.

Thank you for your consideration. Slncerely^^

David L. Bucknam Program Administrator

5602

215 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203-2273 Tel. (303) 866-3567 Proposed Mining Nonpoint Source Projects for 1990 May 2, 1990

The Mining Subcommittee of the Nonpoint Source Task Force is proposing five demonstration projects for funding in FY1990. These projects are French Gulch just north of Breckenridge, Mosquito Creek northwest of Fairplay, Chalk Creek southwest of Buena Vista, Kerber Creek in the northernmost part of the San Luis Valley, and Willow Creek just north of Creede.

While nonpoint pollution consists of many types of toxic contaminants, mining sources provide pollutants which pose long term environmental degradation problems. The processes of minerals exploration and recovery lead to the exposure of layers of material rich in heavy metals that would otherwise have remained undisturbed below the earth's surface. This exposure allows heavy metals to enter the aquatic ecosystem through a variety of methods. Nonpoint pollution of this type is long term because of the cor inous interaction of precipitation and runoff through the hydrologic cycle. As surface water percolates and drains through exposed veins, mine waste, and mill tailings which accompany mining operations, the metals are carried into the riverine system. Along with the deterioration of the in-stream water quality, the entire riparian/wetland buffer zone is destroyed. The project descriptions which follow are but a brief summary of the water quality problems and potential abatement for these five mining areas. Costs are rough estimates which will be refined as specific designs are completed. PROJECT LOCATIONS French Gulch Nonpoint Source Project

April, 1989

French Gulch, on the northern edge of Breckenridge in Summit County, is a tributary to the Blue River upstream of Dillon Reservoir. French Gulch drains a watershed of approximately 5,500 acres. The altitude in the watershed ranges from 13,684 to 9,492 feet at the confluence of French Gulch and the Blue River. French Gulch was a site of intensive gold dredging operations dating from the early 1900*8. The dredges worked 40 to 70 feet of the gravel stream and terrace deposits on the valley floor of French Gulch to a point about three and a half miles upstream from its confluence with the Blue River. They left behind 40 to 50 foot high piles, ridges and winrows of "tailings", essentially boulders, cobbles, and coarse gravels taken from the streambed. The entire width of the valley floor was disrupted by dredging, and today exists as a series of long sinuous and furrowed ridges of gravel. Hater in French Gulch flows in a narrow, unnatural channel between the dredge tailings. Much of the flow is via subsurface transmissivity through the coarse open gravels and cobbles. Natural habitat has been totally destroyed in this section of stream. Just above the confluence of the Blue River, the dredge tailings have been leveled and used as a site for development of residential condominium complexes. Stream flow has been confined into an artifical channel which flows into several landscaped ponds or retention facilities developed as part of the condominium complex. The north valley wall of French Gulch was also the site of extensive underground lode mining operations dating from the early 1880's. The slopes of Gibson, Mineral, and Prospect Hills above the gulch are dotted with shafts, adits, mine dumps, and prospects. At a point roughly two miles upstream from the Blue River on the north side of French Gulch, an extensive and rich lead-zinc-silver sulfide vein complex was worked from 1887 until at least the < early 1930's by the Wellington and Oro mines.

At present, bright yeljbw acidic mine drainage from the underground Wellington-Oro mine workings enters French Gulch near the existing inact. Wellington mill site. The drainage issues from both collapsed and intact portals and flows across an area of pyritic and zinc-rich mine waste and mill tailings, then into a ditch beside the Summit County road which leads up French Gulch on its nort side. The drainage has a pH of 3.5 to 4.0. The polluted water travels along the roadside ditch, and has been intentionally impounded at several points, forming large yellow ponds between the road and dredge tailings in French Gulch. The acid drainage continues flowing on the northern edge of the French Gulch tailings until it merges with a branch of French Gulch issuing from between two winrows of dredge tailings. At this point the polluted water becomes diluted, and begins turning an orange and eventually red color. It enters a large pond formed behind the county complex and here mixes with a second branch of French Gulch. The combined flows go through a culvert beneath the road and into a constructed channel along the perimeter of a residential subdivision* Heavy orange and red staining and precipitate occurs all along this channel. Chemical analyses and bio-assays are currently planned to characterize the impact to water quality in the Blue River at French Gulch and upstream in French Gulch itself. These reconnaissance-level water quality studies are expected to show degradation of stream quality due to heavy metals loading* Due to the fact that natural habitat has been totally destroyed in French Gulch by historic gold dredging, efforts will be primarily directed toward treatment of mine drainage entering the stream* The ultimate objective will be to improve stream quality in the Blue River itself downstream from French Gulch and to reduce the unsightly staining and iron precipitates in the reach of French Gulch which flows through residentially developed areas. Ho effort to attempt to restore French Gulch as a viable fishery is planned. Passive treatment appears to be a feasible alternative at this site* Such a system will probably require pre-treatment of the mine drainage with crushed limestone to raise the pH before introducing it to a constructed wetland. Removal or isolation of the mill tailings at the Wellington-Oro mill site could possibly remove a significant source of metals loading* Initial cost estimates show at least $150,000 of work would be required. A limited amount of funds may be matched by the Denver Water Department. In-kind matching possibilities include Summit County for work immediately adjacent to * the county road and the Summit Water Quality Committee for monitoring and ' maintenance of facilities. BRECKENRIDGE QUADRANGLE

v~ “-: - 4 > \ W r" ■ I * ■ul ) H-F1 j a k\.\ % M r i I U m I1, f r w J r ' '• I • r — ------k v * > ouicK« -o / I I V ^ ‘1 1 . ^ [)l ■ ' m -1 v \ il I «,i f ) ; V ¡\ / , * 'n L*J . !53H ~f ’.. f.______- r O v l a U . /_*? "-K - ...-- >- I l #¿*1 .lMiKe*7^!?«TH, A X ^ V , ^ . \ \ 1 ; \ ’) \ , \ / /' o lo s h a f t , I < S h o c k -m m 4 : , / / .. ■ \ spà ■ ' i. \ / ,» / H ill/, / »

r i m \ , :Âi \ '■ •- \ v 7 ) ;v>ÎO- SiAnA TohJ{Jti_ *\ i'v / * « / *•s. ' \ ; • X. (O.ü. b TowfJ

«C' °36 flfi] i M Ÿ/MJN i . •;V. W ellipftoIIDH°fTJ4£id5 > •':;)/ \’iV, ipi L'jI*. .Ä ’^Bfeclkenrj I (ÇM 960; I - l \ i ; (■ * ' r LA^-iSSi * \ i *1 } ** • • a /* - ■ K ■-Ì A W Ä l b ’ O r I i i y.f • . / Y\ I ' /' I i j'v1,. « » I Cyj I / ' » ? • 'BM m i , . i 969?ÌK* > • ...... s c / s > ■ vr; 'îxr V ' - ' K ^ V

-f i , L i t t l e M t n \ 'Nil! ' A ’ 1 ‘ 'W'T'V N* [s. >• - . :: « »N^ . '•'I 'A ' y y . 10229 ci> . ------7 .!• ■ \ 1 / ^-v* V v . f ^ »V ^ V hod^l RM - V 9843 ■ y c < ; \ -H-r^

\ I -V: y $ / ) [ 11 I-'’ .V^ •r// 1 I •. f / - ‘k. •• ii A

-South Mosquito Creek and Mosquito Creek drain watersheds south and north of London Mountain, a region of historic mining activity located approximately seven miles northwest of Fairplay in Park County. Water quality throughout the area is adversely affected by heavy metals pollution, however, potential sources of downstream loadings are particularly apparent within the South Mosquito Creek watershed. In the upper section of the drainage near the currently active London Mine, toxic concentrations of heavy metals have been reported downstream of the inactive London Extension Mine and actively eroding mill tailings piles« Erosion of these tailings has also resulted in severe siltation of the stream substrate throughout most of South Mosquito Creek and the lower Mosquito Creek drainage. Aquatic life studies by NUS Corporation (1980) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (1987) indicated a combination of water quality and habitat degradation has rendered South Mosquito creek virtually devoid of fish and benthic invertebrate populations. Impacts persist downstream for an undetermined distance, however, the DOW speculates that fish populations in •the Middle Fork of the South Platte River below Fairplay are chronically affected by metal contamination largely originating in the South Mosquito -watershed. Anticipating that reclamation procedures and discharge standards are implemented by the London Mine Venture Company as scheduled, the biological condition of South Mosquito Creek and Mosquito Creek should move toward a typical Class 1 Cold Water Aquatic Life condition. The Water Quality Control Division undertook a study in the late summer of 1989 to quantify current conditions and estimate the.degree of likely biological recovery given a specified improvement in water quality and stream habitat. Preliminary results of that study indicate that water quality in the study area is degraded by mining related inputs of concentrated dissolved heavy metals, foremost being «inc. By far, the greatest source of metal loadings to the study area originated from the London extension mine (11,745.6 g/day). Loadings from that source resulted in extremely high instream concentrations of dissolved zinc which exceeded Colorado State standards (45ug/l in waters of hardness <200mg/l) downstream for approximately 13 miles. Ceriodaphnia spp. and fathead minnow accute toxicity tests confirmed that water quality was potentially limiting at all stations downstream of effluents from the London Extension Mine. Ceriodaphnia spp. were more sensitive to elevated sine levels at downstream stations. One hundred percent mortality occurred at all stations on South Mosquito Creek, Mosquito Creek, and at the site on the Middle Fork of the South Platte River immediately downstream of the confluence with Mosquito Creek. As a food base for trout, standing crops of macroinvertebrates in south Mosquito and Mosquito Creeks were reduced to levels considered limiting to a productive fishery. Fish were not found at any locations on South Mosquito Creek from the upstream reference site downstream approximately two miles. Total trout populations in Mosquito Creek and the Middle Fork °* the South Platte River also appeared adversely effected by mining impacts. The study concluded that major reductions in metal loadings originating from the London Extension Mine and stabilisation of tailings material are prerequisites to improvement in the biological integrity of South Mosquito Creek, Mosquito Creek, and the Middle Fork of the South Platte River. The London Extension Mine workings provide access to an important mineralized area beneath London Mountain* The Extensa.*n tunnel interconnects with most of the mine workings beneath the mountain inc .ding the Vienna or North London mine, the American mine, and the currentl active lower tunnel. Almost the entire production of these mines has come srom secondary fault fissures associated with the London Fault Zone. Minerals associated with these sulphide veins include pyrite, chalcopyrite, gold, galena, sphalerite, and silver. The London vein was locatsd in 1873 and mining commenced in 1875, beginning high on the northwest flank at the old Vienna tunnel and workings. It was worked continuously until 1911* Other portions of the mine complex were worked until at least 1931.

Mine records and maps indicate that during mining much water issued into the workings* The London Fault Zone and its numerous associated secondary fissures, faults and breciated zones, provide numerous avenues for groundwater to both collect and move along. Notes on maps of the lower tunnel suggest large amounts of clear natural groundwater enter the tunnel along numerous fissures within a section of Leadville Limestone. None of the lower tunnel workings downstream of this cone of water inflow are mineralized. This may explain why drainage from tne lower adit is not as metal laden as water from the Extension Tunnel. The Extension Tunnel drains extensive stopes and worked out areas along rich sulfide veins. Some of these workings are above the water table, and thus probably contribute to acid-forming conditions. The Extension level acts as the lowest or sump level in both the North London and American Mines, and thus drains acidic and heavy metals laden waters from much of the complex beneath London Mountain. The Lower Tunnel does not drain toxic waters either due to dilution with higher flows, or because the design of the crosscut off the Extension Tunnel is such that water is not now draining down the ore pass into the Lower Tunnel. Potential activities to abate the water quality problems of heavy metal pollution and sedimentation in South Mosquito Creek and Mosquito include the followingt

Installation of a bulkhead seal to prevent flow of water from the London Extension Tunnel. This requires investigation of interconnections with the active London Mine workings. Modeling regional groundwater conditions is also required.

Diver on of Extension Mine drainage to a wetlands area between "No Name Creek and South Mosquito Creek. A passive mine drainage treatment system consisting of an aerating limestone neutralization cascade and an enchacement of the existing wetlands would be involved. Subsurface investigation of the existing wetland and groundwater flow is required. Diversion of 8outh Mosquito Creek around tailings. The tailings immediately below the active London Mine operation would be consolidated, capped, and revegetated* The diverted portion of the creek would be riprapped to protect the nearby tailings. The tailings downstream near Park City would be removed from the floodplain, capped, and revegetated* Stream habitat improvement around tailings piles. Portions of the Creek which are disturbed would be require placement of in-stream drop structures and streambank willow plantings for fish habitat* initial coat eatiaatea ahow at laaat 575,000 of work would be required, in-kind matching poeaibilitiea include the London Mine Venture Company for work immediately adjacent to the active mine aite and tailinga ponda, ?ark County for local review and coordination of local permita, the Colorado School of Minea for groundwater modeling and bulkhead aeal inveatigation# and the Colorado Divieion of Wildlife for monitoring and fiah atocking. Chalk Creek la located approximately ten miles southeast of Buena Vista in Chaffee County at an elevation of 10,000 feet. The creek is a perennial tributary to the Arkansas River, draining a portion of the east slope of the Collegiate Range. Remnants of previous mining Including draining adits, waste rock dumps, and tailings piles are currently degrading the water quality of Chalk Creek as demonstrated byt 1« The Colorado Inactive Mine Reclamation Program*s 1986 and 1987 water quality sampling results, presented in the accompanying sample location map; 2. The Environmental Protection Agency's Spring 1986 bio-assay (Ceriodaphnia) testing results indicating 0% daphnid mortality upstream of the Romley tailings after 24 and 48 hours, 90% daphnid mortality downstream of the Romley tailings after 24 and 48 hours, and 100% daphnid mortality below each of the lower tailings after 24 and 48 hours. The control yielded 0% daphnid mortality after 24 and 48 hours. 3. During the Springs of 1984 and 1985, the Colorado Division of Wildlife's Chalk Cliff Rearing Unit, approximately 15 miles downstream of the lowermost tailings, experienced severe mortality of fingerling trout during Spring runoff periods. Over 800,000 trout fingerlings were lost following introduction to the Chalk Cliff facility from another hatchery. The rearing unit has since begun introducing older fish prior to the major snow-melt event and keeping them longer at about a 20% increase in cost annually. 4. Evidence of tailings sediment located along the stream bottom below the tailings piles and windblown tailings located across the creek on adjacent lands.

As illustrated on the site location map, about 300 feet of the northernmost, or Lower Iron Chest tailing pile, is immediately adjacent to and is actively eroded by Chalk Creek. An avalanche chute is located directly upland of the facility and fallen trees atop the tailing pile indicate that the vralanche travels over the pile, nearly to the creek*s edge. The wooden slatted retaining wall or fence, built along the toe of the pile adjacent to the creek's edge, is deteriorating and, in places, no longer standing. Tailing material is washing out from below the fence, directly into Chalk Creek. It is believed that the increased quantity of snow and corresponding runoff from the Lower Iron Chest pile - resulting from avalanche activity - coupled with the pile’s proximity to the creek, is partially responsible for elevated levels of sediment transport to, and corresponding elevated concentrations of metals in, Chalk Creek.

Approxijnately 2,000 feet of the Middle Iron Chest tailing pile is immediately adjacent to Chalk Creek. A major erosional feature bisects the pile and has caused the cribbing retaining wall to fail at the point of drainage into Chalk Creek« Approximately 12,000 cubic yards of waste rock is piled upgradient from the tailing pile, adjacent to the remains of a mill building. The Iron Chest adit, located behind the tailings at the mine bench level, is draining immediately adjacent to and along the toe of a portion of the waste rock dump. Mine drainage, waste rock, and tailing pile erosion at this site is contributing to the degradation of Chalk Creek.

c c - l The southernmost or Romley tailings pile ha» approximately 125 feet of material immediately adjacent to the bank« of Pomeroy Gulch. Erosion of the pile and ¿te proximity to. Pomeroy Gulch contribute to the degradation of the receiving stream. The water quality and bio-assay analyses conducted in Pomeroy Gulch and Chalk Creek point to the tailings piles and draining adit at the Iron Chest and Romley mills as the major source of pollutants to Chalk Creek. This nonpoint source project is designed tot 1. Relocate the Lower Iron Chest tailing pile to the Middle Iron Chest tailing pile area and revegetate the old tailings area. This will remove a eource of contaminants from the avalanche path. 2. Consolidate, encapsulate, and cover the Middle Iron Chest and Romley tailings with suitable erosion protection. Place a plant growth medium, if readily available, on the encapsulated piles and revegetate. 3. Construct upland runon diversion ditches to direct water away from the previous mining and milling areas. 4. Investigate and construct, if feasible, a bulkhead seal at the Iron Chest adit to prevent drainage from the mine workings. If a seal is infeasible, a passive mine drainage treatment system may be warranted.

Initial cost estimates show at least $128,000 of work would be required. .*In-kind matching possibilities include the Colorado School of Mines for •groundwater modeling and bulkhead seal investigation and the Colorado Division

* of Wildlife for equipment use, monitoring stream quality, and fish stocking. S / Tg J-OCATVàAl

M 4 P '3AmPiE LocfìTJùN , ftp fflu u l58Cs»,

/ o 50 * * ^

) '*B 7 * SfiRvei» i o * " ' Kerber Creek is a perennial stream that heads in the mountains above Bonanza at the north end of the San Luis Valley and flows into San Luis Creek near Villa Grove. Base metal mining and milling activities have impacted Kerber Creek and its tributaries at numerous locations, A few of its tributaries are only moderately impacted by metals and appear suitable for relatively inexpensive remediation projects. Other locations within this drainage are severely impacted by mine drainage and mill tailings. Any successful cleanup of these segments will require extensive reclamation efforts. Moran and Wentz (1974) focused their studies of metal mine drainage in Colorado on the Kerber Creek basin. They demonstrated that several tributaries carried moderate concentrations of metals derived from metal mines and mills, but that the Rawley 12 adit and associated tailings in Squirrel Creek were major sources of metals, a conclusion supported by a Mined Land Reclamation Division investigation in 1986. Moran and Wentz sampled a number ofs siteB in the Kerber Creek area during varying runoff and climatic conditions and discovered that metal concentrations and total loads were significantly different during spring runoff that at other times of the year. Concentrations of most metals were often lower during spring runoff, but total metal loads were generally greater, probably due to increased flushing action in mine workings, waste dumps, and tailings piles. Total iron exhibited increases during spring runoff in stream segments without mine drainage or tailings, suggesting that the increase in iron resulted from scouring ferric hydroxide precipitate from the stream bottom. The 1986 MLRD investigation of Kerber Creek basin was designed to assess the effects of particular draining adits and leaching tailings piles and evaluate their suitability for cost effective remediation. Water samples were collected during the study at thirty locations along Kerber Creek and its impacted tributaries * Squirrel Creek, Rawley Gulch, and Copper Gulch. The headwaters of Kerber Creek are fairly pure, containing only 0.2 mg/1 aluminum, 0.3 mg/1 iron, and even lesser amounts of other metals. It first encounters mine and mill tailings near the Cocomongo and Bonanza mines (area A on the attached map), where water quality begins to deteriorate. Degraded water from the tributaries of Kerber Creek combine to create a serious water quality problem that persists throughout the remaining length of the creek. Some areas of note are the Superior Mill (area C), upper Rawley Gulch (area D), and the Rawley 12 mine and mill site (area B). Additional metal loading occurs where Kerber Creek encounters mill tailings at the Old Cocomongo mill and at the lower tailings area (area E). The dame of the three tailings ponds in the lower tailings area have been breeched, spreading tailings across the floodplain of Kerber Creek miles downstream. A series of samples below each of the three tailings ponds demonstrate that additional metals are leached at each of the ponds. Moran and Wentz indicate that water quality in Kerber Creek gradually improves below the lower tailings area, but even at its confluence with San Luis Creek it still contains up to 4 mg/1 of iron, manganese, and zinc« The U.S. Porest Service is contracting with the Mined Land Reclamation Division to design and implement a reclamation project to abate water quality impacts at the Superior mill site in upper Squirrel Creek. Other tributaries to Kerber Creek may prove suitable for relatively inexpensive reclamation techniques to abate water quality impacts. Mine waste material within Rawley Gulch could be selectively removed from along the creek, and the creek could be lined or channelized through certain sections. Diversion ditches could be graded around the waste, and it could be covered by relatively low permeability material to reduce infiltration of surface water. Discharge from the Rawley 4 adit could be reduced by daylighting the adit beneath the valley floor, thus reducing the volume of flow. A passive mine drainage treatment system might prove feasible for removal of metal from the remaining adit discharge. In Copper Gulch, a portal plug or a passive treatment system at the St. Louis mine might reduce metal loading from the adit, while removal of the waste material adjacent to the mine or reconstruction of the stream channel through the waste material could reduce metal loading due to the waste. Channel cleaning and stabilization may prove to be the most feasible reclamation alternative in the upper part of Kerber Creek near the Cocomongo and Bonanza mines. The reclamation work noted above would improve water quality in tributaries leading into the main stem of Kerber Creek, but the discharge from the Rawley 12 and the tailings immediately below it present considerable challenge. Large deposits of mill tailings in the lower tailings area downstream of Bonanza, and the tailings spread over the floodplain of the creek below them, likewise, are formidable problems. T h e s e problems will have to wait until the nonpoint source problems in the upper tributaries are addressed.

Initial cost estimates show at least $200,000 of work would be required. In-kind matching possibilities for this proposed project have not yet been — w \ \ v| \ •. \ *7 5 '. •; >J5^srv' . .

i'-.- //. - y í II ■ - S ^ V ' 1^ _ (¿tvi f k i

" ) - m 1 ;T.:C-^j r v / i / j i .<. . ;-/•••'.• ^ N f ^ . K r v \ . • / - _ \ %• / aÁ/ .IV \ - / r - r - v . : f ^ | ) ' .- _■%^ 9» . » 1 _ • ; • / I . _• w \ T \'X ^ 1 ^ ^ V \ -j-— • • ✓ / ;

'''W ' .i .. ■>lt— — *■! ■ ■■ I1'"" * " '* " ' M»«o«mi ' 1 I J J*?' "* V ^ . -«Mi I» . — * v / o i N. i uwtaMr; '. * i ! i - V \ -“"i ^ '< m : j ....;

I: r 1 ,iS~. -s \_^>y/l •■■ •■s<3 -*i ■|/. - < T ^ = N ' "L Ò \ \ • : ^ ■ • " ' N . '• ^ ‘ ' * ■ J -/ V i r ^ r r -■< K 3 - j .p- . '.. V V < • ’ — J - \ MM .1 • \ ”... - . .*• ! :-£.J > \ j - / - •• • - " vx \ V ’ ______\ A .- i..'W\\;\v \? . . a - -' \ -.•— \ x :> : •-- : : v Al-tmrn^ \ \ —...... — .mm. - -S x/ > • ' ••■' fr’.-/' i“-s \ ' V • Ä» SS ' «* .• / . / t ’•»j. ^ y * ’ ""* ** * y / / j/N ^ la I¿1,^

¡WST'T K ¿ : - 3 :j j f Willow Creek heads at the Continental Divide above Creede in Mineral County on the west edge of the San Luis Valley and flows generally south to where it meets the Rio Grande below Creede. Within six square miles north of Creede, there are at least 29 named mining sources* Silver and base metal mining impacts the creek at several locations above Creede, and mill tailings rest on the floodplain of Willow Creek below Creede. Most of these mines were worked from the late 1800's to as recently as 1976. Several studies have described the impacts on Willow Creek. Moran and Wentz (1974) addressed the chemical impacts of mining and milling on water quality. Woodling (1976) characterized the effects of mining and milling on the creek and aquatic life. Both reports describe fish kills attributed to contamination by the mining and milling activities, and Woodling makes several recommendations to reduce the frequency of future impacts to fish. Additional data were collected by Fyock (1981) for Chevron Resources. These studies demonstrate that major impacts occur along the mainstem of Willow Creek. West Willow creek has elevated metal loads and fish are generally absent below the mined area. These investigations also demonstrate that East Willow creek carries lower metal loads, but fish populations are nonetheless reduced below the mined area. Another sampling project by Holm and Xirkham (1988) centered upon East Willow Creek because the area appeared potentially suitable for a relatively inexpensive remediation project and it did not contain any recently active mines. Based upon their data, it appears that mining activities in Eaat Willow Creek above the Solomon Mine do not contribute appreciable amounts of metal to the creek. The most recent study, "A Biological Assessment •• Willow Creek," by Christine S. Lehnertz completed in April, 1989 was conducted to determine the feasibility of the identification and cleanup of nonpoint pollution sources in and around Willow Creek* Sampling was conducted at a total of seven stations, with three stations each on the west and east forks, and one just below the confluence. Fish population sampling was conducted at each of the seven stations, water analysis was conducted at five stations, and macroinvertebratee were collected from five stations. Physical habitat parameters were recorded at each station. This Division of Wildlife study concluded that the specific limiting factor for fish survival in the Willow Creek drainage is elevated levels of both cadmium and zinc. Within the upper reaches, there are already healthy, naturally reproducting populations of brook trout* Because the level of metals in these areas is tolerable, the fishery is able to eurvive the minimal effects of chronic exposure. Within the lower reaches the effects of nonpoint pollution have caused lethal results* There is minimal riparian cover in both West and East Willow Creek due to the mine waste and mill tailinge piles which line all banks. Without the cover of vegetation, the stream suffers from increased daytime temperatures and excess siltation during runoff* A

Metals from both the East and West Forks of Willow Creek are carried through the system and into the main fork of Willow Creek. East Willow Creek is proposed for work /;ocause it is less toxic, contains no recently active mines, and appears potentially suitable for a relatively inexpensive remediation project. These lower sections do have a high potential for improvement, if metals loading could be decreased. Through redirection of seepage, elimination of surface runoff through the mine dumps, and closure of mine adits or other nonpoint pollution source removal, zinc and cadmium concentrations could be reduced to "survivable" levels.

A remediation project in East willow creek must mitigate the effect of the Solomon and other mine dumps to successfully reduce zinc levels in the creek. These mine dumps could be removed from the valley, or the toe of the dump protected by chemically stable riprap armoring. Diversion ditches above the dump would reduce water infiltration into the dumps, and it could be graded and topsoiled to further minimize water seepage into the dump material.

In addition to cleanup of metals, the riparian/wetland buffer zone would need to be reestablished. Introduction of a layer of topsoil along with riparian vegetation would aid in the creation of a high quality fishery. The function of riparian cover in assisting the recovery of an aquatic habitat is vitally important. Riparian vegetation serves to regulate stream temperatures, provides streambank stability, adds nutrients to the system, puts invertebrates into the stream for fish food, and provides fish cover.

Initial cost estimates show at least $84,000 of work would be required. In-kind matching possibilities include Mineral County for work immediately adjacent to the county road and the Colorado Division of Wildlife for monitoring and fieh stocking. *7iie falwul* 1W» OFFICSRS CHAIRMAN: J iim c O. Edgerley Trapper Mining tnc. MINING ASSOCIATION CHAIRMAN-ELECT: Charles E. Melbye United Mining Corporation VICE CHAIRMEN: Richard G. Atkinson Colowyo Coal Company Kit Capiat TO: Those With Special Interest In Biomonitoring AMAX Mineral Resources Company Q. William Carpender FROM: John HardawcJjtf/V Water Quality Subcommittee Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation R.L Derick DATE: May 22, 1 9 8 §j Cyprus Orchard Valley Coal Corp. MATERIALS FROM COLORADO BIOMONITORING TASK Felicity Hannay SUBJECT: Pavia, Graham A Stubbs FORCE MEETING OF MAY 4, 1989. Thomas A. Gray TAG. Inc. E.L. Grossman Consulting Mining Engineer Thomas S. Hendricks Some materials that may bi of enrr-mfc or future interest Hendricks Mining Company are enclosed. These consist of: Kenneth D. Hubbard Holland & Hart Edwin W. Pelker, Jr. 1. Minutes from the March 24th meeting? Hoyal Gold, Inc. Roy L. Stienmier fdeal Basic Industries. Inc. 2. Written comments received regarding Colorado's PRESIDENT: technical guidance for biomonitoring? David R. Cole SECRETARY: Shirley A. Hunter 3. An article from J-WPCF generated by Colorado TREASURER: Springs on Colorado*s biomonitoring program? Thomas M. Evans Arthur Andersen & Co. 4. The beginning of a spread sheet listing affected permittees and, with your input, designed to provide some biomonitoring details? and 5. One of the EPA "permit disapproval" letters that Colorado has received.

The last Task Force meeting was consumed with discussion of the comments received on Colorado1s technical guidance. There were no particular disagreements with either the comments or the State's response. Some minor changes to the document can be expected. The EPA regional representative noted that the EPA's technical guidance was destined to be promulgated in rule form and that some changes in the EPA guidance were "in the works". One of these is a reduction in holding times for samples. This, along with a more general EPA change to beginning the counting for holding times at the initiation of sampling, would make it virtually impossible to meet the rumored proposal of 36 hours holding time for both the effluent and the dilution water.

1340 COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING . DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4913 1600 b ro a d w a y Build Colorado Mining TELEPHONE (303) 894-0536 Colorado Biomonitoring Task Force May 22, 1989 Page 2

We discussed the use of other species. Upon review with the CMA subcommittee on Water Quality, CMA decided it would not pursue detailing criteria for alternative species in the Guidance, but would instead leave that for the case-by-case, permit-by-permit debate• Please do let us know what else you would suggest be included on the spread sheet. Send it back annotated if you will. And remember, we need your help in gathering related data.

John E. Hardaway Homestake Mining Co. 1726 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401 (303)277-0700 JEH/lh-c Attachments UNITED oTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII 0 999 1 8th STREET - SUITE 500 FEBiI 5 1989 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405

Ref: 8WM-C CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. J. David Holm, Director Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

He: Objections to the January 1989 draft permits for the City of Aurora (C0-00266n) and the City of Montrose . (CO- 0039641 )

Dear Mr. Holm:

. 6n .-.January. .17, 1989, EPA received a copy of the draft permits for the City of Aurora (C0-002661 l) and the City of Montrose (CO-0039624). y

Under the terms of the existing (1975) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the State of Colorado and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, these "draft" nermits considered de facto "proposed" permits for purposes of?the regulations at 40 CFR §123.44. See also the federal NPDES in9^ t2-?nS at 40 CFR 1 23 . 44( j ). The MOA and the regulations at 40 CFR 1 23 . 44 also state that EPA has up to ninety (90) days of receipt to either object to or concur with the issuance by the State of these proposed permits.

This letter constitutes EPA's formal objection, as written under the authority of 40 CFR §123.44, to the issuance of the Aurora and Montrose permits. »uam.e 01 m e

Generally, the biomonitoring language in the permit does not Clean Water Act §§ 301(b)(1)(C), 402(a)(2), and 402(b), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(C), 1342(a)(2), and 1342(b). The language also does not comply with 40 CFR 122.44(e). In we h?ve identified four specific and significant problem areas i n Delta's permit to which we hereby formally object and which must be satisfactorily resolved- 1. In Part I.B.4, the permit requires that a "pattern of toxicity" be established prior to considering that a violation of the acute toxicity limitation is an incident of noncompliance. This is inconsistent with Federal regulations at 40 CFR § 122.4(a), 40 CFR §122.45(d), and 40 CFR 5123.27(a) (see also CWA §4 02(b ) (7)). 2. The "lack of diligence" requirement before an enforcement action can be taken is inconsistent with Federal requirements governing State enforcement authority (see 40 CFR § 122.4(a) and 40 CFR 5123.27(b)(2)). 3. The allowance for toxicity incident closure if toxicity "spontaneously disappears" during a preliminary toxicity investigation does not comply with Federal requirements for enforcement authority (40 CFR § 122.4(a) and 40 CFR 123.27(a)). - 4. The provision allowing for a cost/benefit analysis to .■ be conducted as part of a toxicity control program and . to be used to determine .whether «costs of construction are reasonable in terms of resulting benefits is inconsistent with Section 301(b)(1)(c) of the Clean Water Act as well as with 40 CFR 122.4(a) and 40 CFR ;; §122.33(d).

In order to remain the issuance authority for this permit, the State must revise its permit language to eliminate all references to the above provisions as they qualify the enforceable toxicity limit. .

Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44(e) the State or any interested party may request a hearing be held on these objections within 90 days of your receipt hereof. If such a hearing is held, and the Regional Administrator does not withdraw this objection, then pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44(h)(2) the State has 30 days from such notification from the Regional Administrator in which to submit to EPA a permit revised to meet our objections. If no hearing is held, then pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44(h)(1) the State has 90 days from the receipt hereof in which to submit to EPA a permit revised to meet our objections. Please note that under 40 CFR 123.44(h)(3) exclusive authority to issue the permit passes to EPA when the above referenced times expire. After these times expire, EPA may choose to issue the permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR parts 121, 122, and 124. I f you have any questions concerning this m a ttp r n i „

Sincerely yours,

Max H. Dodson, Director Water Management Division cc: City of Aurora City of Montrose n J u a n U C f C O Water Quality Control Division's Recommendation on San Juan Triennial Review June 6, 1988

The Water Quality Control Division (Division) proposes that the Commission consider changes to certain segments of the San Juan River Basin based upon the new Basic Standards which will be in effect after July 31, 1988. The segments are categorized below by the basis for their being proposed for hearing. All proposals are related to the changes to the metals criteria in the Basic Standards but it Is assumed that during the review of any data associated with the segments the Commission will also want water quality based classifications (antidegradation) recommendations.

1. Segments with Table Numbers for Metals

These are segments for which the existing standards generally are representative of table numbers from the "old" Basic Standards. The Divison is proposing that any new table numbers or equations for dissolved metals as listed in the "new" Basic Standards replace those total recoverable metals standards which are based on the "old" table numbers. The assumption being that these were assumed to be high quality water in the past which were worthy of table number standards and in the absence of new information or data they should still be of quality worthy of table number standards, albeit under a new system. There are also some segments which do not represent table numbers under the old system which used alkalinity as a basis for determining whether ambient standards or table numbers were appropriate. However, these segments have much higher hardness than alkalinity and table numbers (i.e., equations) should now be appropriate. The segments proposed to be opened on this basis are:

San Juan River Segments 1, 5, 7, 9.

Piedra River Segments 3, 5, 7.

Los Pinos River Segments 2a, 3, 4, 5.

Animas and Florida Rivers Segments 5, 8a, 10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13a, 14.

La Plata, Mancos, McElmo and San Juan Segments 1, 4, 5, 7, 9.

Dolores River Segments 4, 5, 7, 10.

2. Segments with Adequate Dissolved Metals Database

These are segments that probably have enough dissolved metals data to determine whether ambient (85%) or table numbers/equations are appropriate. They are also included under the table number segments above. Los Pinos River Segment 5.

La Plata, Mancos, McElmo and San Juan Segments 7, 9 The Commission needs to hear Segments 2 and 6 in regards to their not being classified for aquatic life* The Commission removed the aquatic life classificaions in 1985 at the urging of Standard Metals with the caveat that use atainability studies would be conducted by Standard Metals within the next year. The study was to be presented to the Commission to ascertain whether the removal of the aquatic life classifications were valid. Because the Water Quality Standards and Methodologies and Aquatic Life committees were in session to to recommend new "Basic Standards" changes the Commission declined to open these segments at the last triennial review.

The tables from the San Juan and Dolores River Basins classifications and numeric standards are attached for cross-referencing the segment number with the segment descriptions.

RDAînjf Ju ly 13, 199¿ STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS CLA3SFCATWNS R E 6K M : 9 p«g* l o f i ) NUMERIC STANDARDS TEMPORARY B A S M : ^ Juan PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS and INORGANIC METALS BIOLOGICAL ond m g /l m q / l QUALIFIERS

Malnata« of the Navajo River and tí» U ttla 0.0. > 6.0 eg/1. 7.0 NH)»U.U^,unionized A r w u c (As ) ■ n.ns *fcrcurv i K jU u . üOuu í Navajo River, Including «11 tributaries, lakes, •g /1 spawning Residual U , « o.i»u and reservoirs, froa the oowtary a t the South ^aaaija icd) * o.uüo« <1ckci INI; « u.u? {H * i.5 - 9.0 Cyanide IfreeU.nos U u o u u a ( t r i ) « fi.ns San Jüan dlldam eas Area to tm San Juan-Owm S elenita 0.75 uroer (cu) * 0.005 Une (Zn) . 0.05 Ml trite iNi->)>n n-» leao (p d) * U.UU4 iron (Fe,tot) = 1.0 N itra te i « i . i * in .• Iron (Fe.sol) . 0.3 fenMnesefMn.rm WJ n Sulfate (S*J,).^>d.o

2. Wins tea or the ftavajo River r n the San j5rw jH)*0.to,i»iionlieu \raenir u.iinis ej/1 spaanlny feslcfcai Ll-> ■ m m ^ oMua u.üL»i4 neat G ditn, Colorado and rraa tha Colorado/NB« M O « ! 1N1J - Ü.Ü5 pH • 6.5 - 9.0 :vanide (free)..m s Jmatiua (tri) • n.ns Mexico ooroer to tna ccnfiuance « e n tna S * i Juan Selenita (Se) « n .m illver (Aa)riJ.uiiij H iver. 2000/100 «1 toon » o.75 Popper (Cu) . o .O l* Zinc (Zn) • 0.05 ti trite (i«>»).u.in eea (Pd j . u.uu5 Iron iFe.tot) * i .¿ titra te

T Min»tea or the U ttla Navajo R im fra the San Juan-own diversion to tna conTiuence *itn tna pH - 6.5 - 9.0 Navajo River; a ll tributaries to tha Navajo River fecal Colifoms • ano tre L ittle Navajo Hiver, Irclmuny a li laxes 20UQ/1 U0 a l and re s e rv o irs , fro a tha San Jtan-Chaaa diversions to the affluence «itti Sat Juan River.

T M l tributaries to tt* San Juan River, Kio Blanco, and Navajo River including e ll la v s and reservoirs, ■ h itfi a t* a l chin tna Waalnucha M ldem ess Area EXISTING g u t u i r and io u th San Juan M ildem ess Area.

rialnstee of the San Juan River and the East Fori Hj^J.Oj!, unionized ra e n lc (A si . o .us lercurv «io aest Fork of tne Sen Juan River, rraa tha apMnlng ■0/1 esloual ci-> ■ n.m i M ite (Cd) « D.ouo* Hotel (Ni) > 0.05 ■ill s 6.5 - 9 .0 oomdary or tne ifcalnuche «lldemess Area I east vanlfle (fre e )« .005 ftroelua (tri) * n.ns «lenii* (Se) . n.m Fork) m the source (East Fork) to tha confluence elth fouxmlie Creek, Includirq « il tributaries, 2000/lUD a l > ilv e r (Ag)aO.UUUl U o n » 0.75 xcpcr (cu) » 0.005 ine (Zn) . 0.05 lakes, a il reservoirs except far trlouuries, lews, l i r l t e m ead (Ft>) • 0.00« ron (Fe,tot) * l.o »«J reservoirs included in Segaant *. litrate (tO ii.lo.n ron (Fe.sol) « 0.3 Silorlde (ClUTVi.n enoanese(tt). sol>..rv> ulfale (S0.)«?snn

Nainsiea of the San Juan rtiver fn a tne conriuence Hj'U.d/.unlaniied iraenlc («s) ■ U.05 «1th Fouralle Creek to Navejo Reservoir. eg/1 spawning ercurv (Hj I. u .Uh h -ï W ■= 6.5 - 9 .0 vaniifc (fr*KU.rm iraalUB ( t r i ) - o . l ' u Collforas * as HpSsU.OIT/ m il« iroaiua (írk! * n rvs lver (M)ti.joui loron * 0.75 npper (Cu) - 0.02 rç (in) = 0.05 > U trite IrtJ 1=0.its nd (Pd) > o.oi run (Fe,tot) * ¿.4 itrate (MJj).100.0 anoanese ( Hn. t u t H1 .11 J u ly 13, 1982 ST IE AM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 1 £ $ v> 1 (ft 1 CLAS NUMERIC STANDARDS | RE6 KW - 9 2 o f 11 AQUATIC w TEMPORARY REC. c LIFE 3 t- PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS I Q l l : San Juan H lver M 9* l J 1 CL 2 3 and INORGANIC 8 8 8 o METALS ond « « * S a s c i Ü BIOLOGICAL d d d s IH f/l m g /t QUALIFIERS S If Mat a iw w t OMcriBtiM d ÌÌI 1 . Minjs taetralt (paction U U londt), X % X X inn. * 5.0 a^/l. MH««Q.u¿.wuomt fetCUIv ltV>)*O.UÜüU5 B p . 6 .5 - y.o Residual Cl*3 * o .o i» ïadeiua (Cd) * 0.000« «lekel INI) c U.05 F ictl Collfaiss » cyanide (treeW.OQS ü x n a lia (tTl) « n.os «lenii» (Se) « O.tu 2t«/iuo a l & as H?S.0.UD2 unols JttOMlMI (he«) * 0.025 Silver (Ag)>0.0Uül aoicn > 0.75 a m e r )«o.5 M S IP O ) m 0.004 iron (fé,tot) » 1.0 •Utrate (Mii)«io.u Iran (Fe,sol) • 0.3 * i.n tnlorlde (Cl)*250.0 •JanaaneseOto. s o lU .0 5 Sulfate (50*1*250.0

1. Deleted.

0EL£1B>

m W h of the fuo dlarco, Including ill 3 it i X U.O. * 6 .0 a g / l. 7 .0 «M>.m.mliirawi tesarne |Ms) ■ O.uâ te ra irv i Hj ím j. uüuu^ tributaries, lakes, and reservoirs, fra* the ■g/1 spanning « a lo u a i c l? * 0.DU3 i d e lu l (Cd) - 0.0Ü0« Uocel iW ) « 0.05 tnndery of South San Juan ■iUemess Area to the oH * 6.5 - 9.0 ^ranlde lfree)*.005 natila (tri) > D.o» ìèlenlua (Se) ■ O.Oi confluence eith the Sen Juan Klvex, except Fecal Conforms • > as H?S«0.0u2 « m is MoalUi ihex) * 0.025 ìllver (Äji-u.ODüJ for the specific listing In Tureen! 10. 2SB71Rr£l kso n m 0.75 jcoer (Cu) • 0.005 dnc tZn) > 0.05 <1 tr ite IM>>I-0.U5 I W (FDJ ■ U.UM iron (fe,toc) - 1.0 utrata (rCO*lu.o Boñ ( r e ,s a i) ■ 0.3 lanqaneantHn. to t )■ J. 0 ftlorlde (CD-250.0 «annaneseOfru s o ll« .05 «líbate (S0*)«250.0

10. Nilnstae of the Alb) Blanco River rtoe tcho X K X Oltcn to tl* confluence «1th the disco tUrer. atf/l^M wilng t f j • 6.5 - 9 .0 fScol^toHfonas «

ll. m i trloutarles to the Swi Jun Klver in ftroulete X XX D.O. • 5.D mQ/l County, Including a ll lakes and reservoirs, except 5TT 6.5 - 9.0 for specific listings in Sag—ntJ 1, 4, 5, «no y. fm iI Colifotat • zuuu/luo «1

' i i i i 1 ^ —m — — g»— — — _____ Jtil)T Ü , 1982/R«t!m 4 > e « * - r 6, «78$ STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS end WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

REGION: CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS Paga 3 o r 13 HIW REC. AQUATIC TEMPORARY QUAL LIFE 8ASM: Plates River PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS GMjGjE and INORGANIC METALS BIOLOGICAL and 5tf«om S*owwt 0« script tow m j / l m g /I QUALIFIERS 1. U l tributaries to tha Pie*a ftlw r, Ifcludlm •11 lakes and nservolrs, ahldt a n al thin fra ttealnutfte Wilderness I n i, EXISTING g u u i i t

«Unstea or the Piedra Klver, Includlrg foe E ut ------ans Hl adle Fonts, fcoa tna oouvJary o f che «aalnuow «llfemess Atea to the oonfluanca «lth Indivi C m k, except for tho specific lls tlrq in Sepwnt 3. E llS f INI! QUALITY

». Hi inste* or tra task Pork of be Piedra A im ------fn a the Piedra Falls Ditch to 0 « confluence ilth P.O. • 6 .0 7.0 >jH^»0.C2.«lionized Arsenic (As) • ü.U5 «reurv (ttauo.ouou* Pagosa Creek. m g/1 q a m lr g iS siouel cl-> • o .u u i caotiiN (Cd) - u. uülm pH - «.5 - 9.0 Cyanide ( fre e )» .005 Oiroalua ftrl) - O.OS Selenita) (Se) « 0.01 Real Cell foras ■ 5 as KpS-o.txu iM it Lniauua (next « Q.U7-> ml Silver iAg)*o.uoui 2ÜÛV1ÙÜ doron ■ 0.75 Cœoei

*. Hilnstea of tía Piedra füver rit» tea csnriiana' «lth Indian Creek to Navajo rtsservolr. U.O. * 6.Ü WQ/l. 7.0 02, unionized Arsenic (As) - 0.05 Hercurv (Hufeo.ams ay/1 tuning Aesinsl Cl7 • o.ors Cauuua (Cd) • o.uuu* K ioce i ir t i) « u .o * OH ■ *.» - 9.0 Cyanide (frae)-.ons Q m t lu i ( t r l ) ■ o . l Fecal Collforaa ■ & •> H?Srf.0U2 i n l l s Oiroalua (next ■ 0.075 ¿ lin e r t*y)»U.UU01 'X jüü/K jô «1 Soron • 0.75 Caver (Cu) « 0.01« IncTZn) • 0.05 N it r it e (ND->)-o.QS Lead (Pd ) • 0.00*. ron (Fe.tot) « 1.5 Nitrate (HUil.tm .ii HsnoanesetMn.totUl.t)

^ *11 tributaries to the Pledra (Uver, ircludirç •11 lakes and reservoirs, taw tha Bowdary of tfw HH^U.CU.unlonizeo Hraemc lA s i > o.us 4srcurv iftjuo.im is Nealnucfe Hildemess Ana to a point Immediately ay/ 1 spaanlrg «esldual C1-» > o.0Di C id ilu i (Cd) • u.uoi Ni enei inl> • o . l belw the confluence «Itti Ob vii Creek. pH * «.5 - 9.0 Cvanlde (fr e e l» .005 irn ilu i (trl) • o.os Seleni» (Se) « 0.01 Fectl Collforaa * & as HiSbO.OO^ undis Jm slua (hex) • 0.M75 2000/100 a l Boron • 0.75 ^ooer (Cu) • 0.01 ire (Zn) • 0.05 N itrite (>CM«o.f» Lead (PbJ * 0.025 rem (Fe,tot) » 1.0 Nitrate (NiH)wio.u Iron (Fafsol) « 0.3 Chloride (Cl)*250.0 fenoanese(ttt. sol)».05 S u lfa te (SO*>*250.0

A ll tributaries to tna Pledra flivwr, inrl.^jn j " * •11 laKes and reservoirs, frna a point m ediately 0.0. • 5.0 eg/1. belo« the confluence « lth Devil Creek to pH « 6 . 5 - 9 .0 Navajo Reservoir. »xct»t for ».h* »©^cifie listings in Fecal L o ll fa ro s • V-K^rjt 7. 2UUU/1U0 «1 REStOH: r * * - j. «.r 13 CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS TEMPORARY PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS 8 ASM: Fiedrm and INORGANIC METALS BIOLOGICAL and 8fr*®2^122î2î_£î!Sâll2Â. mg/l tng/l QUALIFIERS 7. "Batebar Lake, Staves* Lake, FagoM Lake, i.O . . «5.0 m r / l - ^ Tillage Lake and Ferait Lake" IT ,* O.Ofi e /],fur(*r.‘ H).05 ^/1 lroB(Fc,tot)>I.O Bf/1 2.000/100 ■! :hroaltni(he*)*0.025ag/l oppcr (Co)-O.Ol a(/l -ft/1 .«ad(n)-0.025 *x/l s ar ty^n.rp? ‘/I. ron0.03*t/l on^'wi&ëlat-é tanganea* (Hn,Sol )«0.05 5222-0. ■»< W-/Î */ l mrltefiT ),9.< »»'i tercwry (B t)-0.00005a*/ l rMn»«^(ncn,io.o / lchel(Kl)-0.05 «(¡/I 'hla-l-»-( ri W?fO «r/1 lclM lii*(St)m .OI ag/1 rnlfw»- f"C| V.?er> n- 'l CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 Pag« 5 o f IJ TEMPORARY PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS BASM: Los Pinos Hiver and INORGANIC METALS ond BIOLOGICAL Sjrwwjhjgjn^DatjrjgJIjg^ ( t i f / i m g rt QUALIFIERS

1. Alt trlout «ries to tin Los Pino* River, including a ll i*« « and reservoirs, ahldt an.withln ttw Maalnuche *11 demess A m . EXISTING u U A L 1 t y

i» . Hslnstae or tSelos Pino» Hiver Tn» the boirdarÿ- P.O. • 6.0 ag/l. 7.0 m «*0. 02. u n i onued Arsenic (At) ■ 0.05 ■tercurv IHj )«(I.UJUU5 of the M iu m «lloemess Ana to U.S. H»y ia i ■ y/i speerung rtesiduel Ci-> ■ u .u u i Cacniua ted) * o.uulm •iicxe l (MlJ * *).U5 escept Tat tf» specific lls tlrg in Sspvnt J. pH • 6 .5 - 9 .0 Cyanide (free)«.005 Chrmlua (trl) • 0.05 ieienii* tSe) * 0.01 Fecal Colifons • S as H->s*0.iKU in t is Chraaiua (nex) « 0.025 Silver (AjisO.Oujl 2000/100 «1 tJoron » 0.75 topper (Cu| « 0.005 lire (Zn) * 0.05 N it r it e (NO->1-0.05 Lead iP o j ■ 0. 00* Iron (Fe.tot) * 1.0 Nitrate (NiH)>io.o S 5 i (Fe,sol) * u.5 tarusnese(W). to t )«1.0 Chloride (Cl)«250.0 Wnoanesedtt. sol)*.05 Sulfate (S0*)«2S0.0 fc. Malnstea or the Los Pinot Rivat fia t U.S. Hay Ì6Q P.Ù. « «.0 «g/1. 7.0 NHpO.tU, wiionlzed Arsenic (As) • 0.05 Hercurv (KiMLUOUUd to tra Colorado/Ne« M ilco ooröer. aj/1 spawiirq Residual Cl-> • 0.005 Caoalua (Cd) • 0.UU1 wiocel (Hi) • 0 .1 pH » 6 .5 - 9.0 Cvanide (free)..0D5 Chraalui (trl) • 0.Q5 SelenTui (Se) » 0.01 Fecal C ollfom • S as HjS«G.002 in t is uvoaiut (he*) > 0.0Z5 Silver (Ao)*u.0uui ¿000/100 el Boron * 0.75 toooer iCu) • 0.012 a rc (2n) • 0.05 N it r it e (N0-?)«0.05 Lead (Po) • 0.025 Iron (Fe,tot) « 1.2 N it r it e (no*)» 10.0 Iron

3. Vallecito Reservoir. [ O.Ò. ■ £ .0 wq/1. 7.0 44)rfi.oi,tnianized 4 rs m ie (A si ■ 0.05 Hercurv (Ha)«0.i0)05 ■q/1 spaening R esidual Cl-» > 0.005 CackliM (Cd) - O.OUU* nickel (Nl) « U.OS pH • «.5 - ».0 Cyanide (tree)«.005 Qtroalua (trl) « 0.05 Selenlue (Se) * 0.01 Fecal Collfoms ■ 5 as H?s-0.a02 trrils CnroatitM (hex) » 0.025 S ilv e r (Ag}«0.0001 2U1/1UU a l Baton ■ 0.75 Coooer (Cu) * 0.005 ¿Inc ¿¿n) « 0.05 N itrite (N)?)«0.05 Lead {PD> - 0.00« Iron (Fe.tot) • 1.0 Nitrate (*M).10.U Iron (fe.sol) * 0.) Hanoenese(MY.tot)«1.0 Chloride (Cll-250.0 ManoaneseCHn. s o l) * .05 Sulfate IS0*)*250.0

AU trloukarles to foe Los Pinos Rivet and p.O. • 6.Ò ag/1. 7.0 »*+$*0 .02, unionized Arsenic (As) ■ 0.05 «ercurv iKj)*0.U30uj vallecito Reservoir, iicluding a il lake* and ■g/1 spe*nlng Residual Cl? • 0.005 ' Cadtlua (Cd) • 0.001 Uickel (Nl) « 0.1 reservoirs, fro» the bomJary o f tto Mealnucto pll . 6.5 - f.O Cyanide 1 free)*.005 Chm iui (trl) * 0.05 Selenlua (Se) - 0.01 Wilderness Area to a point in a la ta ly oeiow fi»CTl_COllfOMt^« S as M?S-0.002 undls (iv n lu i (he*) * 0.02S ¿ilver (Ao)«0.0UUl t ie confluence * it h tfear Creak (TJSM, AT*)» Boron a 0.79 Coooer (Cu) ■ 0.01 Zinc (Zn) « 0.05 except Tor the specific listin g In Segwint 5j N itrite (tCH)«0.05 Lead (Pd) • 0.025 Iron tFe.tot) • 1.0 aainstews of Heaver Creek, uta Creek, ana Spring N itrtU (NOiMO.O iron (Fe,*oi) - 0.5 Kanoanese(m.tot)«1.0 Creek f m their sources to their confluences £nlorl3e

5. Mlnstea o f Vallecito Creek froe the boundary 0.0. - 6.0 *0 n . 7.0 02, rn io rn zed Arserue (As) * 0.0> Hercurv (Hui*O.UOUU5 of tne Kaainucfte wilderness Area to Vallecito ag/1 apaonlng Reslduel Cl? * 0.003 Caotiui (Cd) ■ O.OlXM Nickel (Nl) * 0.05 R eservoir. pH ■ 6 .5 - 9 .0 Cvanide (free)«.005 OtrtNlua ( t r l ) • 0.05 Selenlua (Se) - 0.01 F5rai^CollfoPw * S as h->^q.002 m ils Oiraeiue (hex) • 0.025 s liv e r lAg)-O.OUOI Boron * 0.75 Ceooer lCu) « 0.005 ¿ ire (¿n) * 0.05 N itrite (K>.,)«0.05 Lead (Pb) * 0.01M Iron (Fe.tot) * 1.0 N itra te (NL)})«10.0 iron (Fe.sol) • 0.5 Kanqanesetrin.tot)«1.0 Oloride (Cl)*250.0 Wanoanese(Mn. sol)«.OS Sulfate- (30*)*250.0 CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS R E 6I0 N : 9 Pege * o f 15 TEMPORARY PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS B&SIN: Los Pinos Rivet and INORGANIC METALS and BIOLOGICAL mg/I IRf/l QUALIFIERS

U.U. « 6.U a y /1 . 7.0 6. RU trlo u u rla to m* Los Pino* lUwr, Including ■g/1 speanlng a ll trios and reservoirs, fm a point 1— dlitoly pH » 6 .5 - 9.0 belo» tna confluence « im Hear CteeK (T33N, H7rfJ fecal Collforas • to the OolondoAiM Mexico bonier, except fat the 20JD/1UU «1 *w eittc listing In Sepant «I «11 tributaries to tta San Ia n Rivai In Le Plata County. 1 ...... STREAM CLASSIFI CATIONS end WATER QUALITY STANDARDS I CLASSIFICATIONS I NUMERIC STANDARDS ] REGION- Pag« of 9 7 13 HI OH IATIC TEMPORARY REC- «* QUAl IFE I PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS BASM: An'aas and Florid* civets INORGANIC MET ALS Sn 0 " CL 1 ' CLi0 S w t a n d and s i 5 5 d f BIOLOGICAL d d 0 0 u 0!$ i * ng/l mg '1 QUALIFIERS

1. All tributaries to the Maes Rlvar and Florida X River, Including all lakes and reservoirs, ttfiltfi ata elthln the ttealnudw «lldetness Area.. £ I 1 S 11 N li

2. MtlnsCae of tm Anlaas River, ircludlng a ll X OH • 6.5 - y.O trloutarles, free the aouica to a point Fecal Collforws « 1— .illite ly aoov* the conflum a «1th Elk 2U00/1 U0 al -Creek, except for p a c ific listings In Segments 1 and 5 throu?t 0a ano do.

S. mirataa or tfla Kniaas River r t n a point X X < X 0.0. ■ *.0 «0/1. 7.U NH^sU.lU.unioniZeo nrseruc tasi • o.u> Mercurv iKj)*u.uoju? I— illitr lj atwva the eaiTluance wltn tl* creek to a j/1 spawning Residual Cl / « 0.U03 Uadalua (Cd) ■ 0.UUU5 NlCKel IN I) • 0.05 the confluence «1th J m tlo n CtMk. pH ■ 6.3 - 9.0 t'venide (free)«.005 Chiualua ( t r i ) • 0.05 SlenTua (Se) « 0.01 Fecal CoUfores ■ ¿ as H,$»o.ou/ unols Cnroadm (hex) * 0.0^5 Silver (Ag)xO.OUll Soirt/iM el doron ■ 0.75 Ccooer (Cu) ■ 0.035 Z irc tZn) « 0.47 N itrite (hü¿)«0.> Lesa (PO) > 0.0*3 Iron (Fe.tot) « 1.15 ill trata (rCM-lO.O Iron (Fe,sol) » 0.3 rtanoene$e(tfn.tot)«1.0 C hloride IC1)«250.0 Hsnaenes«(Hn. s o l)«.05 S J IflT T (S0*)»250.0

a. Ntlnsto* of the Anlaaa «klvar rioa the confluence X t ( x o.d. ■ ¿.6 ag/L 7.0 ¡Hy0.0¿,«ilonizao wsenic (Asl • U.O Mercurv IH j U o. 00005 ■1th Jm ctlon Creek to the Colorado/Nee Mexico •g/1 weening Residual Cl > - 0.0U3 Cacxiua (Cd) • 0.001 Nickel (Nl) - u.l borOei. pH • 6.5 - 9.0 Cvanlde (free)«.005 O u n lia ( t r i ) • 0.05 Seleniua (Se) * 0.01 Fecal Conform • ¿ as H?S>0.002 unals ùito«Ìjb (hex) ■ Q.0£> S liv e r (m j)«u .0OOi X M /lO u al damn - 0.75 Coooer (Cu) ■ 0.02 Zinc (Zn) « 0.15 R ltrTte (nd2>«0.05 Lead (Po) • 0.035 Iron (Fe,tot) « 1.5 fíltrete (WiMO.O Iro n (F e ,s o l) ■ 0.3 >tenoenese(>*i.tot)»1.0 Chloride (Cl)«250.0 HvnaneseOtn. sol)«.05 Sulfate (S0«)«250.0

5 . Msinstee, incluaing a ll tributaries, lakes am X X » fM j. > 6.0 ag/l. 7.0 ¡*íj«U.a¿,urüwüzed Arsenie tas) * O.us Mercurv iftJ)«0.aiX)5 reservoirs, of C liw w n C nw , tixouse Creek, eg/1 spanning Residual Cl? • 0.003 :adalua (Cd) ■ 0 .0 )0 * N icxe i (N l) - 0.05 Plcayne Culcn, rtlm le Uulcft, Haggle Oilch, pH - 6 .9 - 9.0 Cvanlde tfra*)«.0C5 9\zoalue (tri) ■ 0.05 Seleniua (Se) « 0.01 S llw t (Mg)aU.OOOl Curmlnghw Creak, tioulder Creek, dhlteneed Gulch, fea^CoUfarg^* S as H-/S-U.0U2 undls A n a lia (ne*) » o.iu» and (tolas Creek froa their sources to their Óoron ■ 0.79 Copper (Cu) ■ 0.005 line IW « 0.05 confluences «1th the taleas River. N itrite l«M«0.0> Leaa (Po) - O.OM Iron (Fe,tot) » 1.0 Nitrate (noo-Io.0 ira i (fé,sol) » 0.3 NanJenese(Hn.tot)>1.0 C hloride ( C l>*250.0 Cn5snese(Hn. sol)«.05 Sulfate (50j)»250.0

6. Halnsts or Ceaent Creek, Incluaing a ll tributaries, X DH - 6.5 - 9.U lakes, m l reservoirs, fn a the source to the Fecal collforas • confluence «1th the Anlaas Rivet. 2UOO/1 UU a l CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION' * *aga • af II AQUATIC TEMPORARY REC. life PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS 8ASM *UM9 «»I notiti* rii««! ülcL lIC L.il and INORGANIC METALS end * BIOLOGICAL »|/i Stream Ssywtn* Psicrlflla» «i/i QUALIFIERS

•talnstaa of H tnm l crash, Including « li trlDutarlet, r ¡j • .9.9 - *.o Cyanids lfiea)*d.2 V sanie (As) O . I rte retry tfe>>o.aujQ» fm (ta aoutca la a petal leaadtataly abo«« tM ecsl collfow a doton • 0.79 sans tedi. . 0.009 ^ S â l (Wl> • Q.CEt cgnTiu«c( « itti South «Inarat Ciw n aæapt for tna zaùrluo ài e n raiKá U ri) • 0.1 le n ita (Se) • U.02 specific listing In Segwnt Oa. a i t a l a (la*) . 0.1 Slim lAg)

4a. Malrute« of South M lnatal Craek lACludlrg tU Eüt 4.0 ag7i. 7.0 wUj.6/.tlUWtflM ina ile m l » o.ui Uircut» tttrtao.Um T U louU ilt«, Im s and km im U s ftoa tna saure« «g/1 apaanlng ««asidua! ¿ I i • 0.009 cadala (Cd) • (MUM k»S «rtm ) • U.tt> ta a polnt i« w it(tilr a»«« tta confUarca «ltn p H . U * I I ¿»antas l*iaal».009 Jm ala (til) • 0.09 [S tlw la (Sa) ■ 0.01 Clear Creek; « tlra tm , inetalng a ll trloutailas, s t t r o i s bntala (taa) • O.Ortk llm (AaMl.UUui lakaa and t M « v o li i o t *411 Cm k, erd B hi C tM 0.79 TCu)‘ • 0.009------lllñ^ (¿n) • 0.09 ftoa um cm ta eonTluaci «ltn Mineral C iittj (N)¿)>0.09 s.... n j*> • 0.UM ■ ito» (Fa.tet) • 1.0 a ll IH «i and nservolrs ln tr« Aalnagt ataas aurata i«i)*io.o irán tra,sol) • 0.9 HTOW ^tatM .O daacdoad ln Saifaenta I thcou^i 9. Cn)oiÍ3a (CÍ)«230.0 w g m i l M i , s o l)« .09 Sulfate (Su>).2M.0 a . w im t« of South Mlnatal CraaK, inÉlifll>ï a ll M . • a.ö •a/i; j.r >**wU.C2.»üorüied ~~ fctsanle lAsF TOT _TErar5u3“ titoutarlas, fco« a polnt la a a iitilr ®o*a tna •g/1 spaaüng fteslduel C li - O.OuJ ■Cadalui______. .(Cd) . . 0 .0 0 1 . (M I) a 0.09 confiance «Ith Claar Cm k Io Ua confiance «Itti r H • 4.9 . 9.0 CyjrUd» tíiéa)«.009 Qiroalue (tri) • 0.1 la (Se) • 0.02 Hinaial Cta«, au tta asinata* of Minarsi C n m tcal Collfana • tSu&sH?5^.oa» tra u Oiroalua (taa) • 0.029 lAg)*0.0001 ftoa law llitalf tta confluite* «Ith Ua ¿orón • 0.79 Ctroet (Cu) • 0.009 ____ ;in ) • 0.09 South fa n ta Uw conTluraa «ltn tta AnUea

9. Milnit«* «f Claar C ita frua Uw Mutca te tta |u. - i.o wi: rs m Sanie t* s ) • U.0> Hitouta tKil«OJU)ü> conflue«** a lt» South Minata 1 Creak. ag/| speanlrg mV idual* Cl» • 0.009 Caöilüa (Cd) - 0.tttM Hloä (NI) • tt.09 M * U > f.» C»«óld*lltea)».0P9 thpalta (tri) 0.1 Seleñia (Sa) • 0.02 S as H ^ O.OOi m i l * Oaoaiue (taa) 0.0» §n5fT*vl-U.OOUl “ « i » . * do ron • 0.79 Ccppet ICuj 0.19 Zlne tte l * O.W n itrita (H0¿)*0.09 teed irs i • 0.00« Iran (Fa,tot) • >.0 W g g g » e (ie i.te t )>1.0

tu. Meimte* of thé fiotida JUvac fra tía DanSiy Ají.. ü.b vi: nr mnü.m.ipiwii¿ Utsetue Rs) » U-tia M e rtu ty W lo a l i»B) • (1.09 o f U a m iiu m atlderneas Araa ta tha Florida ag/l Spaailng R e s id a ! C b • 0.0U9 Cadala (Cd) • 0.0*17 fa ia a rs Canal Headgeta, n e a t foe tta s p e c ific pH - «.5 - ».0 Cyanide (free)».009 m ila (tri) • 0.69 S alata (Sa) • 0.01 llM lrq in ie<^ent la . Papaia (tas) • 0.029 ¿ìivàr (*C)-0.0QQI éoron • 0.79 r n w w ì & i l a Q.U09 Hrc (W • 0.09 w trttf («2>-0.09 UadT f») • O.OU4 ita » ( f e . t o t ) ■ 1.0 »ditata (MDtMO.O Iran

II. H»iit$taa ot Ua H o ll« «U*er fta Ua F IonJa p.u. m l.u ag/1. i.ü nii»u.üi.ifflailw u Arsanlc (* s ) « U.U> »te»y |Hu)aü.4UüQ> kSik*r(NlT • 0.1 r«M ts Lm l iw«kjata to tta ca /ltcm «ltn ag/l yunlrg g e s lA a l CIt > O.Oüí Catfila (Cd) • 0.04 _____ Ta (Sa) • 0.01 tta Hula»

n. pH m 6.5 - 9.0 IV m ln (fiee)».009 Cura»tua (tri) • 0.09 Iteti Callfofs • S as HjS.tt.u0j «m is ù U M la Ita a ) ■ O .d o sn*iT*gl-o.0U0l W ttl/lfluil 0.79 C a x m t (CU) • 0.012 ¿Ine (in ) • 0.09 . tTit (mq¿m».u> Lead ir » ! • U.UU9 Iton tFa,tet) • 1.0 mirata WjWio.o Icon (re,sol) • 0.9 >5maa»a(»ai.totm .u Pilorlde ta)*250.0 panoanesed*». s o l H.05 Sulfata IS04).290.0 CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 Page 9 o f 13 TEMPORARY HIGH QUALJ PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS 6ASIN; An 1m s and Florida rtlvers and INORGANIC METALS end BIOLOGICAL m|/l QUALIFIERS 3 »reo» SeynaM DesttjgMwi_ RIQ/1

12a. A il trloutarles to tta nnun Klvar. incltxnng «11 P.O. ■ « .0 ^ ) / l . 7.0 HHydl.ü¿. jüîxUzeq tesarne (Asi U.U5 i^etcjrv (Hy)«u.uuuu5 lakes and réservoirs, fraa • peint la—diataly aoova ■g/l gaming SslduBl ci? ■ U.UU3 ______EaaiiJ (Cd) O.UUlW motel (t 0.05 trltM tarlea to tha Floride River, lncludlng a il N itrita l*u¿)«u.d5 Leaa tPt>) « u .u m iro n iF e .to t) « 1.0 lake s, eno reservolrs, froe tha sourra to tha K l trä te (Htw 0j)*10.uKitra i) > io . u lio n (Fe,s o l) > 0 .3 ■tenpanese (Hn. to t )«) .0 outlet of Lemon R m ra it (Indudas la m tteser.), Pilorlde (Cl)>250.0 >tenoanese(Hn. s o l)« .05 except m tha «M clfle listing ln segaent l. S ulfa te (S04)>29ü. d Halnsteas of >M Craak and Shaarar C m k fraa tta lr sources to thalr confluences alth tha Florica itlvar, and aalnstaa of Llptnet Cm k fraa th» soutes to tha ootnlary of tl.S. Forast Servies laras.

12o. im n riaservoir. O.U. « t.O mg/l. i J T f4fO.Oa.tfüonl*eo Arsenic ( h s J U.U5 tetcury (Hjí«u.üuuu5 ag/1 apaanlng Residual Cl? - 0.003 ______C iaslu« (Cd) . . O.UUO* Nltftel (HI) > U.05 pH • 6 .5 - 9 .0 Cvanitte (Tree)«.0Q5 enroll ua (trl) ■ 0.05 Selwdua (Se) « O.Qi Fecal Coliforas » 5 is H?5-0.00¿ undls Omwiua (hex) « 0.025 silver tW-O-OOOl 20U/100 «1 d-3ron * 0.75 Copper (Cu) * 0.005 ¿ine (Zn) - 0.05 K it r it e (Nü¿)«0.U5 Lead (Pd ) - O.U** Iron iFe.tot) « 1.0 Nitrate (HOii-lO-D Iron LFe,sol) « 0.3 Hanpanese(M n .to t)« l.O Chlorife (Cl)-250.0 mnoanese(Hn. s o l)« .05 Sulfate (S0*)«230.0

Ua. rtiinscee of Junction Cree*, arej inclining a il 0.0. ■ h.Ò mo/1. ÌIÌT HH««U.O¿.umonircg Arsenic (As) » U.Oa rtereurv iHg)«u.uuuus tributaries, fro* U.S. Forast Bomdary to conflyerce i ag/1 spaanirg Residual Ci? - 0.00J üaa»iij» (Cd) - o.ooi N ickel (H i) > o . l w ith Animas lU v e r. 1 pH - 6 .5 - 9.0 Cyanide liree)».005 Lnroaiua (tri) « 0.1 Selenita (be) - 0.02 ¡ Fecal Coll forms • S as H7S»Q.0ü2 > ra is Cnroalus (nex) » 0.025 S liv e r («o)-0.0UQX 2Cüb/iöo a l floran • 0.75 Copper (Cu) » 0.01 ¿ine tZn) » 0.05 fS trlte (NO2) - 0.05 LwoTpd) « 0.025 Iron (Fe,tot) • 1.0 HanoaneseOn.totM.O

130. A ll triO u ta rie s to tha Animas A lv a r, in c lu o irg a il 0.0. » <.0 an/1. 7.0 lakes and reservoirs, ftoa a point i—edlately halo« ag/1 apaanlng the co nflu e ra * a it h Hermosa Creak to th a Colorado/ pH • 6.5 - 9.0 Ne« Mnlco oorder, excvt for tha pacific listings Fecal Conforms ■ In Segments 10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13a and 14; a il 2000/10U ml tributaries to the Florida River, trcluding a ll lakes and re s e rv o irs , f n a tha c u tle t o f Leaon Aeser voir to tha confluarca with the M ass rtivar, except for tha spécifie listings ln Segsnt 12a. l il Hainstea of Lightner Creak frta the txxrdary of 0 .0 . ■ 6 .0 mg/l. 7.0 iW rt.W .unlanimi Arsenic (As) « U.U5 wercury tHyi-ü.uuüuä O.S. Forest Service lands to tha confluence altn ag/1 apaanlng Be s ld ja l C l? • 0.UU3 CadHiJ (Cd) • 0.001 Hic* 0 .3 Msnoanese(»kì.tot)«1.0 Chloride (Cl)-250.0 HsfoaneseO*». sol)>.05 S u lta te (SQa)«250.0

IT Hainstea of Purtsiory Creek froa source to ^ase«4e KB7 fiTÔ^mg/i. 7.0 Cvarjfle Uree)»0.2 ~ Arsenic (As) • 0.Ú5 Mercury (Hq)»0.002 Selenita» ISe) • 0.01 CmcìH" Cr»»>k. '^alillne ^r-«k fnm thè soarc» *0 eg/1 ^w aning S SS H?S«0.05 unols laoüum (Cd) * O.Ui Cr~ek. mv1 B*t7 '»rav f-flm ‘he eonrc* to « « 6.5 - 9 .0 N it r it a (H0>)»1.0 m rw a (tri) « 0.05 SUver t*g)«u.05 n^vllaiv4 Lui-«. ecal Loliforms « Nitrate (NOj).ia.u Cnroani» (hex) * U.U5 íinc l¿n» * >.u 2000/100 a l Chloride (CD-2S0.0 Comer (Cu) « 1.0 Sulfats iSU4)a25U.O Leaa (Po) » o.ii» Iron (Fe,sol) « 0.3 taruanese(*>. to t )* 0.ü» ...... , b*t1 •** W/W/83 ST Ally 13, 1982/ i?-6-3V ÎEAM CLASSIFIC/sriONS end WATER QUALITY STANDARDS |

1 CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: 9 Page to o f 13 iHtSH AQUATIC w TEMPORARY REC. K |0UAL LIFE La P lata K iv e r, Mancos R iv e r, t~3 PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS 8ASIN: M ctlao Creak, and San Juan rfiv e r M N BM1CL z and INORGANIC In HonteziM County uH Oelor»« Countlee S mCO O METALS and < Ö g c BIOLOGICAL 5 m g /l CLASS 1 CLASS d u 3 m g /l QUALIFIERS Stream S**ntnt DMcrtofton CLASS 1 1 ¡ y ê %

1. Mlnstea of the La Plata Klvtr, taludlrg a ll X X X U.O. « 6.0 ag/1. 7.0 WjeO.O^.inlonizeu Arsenic (As) » Q.05 Hsrcurv tributaries, lakes, and reservoirs, froa the rare* ag/1 spawning Residual cl? - o.oos CaoaliM (Cd) > D .D ü l Nickel (Ni) * 0.1 to the Hay Gulch diversión south of federas. pH > 6.5 - 9.0 Cvanide (rre*)».QU5 Chraaiua ( t r i ) » 0.1 Selenius (Se) « 0.0? Fecal Collforas • £ es H?5*U.J02 undis Cnroaltia (hex) » 0.(125 Silver (Aû)*0.0Uül 20UQ/100 a l doran ■ 0.75 Caooer (Cu) * 0.01* ¿ine (Zn) . 0.05 Ñltzlte (MM . 0.05 Lead (Pd) » 0.025 iro n (F e,t o t ) ■ 1.0 Mennanese(Mo. to t )«1.0

2. Minstea of the La Plata ftlM t froa the My Guien XXX D.O. • 5.0 ag/1 HHrtlJ ,t*ttonized Arsenic (As J « u.05 xercurv iKji.o.ixuus diversion south o f Msperua to the Colorado/N» pjTJ 6.5 - 9.0 Residual Cl-> • 0.003 C asti* (Cd) • o.ool Micacei (N i) « o . l Mxlco oorder. fecal Co}!fpia* ■ Cyanide (fre e )« .005 fchrmli* (tri) • 0 .1 Seleniuà (Se) « 0 . 0? 200U/10U a l S as H¿s»u.002 unuls Cnroaiua (ne*) ■ 0.025 Silver (Ag)*o.ax)l Boton ■ 0.75 Ccroer tCu) » 0.01 Zlrc (Zn) • 0.14 N it r it e (NU/J • 0.05 Lead I Po) « 0.043 iron (Fe,tot) « l.u Menoerese (1* 1. 101 )« 1.0

3. A il tributaries to the La Plata River, including 2 Ì 3 D.O. • 5.0 ag/1 a ll lates ant reservoirs, froa the My Gultf< pH - 6.5 - 9.0 diversions south o f Hnpeius to the Colorado/New Fecal Coliforas ■ Mexico border. 200Q/1 UU a l

4. Mainstea of the Mrcos rfivsr, indudlni a il À X X i. fl.d. • 6.0 ag/1. 7.0 NKjeO.LlZ.inlorUzed Arsenle (Ask • U.u> « K u r v iHo)>0.UJQ05 tributaries, lakes, and reservoirs, froa the source ag/1 spaening Residual Civ • O.UU3 jatfeiua (Cd) • O.iuua N ickel (N i) - U.U5 of the East, Nest and Middle Forks to Kay 160. pH • 6 .5 - 9.0 Cyanide ( tr e e ) * .005 Jim lui (tri) • 0.05 Seleniti« (Se) - 0.01 Fecal Coliforas ■ S as HI>S*U.UU2 unois Siroaiua (hex) -» 0.0¿5 Silver (Aui*0.tU0i 2000/100 a l óoron m 0.75 Icooer (Cu) ■ 0.02 lire (Zn) « 0.07 fSTrTte (n o i)* o .o5 jemi iPOj • O.lAM iron (Fe,tot) « 1.0 titra te (N0*l*10.0 Itori (Fe,sol) » 0.‘3 Man»nese(Mn.tot )*1.0 Chloride (Cl)«250.0 «noaneseCto. sol)«.05 S ulfa te (SO*>»¿50.0

>. Mainstea of tie «teneos River fn a My 160 to the XX X O.U. • 5 .0 ag/1 Ü 3* 0 .1 «unionized Arsenic (As) » 0.U5 Hercurv IhûUu.uuüus Colorado/He« Mexico confer. IM > 6 .5 - 9 .0 • fesidual Cl? • i i. iu i ^dalua (Cd) • O.üOÍ 4iocei (Ni) . 0.1 Fecal CollfoxBs » Cyanide (free)».005 ïinaiua (tri) • 0 .1 Seienlua (Se) • 0.02 2UÜU/10U a l S as H?S*0.0U2 undls lir o a iia (ta x ) ■ 0. 02s s ilv e r (Ao)-u.ouoi áoron • 0.75 'jBoei (Cu) • 0.03 Zinc (Zn) - 0.15 i •u t r i t e (no?) • 0.05 ■eaa (Pb) • 0.025 Iron (Fe,to t) * 5.1 Mnoanese(Nn.totM.ü

6. AH tributaries to the Mncos rtiver, including a ll X X X D.O. • 4.Ò agA lakes and reservoirs, froa My 160 to thé Colorado/ pH « 6 .5 - 9.0 New Mexico border. Fecal Collfoias » 2000/ 1 UU a l CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION: , Pag« it or 13 HIGH TEMPORARY QUAL La Pitta A im , N n c n R iv e r, PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS d ASM: Mctlao Craw, «ral san Jjm ftivw and INORGANIC In ttontaam 'and Deloraa Corniti«« METALS and BIOLOGICAL ingfl mg/l QUALIFIERS S»r¡2*5£C£^£jíSJÍ6Í!SL

7. «Minata» of M ia o Ce w k fr n U» sou rea to trw P.O. - 9.0 mg/l NHjiO.l, mlonlzed teaenlc (As) • 0.0> •tercurr 0^M).UUü5 Colorado/Uttfi oordet. STT 6.5 - 9.0 aeslaual Cl? « u.ouJ ta a m » (Cd) a U.UU5 ilexel (Ni) • 0.2 Fecal Collfoi»» » Cyanide (free)«.DOS J ir o * ! « ( t r i ) ■ 0 .1 SSIffirua (Se) . 0.0? 2Ü00/1UD al à as HiS»0.0m unais P iro a im (ne*) = 0.025 a il ve r (Ag)>0.axu» dorqn m 0.75 Cccoer ICu) - 0.019 rc (Zn) « 0.1 Nitrite (NU2) « U.05 Lead (PD) * O.us ironTqaneseOX.tot)«! (Fe.tot) ■ 10.* .u

n il trioutaries to Hcfciao ctw k ant tm San Juan b:urs i.a «¿I— K iw r In HontacuM aad Dolore» Coantina, Inclodln* pH - 6.5 - 9.0 a ll lakea and n im vsln , «xeon* for apaelfie fëcal collfoPM ■ U tting* in Stuatnti 2 thrmoh 7 20UQ/1ÜU al

77 Mainate of tte San Juan siver In Mntenaa g^rrnrigTi:— * S a» H?S«o»0U2 tr d ls Ottoaiu» (hex) « 0-025 S ilv e r (Ag)-O.OüOl ------¿ Ó J / l d o m l Boron » 0.75 tccper ÎCu) • 0.03 ¿inc (Zn) * 0.05 N itrit« («fe) - 0.5 Lead (Pc) - 0.025 Iron (Fe.tot) « 3.1 Hanöanese{H n,toO »l-Q

i

I I CLASSIFCATtONS NUMERIC STANDARDS R EG IO N : 9 Page 12 of TEMPORARY PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS BASM: dolores

All moutarles to tne jaiotes Mivet an» « s i Uolores rtiver, Including a ll trloutarles, lanes, am reservoirs, anicti

2. t u n u a of t a Dolores River ftoa the toute* te Ü.U. « b.U « j/ l. 7.0~ rrtjaU.tu.unionizeo wrsanie imi • u.u» r^rOff» IH^fau.UUXI? a point UHdnteljr r a m tta confluarce iltA * j/l spamlng iietldual Cl y » u.uuj Caoeiue (Co) • J.IUM WlCWfci IHlJ a U.Uï ta s » Creek. pH • o.S - 9.U Cyanide tfreej-.005 ¿Uro»lue ( ir li - 0.09 Selénlua (Se) > u.Oi Fecal coHfonts « S a» H>S»0.um u n i! Cnroeif (hex) « o.d» aiiver 20U0/10Ü a l aoron - U .75 Cooper (Cu) « 0.006 ¿ire tZn) » o.i rUtrl te irtj^)>0.iu Leso IftjJ ■ U.Jlh iron ife.tot) s l.u Nitrate IUJJJ-IU.U iron ife,sox) • u.i Hatmnesetwn.tot )= 1 .u Cnlorioe 29U.O

Halnstee or (fe Oolotes Hiver fraa a point P.O. ■ ¿.0 «0/1. Ko Ü^U.U wercuTY iH^j-w.uuuo» M M lately aoove the confluence «1th tors# en ei •U /l apamlng Hesioual ci-> a u.uu> Lacu.ua tCo) ■ U.1U 12 HlOeei ( til) a U .U 5 to • point 1 Mediately «hm the confluence with pH - 6.3 • 9.0 Cyanide (free)».005 P ir o e lu e ( t r i ) ■ u . l Selenlue (Se) ■ 0.0¿ dear ucec. *ecai untionn ■ á as r*»«u.UU¿ unoia c n r o e n * (ne*) • U.U¿> silver tftji«U.Juui 2UQU/10J e l doron ■ 0.7S Ctpoer (Cui ■ 0.01« ¿ ire (te ) a 0. 2« «litri te vrw¿j • ü .« Leau *fü ) ■ (I.UIM iron if e,tot» • i.U Manaanese(> *ì.tot )«I.j

A. Mainstsa of tlii Colores Hiver frôë ¡ pólnl U.5. « e.O eg/I. 7.0 W)»U.O¿,unianiieo Arsenic (fts) o .u ? Hercury t^iau.uuüu? u w d lite lf «dom n eonlfueic« iitn aear cree* *v/l Spemlng Residuai cl» • u.iXii _____ ICO) .. . U.ÜUi Nickel iN i; • j.l to the bridge at Braoflelo Hvtn (Forest rtoute 909). pH ■ * . 5 - y.O Cyanide (free)«.0U5 P ì t o e lf ( t r i ) « Q.0> Seleniui (Se) - u.ul recei coalom * a as H/¿«U.Uu¿ m us LW W lue | I « I ) a II.ÜO silver t»al«ti.uuüi AU/1QÜ «1 ¿oran • 0.75 Ctpper (Cu) m o .u i ¿irr (Zn) . 0.05 Ni.tr! te .eao (Poi a u .( iù iroii ife.tot) > i.u m tHte Solíate isu*).2su.0

All tributaries ko the Dolores Kiver and east U.Ü. • 6.0 ■*/!. 7.0 ryj»u.U/,i*iiofuzeo Arsenic \*si a a i b nercurv (Kj|»u.uuuo3 Dolores ftiver, IfClufiny a ll lakes and reservoirs, ■v/1 spamtg weslaxil t b ■ u. OUJ J W W (Co) a (J.UlXM WlPgl IH») a' u.u? floe the source to a point 1— alately oeloe the *.5 - 9.0 Cyanide (Tree)«.009 Jìc tìji (tri) » 0.05 Selenlvei (Se) * 0.01 confluence «ith the «est w in e s itiw r except aecal »-ollfoCTS • a as unni» jit m ijí inai) ■ u.u250.0 Hwoanwe(i*i. sol)«.05

ittinstM ot tne »late Creek and Cm i m i CreeK, O.Ü. « 6.0 «0/1. 7.0 #Jj»U. U¿, un» oni zed KTS»lC IKS) • O.U), ffercutf tHg)-U.üUUt3 fro* tnelr Sources to tneir affluences «titn u e •j/1 spaarurv « lo u a i Ci-j « U.UU ■îue lCd) * ü.UJli ■uOtei («a) a ¿.ni Dolores River. pH » 6.5 - 9.0 L'ywUde fftee)«.0US jmieiua (tri) • 0.05 Selènica (Se) * 0.01 f ecal coiifom s ■ i as Hx>»u.um unois ^nronmji tw*) a u.0^5 »liver i«d>=u.0uui a u u /I u u a l aoron > 0.75 - nouer *cu) -tine U.U 17 (¿n) > O.U5 ■0 trite tH»¿j=u.u> eao ifti) • u.ülm iron tFe.tot) =■ l.u «rmnese\»*i.tot>=i.ij Jilorloe tci)*25u.0 *.u? auliate 13U,)=23U.J Ju ly iS, 1 9A2 ST IEAM CLASSIFIC/riONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS j

1 CLASSIFICATIONS NUMERIC STANDARDS REGION-* 9 P a g e 13 0f *3 HIGH AQUATIC TEMPORARY REC.: î QUAL LIFE I PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS m «J 8ASW: Dolores rtlver N 3 and INORGANIC •> m tc U METALS and VI m hi « 4 2 BIOLOGICAL _j IW f/l d u 3 m fl/l QUALIFIERS Strew* Seomwt DwerteHea 2 CLASS 1 ¡CLASS 1 1 « I HH <«U.U/.uruom2eo ■trsemc i * s i « u.u> « rc u ry 7. «tainstea of Coil CreeK froa the source to the XX X u.U. » 6 .0 e g / i. 7.0 X ■g/l spaoning ucK ei (rU ) * o.U3 confluence altn tne Dolores Alver. Hesiduai Ci> « U.iDJ L33UUÌ (Cd) « U.ÜUU7 pH - e.5 - 9.0 Cyanide lfiee)*.0ü5 oirauua (tri) ■ 0.0S aeleniia (be) » 0.01 Fëcei califor*s * » as H ,£»u.oui unis Juoaiue (hex) ■ Q.0¿5 »liver iAa/>0.uuui 20QJ/1 UU a i ttoron » U.75 äooer (Cu) « 0.005 dtc tZn) * 0.09 N itrite lM0/)-0.U3 -CTO tPO) » O.ÜLM iro n iF e .to t) ■ 1.0 N itrate iiW «1-10.0 lion (Fe,soi) * tí.» «noanese (•*», to t )» i. u cniorioe (Cl)«250.u 4noanese<*i. sol)».05 Sulfate lS0*l>250.0

ial«»0.U/.tfi4gnirea fe. Msinstee of Horse CreeK froa the source to the XXX j - O.U. ■ 6 .0 eg/1. 7.0 a g/1 spawning -wsidial cl? ■ U.IU» ¿soaiua tc o ) * O.Oüu* llCKei (Hi) a u.0> confluence vltn tre uoiores Hiver. pH - 6 .5 - y.O Lyanioe (free)«.005 ilitn iia (tri) ■ 0.05 Seleniua (ae) • 0.01 Fecal Collforas a à es H?SwO.OQl mois -nroauui tnex) « Q.Uô S ilv e r (AoiaO.OJUl ZJ0U/1 QU al ttoron • o. T> Coooer (Cu) a 0.022 ¿ ir e (¿n) « u .10 K ltX llB INU,)«0.U> Leao (R i) • U.Uu* iron iFe,tot) • 1.0 «titrate (iti*M 0.ü iron (Fe,sol) • 0.5 «anoaneseiwt. to t )* i .0 Chloride vCl)*250.0 nanoanese(rtn. s o l)« .05 Sulfate (S0*>»250.0

»Hjej.tU.ixiiTilzea 9. Malnstea of Silver CreeK rraa • point l—edi»tely XX s- D.u. • 6.0 eg/1. 7.0 e g/1 spawning m l d a l Cl<* U.UU3 Caoutfl (Co) a U.OU» Nidttl (Nl) > u.05 oelo* tne lorn of rtlco's water supply diversion to Cvenide (f*ee)».005 Oinnlta (tri) • seleniua (be) - O.Oi tie confluence «1th the Dolores River. pH a 6.5 - 9 .0 0 .10 Fecal Colifom s • s es Hmü.UU uruis Lnroalui inex) « O.Uo S ilv e r (Aal«U.UJiU ¿ÖUù /iù b ml doron « 0.75 Cerner (Cu) « 0.02 ¿lrc (Zn) • 1.4 H ittite tf*)?)-u.u> Leao \Pot a Ú.Ü16 iron (Fe,tot) » 1.0 NanaeneseOto.tow*l.U

IQ. rtainstea of the « s t Ooiotes diver fna the source XXX — 0.0- « 6 .0 7.0 r«jwU.lu,ixuoniieo ^ /1 spaanlrq nesiaual CI7 * O.Uü> Cedei ua tCd) » O.UUU* Niocei iHi) * o.u> to tne influence aith tne Dolores Hiver. oH - 6 .5 - 9.0 Cyanide (tree)«.005 Chroaiua (tri) • 0.05 Seleniua (Se) - O.Ui Fëcai te llfU M « » as H£«0.Uki/ m o is Lnroaiua (hex) a U.uzs silver t 0.005 2inc (Zn) a 0.05 N itrite t*u?)ati.U7 J M (PO) a Ü.UM iron (Fe.tot) • i . u N itra te (M0i t a ü .0 iron (Fe,sol) • 0.3 Ninoanese(i*i,tot)>1.0 Cnioride lCi)*250.0 'tomaneselMn. sol)«.05 ¿uifate (Sü«)>250.0

— 0 .0 . • 6 .0 m y i. 7.0 ü . AÜ trioutarles to tne Dolores Hiver, Including T r ag spa«ung a ll laws ana reservoirs« froa a poinc leeedietety /1 g j « 6.5 - 9.0 - oelM tre conTluetce of the «est Uolotes Hiver, to tne orldge at oiaofield riench (Forest Haute 30», Fecal wollfoiets * 2UUV1U0 «1 exc^Jt for tne veclfic listing in J e ju t j.

i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII 999 18th STREET-SUITE 500 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2405

JUN 6 1988

Ref: 8WM-SP Mr. Bruce Baumgartner, Chairman Colorado Water Quality Control Commission Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Dear Bruce: At its June 6, 1988 hearing, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (Commission) will hold triennial informational hearings for the San Juan River, Dolores River and Arkansas River Basins. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, submits the following comments for consideration by the Commission. In a letter dated June 3, 1986, from Max H. Dodson to Bruce Baumgartner, the Region outlined changes to Colorado's Basic Standards and Methodologies (Basic Standards) which would be needed to satisfy the requirements in EPA’s water quality standards regulation (40 CFR 131), and we identified certain issues which would have to be addressed as the^ revised Standards were applied in Basin reviews. As a result of recent hearings, a number of the needed amendments to the Basic Standards and Methodologies are being made. This,'therefore, is an appropriate time to begin consideration'of these newly revised requirements as they will be applied in the Basin reviews. Among the important implementation issues to be considered are the use attainability analysis requirements and the application of newly revised numeric criteria to certain waterbodies where ambient (x+s) values were applied in the past. The Clean Water Act and EPA's regulation require that States appropriately classify all State waters. Section 131.10 of EPA's regulations further requires that States reexamine all waterbody segments with standards which do not include the Section 101(a)(2) "fishable/swimmable" uses every three years to determine if circumstances on that segment have changed and if "fishable/swimmable” uses are now appropriate. If "fishable/swimmable" uses are appropriate, the State must revise its standards to include such uses. If the State believes the recreation and aquatic life uses are inappropriate, the State must document the information used in arriving at that conclusion in a use attainability analysis (UAA). Likewise, if a State wishes to remove a designated use which is specified in Section 101(a)(2), or adopt subcategories of uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) which require less stringent criteria than are currently adopted, the State must perform and submit to EPA a use attainability analysis documenting the appropriateness of the change. The UAA requirement is included in proposed amendments to Section 3.1.6 of the Basic Standards and Methodologies. In our June 3, 1986 letter, the Region identified two general UAA issues: (a) classified waterbodies which do not include aquatic life and immersion recreation designations, and (b) waterbodies listed as "unclassified". Within the Basins being considered by the Commission today, there are several examples of waters without an aquatic life designation and numerous examples of waters without immersion recreation. For example, the mainstem of Fountain Creek, in the Arkansas Basin, from a point immediately above the confluence with Monument Creek to the confluence with the Arkansas River does not include an aquatic life use among its designated classifications. Likewise, in the San Juan Basin, the mainstem and several tributaries of the Animas River to its confluence with Elk Creek do not include aquatic life or recreational uses. As explained in our earlier letter, we recognize the State may have developed a considerable data.base for a number of the these waters. The format of the UAA, however, differs somewhat from conventional biosurveys in that the emphasis is on evaluating potential (attainable) uses in addition to documenting existing conditions. In earlier correspondence, the Region has provided guidance outlining the questions which the UAA should address. Somewhat related to the UAA issue is the application of ambient standards (x+s) to certain waters in the State. For a number of waterbodies in the State (in particular, those affected by past mining activities), the Commission has adopted ambient standards based on the X+s of available data. This has been done where the Commission has considered the source of the contamination to be uncontrollable and the Table values in the Basic Standards to be unattainable. In the past few years, changes have occurred on a number of waterbodies (most notably, waters which have been given Superfund designations) which affect the Commission's earlier assumption the sources of pollution were uncontrollable; and therefore, the basis for those existing ambient standards must be reexamined. The mainstem of the East Fork of the Arkansas River below the Leadville Drain, for example, is a segment for which the existing ambient standards should be reviewed in light of new information. At the time the existing standards for metals were adopted, the Commission considered the Leadville Drain to be an uncontrollable source of pollution, and as a result, the adopted ambient standards accommodated the existing pollution. Now, however, the Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of developing a facility to treat the discharge from the Leadville Drain. Clearly, the Leadville Drain is a controllable source, and the basis for the existing standards needs to be reexamined. The newly revised metals criteria in the Basic Standards and Methodologies would be a good starting point for developing appropriate standards for waterbodies like the East Fork where new information indicates previous assumptions no longer apply. Implementation of the newly revised Basic Standards and Methodologies through the Basin-by-Basin reviews clearly is an important step in this most recent revision of Colorado's Water Quality Standards. This letter is intended to remind the Commission of two of the implementation issues which warrant particular attention in the Basin reviews. Satisfying these elements of the newly revised Basic Standards may require considerable commitment by the Commission and the Water Quality Control Division. The Region is willing to assist you in this effort. If you have any questions, please contact me or Bill Wuerthele of my staff at 293-1586.

Sincerely,

Max H. Dodson, Director, Water Management Division

ce Paul Frohardt, Administrator Water Quality Control Commission Paul Ferraro, Director ■ Water Quality Control Division So.)\ tor

TESTIMONY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND BEFORE THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION REGARDING TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR THE SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN 5 CCR 1002-8.3.4.0

Submitted June 6, 1988

Chad Reed, Summer Legal Intern EDF Rocky Mountain Regional Office

STREAM SEGMENTS IN THE SAN JUAN RIVER'BASIN APPROPRIATE FOR REVIEW AS HIGH QUALITY WATERS

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) requests that the Commission direct the Division to collect all available data on the following stream segments. Based on such data, the Commission can then determine whether the quality of the water in these segments is better than necessary to support fish, shellfish and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. For those segments where the water quality is higher than necessary to support the above-described uses, the Commission must direct the Division to perform an antidegradation review consistent with that required by federal standards. See, 40 C.F.R. 131.12(a)(2). Depending on the nature of the revised antiegradation standard eventually adopted for Colorado, these segments will either be designated or classified as high quality, or subject to a "tier 2" review without the need for such designation.

STREAM SEGMENT DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS 2/ 1/ SAN JUAN RIVER SUB-BASIN

Mainstem and tribs 3/ of AQ: Class 1 N/A Navajo R. and Little Navajo Cold R. from boundary of South San Rec.: Class 2 Juan Wilderness Area to the San Juan-Chama diversion.

Mainstem, East and West Forks AQ: Class 1, N/A and all their tribs. of San Cold Juan R. from boundary of the Rec.: Class 2 Werainuche Wilderness Area

1/ "AQ" means Aquatic Life; "Rec." means Recreation.

2/ These comments derive from the Commission's explanations In the Statements of Basis and Purpose for their decisions regarding a segment's classifications and on conversations with Dennis Anderson of the Division.

3/ "tribs" means tributaries, including lakes and reservoirs. {\ '

(Vest Fork) & the source (East Fork) to the confluence with Fourmile Creek except for Segment 4 waters.

7 Navajo Reservoir (portion AQ: Class 1, N/A in Colorado). Warm Rec.: Class 2

9 Mainstem and tribs of the Rio AQ: Class 1, N/A Blanco from boundary of South Cold San Juan Wilderness Area to Rec.: Class 2 confluence with San Juan R. except for Segment 10.

PIEDRA RIVER SUB-BASIN

3 Mainstem of East Fork of AQ: Class 1, AQ Class 1 despite evid­ Piedra from Piedra Falls Cold ence that a portion of Ditch to confluence with Rec.: Class 2 the stream is intermit­ Payosa Creek. tent due to diversions.

5 All tribs. to Piedra R. AQ: Class 1, N/A from boundary of Weminuche Cold Wilderness Area to just below Rec.: Class 2 confluence with Devil Creek.

LOS PINOS RIVER SUB-BASIN

2a Mainstem of Los Pinos R. from AQ: Class 1, N/A boundary of the Weminuche Cold Area to U.S. Hwy 160 except Rec.: Class 2 for Segment 3.

3 Vallecito Reservoir. AQ: Class 1, N/A Cold Rec Class 2

4 All tribs. to Los Pinos R. AQ: Class 1, N/A and Vallecito Res. from Cold boundary of Weminuche Rec.: Class 2 Wilderness Area to just below the confluence with Bear Creek (T35N, R7W), except for Segment 5; mainstems of Beaver Creek, Ute Creek, and Spring Creek from their sources to their confluences with Los Pinos R. 5 Mainstem of Valecito Creek AQ: Class 1, from boundary of Weminuche Cold Wilderness Area to Vallecito Rec Class 2 Reservoir.

ANIMAS AND FLORIDA RIVERS SUB-BASIN

5 Mainstem and tribs. of AQ: Class 1, Cinnamon Creek, Grouse Creek, Cold Picayne Gulch, Minnie Gulch, Rec. : Class 2 Cunningham Creek, Boulder Creek, Whitehead Gulch, & Molas Creek from their sources to their confluences with Animas R.

8a Mainstem and tribs of South AQ: Class 1, Mineral Creek from source to Cold just above confluence with Rec. Class 2 Clear Creek; mainsterns and tribs. of Mill Creek and Bear Creek from their sources to confluence with Mineral Creek; all lakes and reservoirs In drainage areas of Segments 7, 8 and 9.

Creek to its confluence with Mineral Creek, and of Mineral Creek from just above the confluence with the South Fork to the confluence with the Animas R.

10 Mainstem of Florida R. from AQ: Class 1, boundary of Weminuche Wild­ Cold erness Area to the Florida Rec Class 2 Farmers Canal Headgate, except for Segment 12a.

11 Mainstem of Florida R. from AQ: Class 1, the Florida Farmers Canal Cold Headgate to confluence with Rec Class 2 Animas R.

12a All tribs. to Animas R. AQ: Class 1, from just above confluence Cold with Elk Creek to just below Rec Class 2 confluence with Hermosa Creek except for segment 15. All tribs. to Florida R. from Its source to the outlet of Lemon Res. except for Segment 1. Mainstem of Red Creek & Shearer Creek from their sources to their confluences with the Florida R. and mainstem of Lightner Creek from its source to the boundary of U.S. Forest Service lands.

12b Lemon Reservoir. AQ: Class 1, Given Rec., Class 1 due Cold to evidence of existing Rec Class 1 swimming, etc.

14 Mainstem of Lightner Creek AQ: Class 1, N/A from U.S. Forest Service Cold lands to confluence with Rec. Class 2 Animas R.

LA PLATA, MANCOS, AND SAN JUAN RIVERS AND McELMO CREEK SUB-BASINS IN MONTEZUMA AND DOLORES COUNTIES.

1 Mainstem and tribs. of La AQ: Class 1, N/A Plata R. from source to Hay Cold Gulch diversion south of Rec Class 2 Hesperus.

4 Mainstem and tribs. of Mancos AQ: Class 1, N/A R. from source of East, West Cold and Middle Forks to Hwy 160. Rec, Class 2

DOLORES RIVER SUB-BASIN

Mainstem of Dolores R. from AQ: Class 1, Elevated copper and lead, source to just above Cold but stream appears to be confluence with Horse Creek. Rec.: Class 2 of overall high quality.

Mainstem of Dolores R. from AQ: Class 1, N/A just above confluence with Cold with Bear Creek to the bridge Rec.: Class 2 at Bradfield Ranch (Forest Route 505).

All tribs. to Dolores and AQ: Class 1, N/A West Dolores R., from their Cold source to just below con­ Rec.: Class 2 fluence with West Dolores R., except for Segments 1 and 6 through 10; mainstems of Beaver and Plateau Creek from their sources to their confluences with Dolores R,

7 Mainstem of Coal Creek from AQ: Class 1 , N/A source to confluence with Cold Dolores R. Rec. : Class 2

10 Mainstem of West Dolores R. AQ: Class 1 , N/A from source to confluence Cold with the Dolores R. Rec. : Class 2

The following stream segments, although classified as Aquatic Life Class 1, are probably not in fact of a quality better than necessary to support fish, shellfish and wildlife and recreation in or on the water. As a result, EDF suggests that they be reviewed to determine whether they should be designated as "use-protected" if the Commission eventually adopts such a designation. Alternatively, they should be considered for evaluation under the antidegradation standard which requires, for streams other than high quality streams, that they be maintained at the quality necessary to maintain the use.

SAN JUAN RIVER SUB-BASIN

2 Mainstem of Navajo R. from AQ: Class 1, AQ Class 1 assigned Juan-Chama diversion to Cold despite seasonal low Colorado/New Mexico border Rec.: Class 2 flows and silt from San to the confluence with the Juan-Chama diversion. San Juan R.

6 Mainstem of San Juan R. from AQ: Class 1, N/A confluence with Fourmile Cold Creek to Navajo Reservoir. Rec.: Class 2

PIEDRA RIVER SUB-BASIN

A Mainstem of Piedra R. from AQ: Class 1, N/A confluence with Indian Creek Cold to Navajo Reservoir. Rec.: Class 2

LOS PINOS RIVER SUB-BASIN

2b Mainstem of Los Pinos R. from AQ: Class 1,N/A U.S. Hwy 160 to the Colorado/ Cold New Mexico border. Rec.: Class 2

ANIMAS AND FLORIDA RIVERS SUB-BASIN

3 Mainstem of Animas R. from AQ: Class 1, N/A just above confluence with Cold Elk Creek to confluence with Rec.: Class 2 Junction Creek.

Mainstern of Animas River from AQ: Class 1, N/A confluence with Junction Creek Cold Rec.: Class 2

8b Mainsterns of South Mineral AQ: Class 1, N/A Creek from a point just above Cold its confluence with Clear Rec.: Class 2

9 Mainstem of Clear Creek from AQ: Class 1, N/A source to confluence with Cold South Mineral Creek. Rec.: Class 2 DOLORES RIVER SUB-BASIN

3. Mainstem of Dolores R. from AQ: Class 1, Evidence of heavy just above confluence with Cold mineralization due to Horse Creek to just above Rec.: Class 2 mining in region. confluence with Bear Creek.

6 Mainstems of Slate, Coke and AQ: Class 1, N/A Oven Creeks, from their Cold sources to their confluences Rec. Class 2 with Dolores R.

8 Mainstem of Horse Creek from AQ: Class 1, N/A source to confluence with Cold Dolores River. Rec Class 2 WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVI5* ^N'S PERMIT POLICY FOR MINING ACIDITIES

October 16, 1987

Agenda Item 1 - Attachment

COLORADO This policy was outlined in CMA memo dated September 24, 1987. To briefly MINING summarize, the policy principally affects (1) permitting point sources from ASSOCIATION abandoned mines where someone wishes to reenter for exploration purposes and Suite 330 (2) release from continuing liability at both active and Inactive mines using 1500 Grant Street statistical tests, Denver, CO 80203

(303) 894-0536 It is not clear how many cases of exploration activities affecting water quality at abandoned, draining mines there have been or will be. The most reasonable case would likely involve pumping a mine while repairs and exploration are undertaken. The mine owner and operator will be required to sample water quality before and after the exploration operations. If the principal criterion, that of not increasing the effluent loading, is not met, the operator and owner have "bought the store1' and will have a discharge permit in perpetuity.

The policy also specifies one year of monitoring after termination of activities to demonstrate compliance with permit limitations and water-quality standards.

We have expressed concerns in previous correspondence to you. Other reviewers have identified the following concerns:

1. At I.C., an "entity" is to make any predeterminations on a need for a permit. "Entity" is not defined. Ed: The context of its use suggests it refers to whom­ ever performs exploration. Does the CMA desire clarification?

2. Exploration drilling can produce artesian wells. The policy does not expressly address what to do with this flow. Ed: At a permitted, active mine site, it could be addressed in NPDES permit. Off-site and at exploration only sites its difficult-to-predict nature should preclude permitting. Can it be handled as BMP? Policy does not appear to address these issues.

3. At II.C., permits are to be issued jointly to the operator and property owner. Does this mean the BLM, FS and State, as property owners, will have a share of the permit? Ed: That's only fair.

4. Under II,D,, the discharge "without treatment" must meet criteria. The question arises as to what "without treatment" means. Would passive mine drainage (PMD) treatment be allowed? Ed: If PMD treatment were not allowed, there might be a conflict with soon-to-be-proposed PMD rules. On the other hand, it appears that WQCD had no intention of allowing PMD treatment to meet the criteria.

5. With regard to the use of the word "site" in II.D.1&3, how is this geographic­ ally defined?. The question arises with regard to active mining operations. Ed: It would appear appropriate to limit "site" to the area of a mine that directly affects the discharge in question.

6. With regard to the statistical analysis, the F test is not an appropriate test. Ed: With the limited data set, there is really no way to determine if the population is normal or non-normal. It is quite reasonable to presume non­ normality. A t test, even if used with natural logarithems of the data, is not a robust test of population equality. Realistically, statistics with small data sets are similar to projecting population distributions from censored data. The guidance should be modified to reduce dependence on any statistical tests. Bruce Humphries has offered the suggestions that follow (page 3 & 4 of 9/25/87 letter to Hardaway): To run a statistically proper evaluation, I would suggest the following method known as "Welch's approximate t." It can be used with equal or unequal vari­ ances where such cannot be proven.

The critical value is Student's t, with degrees of freedom of,

(sJ/nj + s2j/n2) ^ v =

[CsJ/n|)2 ] / nj-1 + [ (S^/ri2 )2 ] / ^ - 1

Note: The degrees of freedom should be rounded down to the next smaller integer.

In order to verify the appropriateness of this test (Student's t test), I've listed below some points from Zar, 1984. The basic assumptions in the appli­ cation of the Student's t test are "that both samples come at random from gonna1 populations with equal variances." However, the only critical factor is a random sample as shown below (the Division's policy seems to ignore this important point):

6 The t test is robust enough to stand considerable departures from its theoretical assumptions, especially if the sample sizes are equal or nearly equal, and especially when two-tailed hypotheses are considered" (7.nr. 1984).

0 "If there is considerable non-normality in the populations, then very _gm_all significant levels (say, ol <0.01) should not be depended upon" (Zar, T w : ------——* ------*—

Note that the policy statement of the Division wants the significant level at 99% (.Old). This should not be used according to Zar since, with such a small sample as proposed, one cannot test for normality. Further, we all know that water data tends to have a non-normal distribution. Thus the 95% confidence level would be more appropriate. However, the 99% confidence level would result in fewer test failures for a discharger. However, if the enclosed pro­ cedure were adopted it should not result in negative impacts to the d ischarger.

0 "The larger the samples, the more robust the test." (Zar, 1984). cont. 0 "The power of the two-tailed t test is very little affected by skewness in the samples populations, but there can be a serious effect on one-tailed tests" (Zar, 1984).

For cases where variances are equal, then the Student's t test proposed by the Division is acceptable. (The formula looks wrong, though.) Further, the Bartlett's test should be used to test for equal variances, not the F test. However, if the samples are not normally distributed, then no test is adequate for testing equality of variances (Zar, 1984). Thus, one should assume unequal variances and u9e the "Welch's approximate t" procedure.

1 compared the proposed procedure with unpaired t tests from two texts. The two statistical procedures I used gave the same calculated t value using the Division's example data. However, the resulting calculation from the two methods did not give the same value the Division calculated. Also, the Divi­ sion used a one-tail t table value which Zar (1984) considers inappropriate since it is less robust.

Using Zar's recommended procedure with a 95% confidence interval and a two-tail t test resulted in a calculated t value of +1.579. The two-tail table value for t with 2 degrees of freedom (after adjustment) was 4.303.

Using the method from Freeze (1967) the calculated t value was ^+1.5757 with a pooled degrees of freedom of 4 at the 95% confidence level and a t table value of 2.776.

The method recommended by Zar would be statistically correct since given the small sample size, one could not be confident that the samples came from normal populations. Also, I believe it would generally result in a test which would be more difficult for an operator to fail.

I've included excerpts of pages from Zar and Freeze which provide backup to what I've presented. If yu have any questions, please call.

Best regards,

H. Bruce Humphries Sr. Environmental Engineer

H B H /jb

Enclosure pc file ~rkete. s u a éa J o m } ^ l ^ / u ^ cxZ s c Î s <

J t / d i f ^ é i ^ £

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH rtLusut. Water Quality Control Division As' A- T T É j l À *7 Drinking Water/Groundwater Section H ^ r ^

MEMORANDUM ¿Ot/Ùh ^ /£ SfcC

TO: Water Quality Control Commission I) f) FOR YOUR FROM: John Leifer Ç \ J < , / I INFORMATION s y l l / u L — Colorado Mining A$«ocfaftal DATE; July 23, 1987 / {

SUBJECT: Modifications to the "Basic Standards and Methodologies" with Respect to Ground Water

On Monday,July 20, a meeting was held between Jan Laitos, Paul Frohardt, Greg Brand and rayself in which modifications to the—"Basic Standards-and Methodologies".with respect to ground water were discussed. During our discussions, four (4) major issues were raised. Pursuant to Jan Laitos' request, I have outlined these issues for the Commission’s review. These issues are presented from the perspective that the State should have two (2) separate State water classifications/standards systems; one for surface water and one for ground water.

Issue 1

The "Basic Standards and Methodologies," in current form, make quite a few references to "Waters of the State." Both surface and ground waters are included under this definition. Not only is this confusing, but some language actually conflicts with adopted language in "The Basic Standards for Ground ^ Water.1'

For purposes of clarifying these regulations, the Commission could:

a) Redefine "Waters of the State" to mean only surface waters; when ground water is meant then it could be specifically stated (See page 4); or

b) Create a definition for "waters" or "water" which would mean "surface water"; or

c) Specifically change all references that oean surface water to say exactly that; or

d) A combination of a), b) , and/or c) above.

Issue 2

Some specific references to ground water in the regulations should be deleted due to the adoption of "Tne Basic Standards for Ground Water." \Xs Page 2, 3.1.3, delete the reference that this system applys to ground water. Page 4, 3.1.5 (24), modify definition of "Waters of the State" See 1.

Page 18, 3.1.13, delete reference to classifying ground water in thiF system.

Page 20, 3.1.13 (1) (d) (i), delete entire paragraph.

Page 20, 3.1.13 Cl) (d) (ii), delete the last full sentence in this paragraph which refers to ground water.

Issue 3

Some specific references to ground water in the regulations„should still be retained, because”-in these instances ground water quality is a relevant fact»’i' in determining surface water classifications and standards.

Page 14, 3.1.9 (3) (b) (vii), retain this language to keep possible ground water contamination as a factor in determining mixing zones.

Page 14, 3.1.10, retain this language to keep possible ground water contamination as a factor in assessing discharges to dry stream beds.

Page 29, footnote (3), retain reference to drinking water to protect livestock.

IssueI L4 ^ ^

Specific language limiting radioactive and organic contamination of ground ^ water should be deleted from these regulations. The Commission may wish to consider adding these provisions to "The Basic Standards for Ground Water.” These are statewide standards, as opposed to site-specific standards, which some earlier date the Commission decided to make applicable to all state ground water.

Page 15, 3.1.11 (2), specifically limits radioactive contamination of ground waters. Page 36, paragraph 1, provides additional information.

Page 15, 3.1.11 (3), specifically limits organic contamination of groin.^ waters. Page 40, paragraphs 3-6, provides additional information.

JL/lc November 6, 1987

TO: CMA WATER QUALITY WORK GROUP

SUBJECT: Meeting of Water Quality Work Group Friday, November 20, 1987 7:30 AM - 10:00 AM - Coffee available COLORADO MINING Denver Athletic Club, 3rd Fir, Room:Denver V ASSOCIATION 1325 Glenarm Place, Denver CO Suite 330 1500 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 (Preceeding the Board of Directors Meeting) (303)894-0536 AGENDA

1. COLORADO MINE DRAINAGE REPORT - CSM/MLRD. The Water-Quallty data used for the report are "up" on dBase. Do we want to pursue any "monitoring" of such data 1n the long term? Should CMA play any role In the Issue of mining and water quality?

2. The Water-Quallty Control Division's Policy on Permits for Mining-Related Point Sources, WQ p-5. (Draft discussion document enclosed),

3. WATER-QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ACTIVITIES.

a. Ant1degradat1on and other Basic Standards. Public hearing March 1988. (We hope to have proposed language by time of meetlng).

b. B1omon1tor1ng. Public hearing April, 1988.

c. Passive Mine Drainage Rules. Public hearing February 1988.

d. Stream Standards. "207 hearings" and what happens come August 1988? There a number of 207 hearings scheduled. At least three involve mining. It may be useful to discuss two topics:

(1) If a change in stream standards is desired, how are we addressing the mathematics of calculating ambient water quality, and (2) If we are Involved with waters classified for aquatic use, what are our thoughts regarding determining dissolved concentrations and hardness?

4. CMA POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON WATER QUALITY.

5. OTHER BUSINESS.

R.S.V.P. - Enclosed Card or 894-0536

DRC:SAH WQ-44

FEB. 17-19,1968 DENVER COLORADO

NATIffMAI WFCTFRN MINING COLORADO MINING ASSOCIATION TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS Suite 330. 1500 Grant Street & SUSTAINING MEMBERS THANKSGIVING GREETINGSFR014 Denver, CO 80203

(303)894-0536 RE: BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D a v e : 10:00 AM, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1987 S B I R h l Denver Athletic Club, Denver Room III & L I S / 1325 Glenarm Place, Denver, CO

AGENDA

1. Consideration of Minutes of 10/16/87 meeting (enclosed). 2. Treasurer's Report, 3. Membership Committee Report. 4. CMA Education Foundation Report. 5. 1988 National Western Mining Conference, 6. Public Lands Committee Report. 7. Coal Committee Report. 8. Minerals Availability Report. Find Fine Feathered Friend» 9; Environmental Affairs Committee Reports. As pinn>m an* to stool . A ikI l>l.irKhinls ¡ire to jiii1; 10. State Affairs Committee Report. Si) storks nrr lor i">rm)'tions 11. Executive Committee Report. Willi friHlim to fly. Knnlr' llitnnt thi-ir Imlit. »inti ¡«Ion«. . The mv| with itll his hoot Hiing« «'¡stlniii minus urns As rnhim' Iu im Ms nr»* p-d . A cash bar and lunch ($13.00 each) will follow the meeting. Ami hitsi' hi\vi> natural So hinK liihnhit jail Please R.S.V.P. by November 18, 1987 with the enclosed card. Ami »lows bring c.ir it pciur. |,nv» hir»ls woo with enn . . Please indicate on the card if you will be staying for 1 unch ■;Aml cr;tnrs wlionji-whntij) • . as it is necessary for us to make a luncheon guarantee. ' w ith (lh'11; But n ifll Tlw ii^Bi' lujj’s tnrVry . Those making luncheon reservations and not attending or M m t I’M'r ti'U

T hi’. cancelling by the 18th will be billed $13.00 for the luncheon.

WE WELCOME THIS NEW SUSTAINING MEMBER!! DAMES & MOORE Brian Kiernan, Project Manager 1626 Cole Boulevard Golden, CO 80401 (303) 232-6262

R.S.V.P. - ENCLOSED CARD gen-60

FEB. 17‘19.19BB OENVER COLORADO

NATIONAL WESTERN MINING TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM

September 23, 1987

TO: Water Quality and Water Resources Committee

FROM: Legislative Council Staff

SUBJECT: Other State Permit Fees

The attached information 1s 1n response to your request for data concerning the level of permit fees 1n other states. The Division of Water Quality conducted a sampling of the permit fees of 12 states and has provided Attachment A for your reference. In addition, staff has included a summary of state permit systems compiled by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (Attachement B), This summary and table is intended to provide additional Information pertaining to the costs of permits 1n other states.

For further information please contact J1m Hill or Scott Nachtrleb, 866-3521. Division of Water Quality Attachment A SAMPLING OF STATE I'T-RMI T FRF SYSTEMS July 1987 Application/ Annual EiniHun/ Not Annual Fee to Easis A p p r o x . No. of Staff Connects What? Construct of fee no. of State Filing Fee Fee Maxinuo P e m i t s

900 28 5 year permit. Annual fee Colorado No Yes ¿80. - No Facility ¿11,000 type and only. No additional charge design f o r perait acendr.ersts or flow renewals.

New Jersey Yes ¿200./ No ¿50,000. . .

30 - 100 Statewide stsff, office is PrT.r.sy-.vènia Yes No NPDES - 5 years Y?s N/A N P D E S " 5C0. 7 0 0 . -SCO. decentralized. Jses pai£ State - Stats — vh-ar. application is filed. 25. - 900. per Not self-supporting. Two 500. year part permit process: 1). NPDES 2). State - in order to have perait, peroittee sust have NPDES (const, and Oper) perait.

U n k n o w n Unknown State has a modification fee Connecticut Combined Yes ¿50- - Nc T y p e of with Annual 22,000. discharge of ¿300.00 each tiree a perait is oodified. Permits are for a five year period. SAMPLING OF ST.-

Basis Approx. >’o. ot Starr Cornents Application/ Annual Miniiauz-J Hot Annual Construct of fee no. or 5taCe Filing Fee Fee KasiruE What/ Permits

Reglations were revised and Yes (one Cost of 100 Yes ¿1,500- - approved Jyly 15, 19B7. Delaware -° tine only writing/ If rercittee does r.ct reappl? new fac.) issuance vithin loO days prior to exuiration — new percit is written and issued. Permits are for 5 year period. Progran not self-supporting.

a^eeor-/ Per-ite are icr ^ year r*— the highest charge tc- ¿Hte Kansas --c 'es ¿18,000. cesign f l o v has beer. S 8 ;

Ysi Category/ Fee Paid u P°n issuance o; $200. — 5 Yr- fee KentucV.y "es — 20s* of No ¿250. - design permit. $1,600. total fee ¿1,000. flow con-refundable one time o n l y Attachment ß

STATE FEE INFORMATION SURVEY SUMMARY OF RESULTS JANUARY 1985 A5IWPCA Summary of State Fee Information

42 states and the Territory of Guam responded as of December 1, 1984.

Summary^ot^ ^ ^ states) had fee programs prior to 1980, All of these states have programs in 1984. 2. 65% (28 of the states) did not have programs prior to 1980. Of these 35%, or an additional 10 states, have programs today for a current total of 58%. Of the IB states that still do not have fee programs, only Idaho indicated that legislation had been denied to give them the authority to establish a fee system. Additionally, Alabama and Iowa stated they have authority but do not have a system, however, Alabama is currently developing one. Maryland has regulations proposed and adoption is expected. 3. Of the 25 states that have systems, 22 said their system was a permit fee system. 4 22 states require an initial fee, 13 states have a fee for construction only, 11 states have a fee for both construction and discharge permits, and 20 states have a fee for discharge permits only. 5 21 states require a renewal fee, with 8 of these having an annual fee. -The remainder, with the exception of Oklahoma and Missouri which have a one-time fee, have a renewal fee every five (5) years that coincides with the NPDE5 permit renewal. 6. 11 states charge for plan review for extensions of existing systems. 7, Only five (5) states charge for review of industrial hook-ups to a municipal system whether or not a line extension is involved. B. The percentage of Section 106 water pollution control Program money that the fee system generates ranged from 0.02% in Kentucky to 247 /o in the Territory of Guam with an average of 15% (excluding Guam). 9. The percentage generated in comparison to the federal 106 program allocation ranged from 0.08% in Kentucky to 136% in Colorado with an average of 25.5%. 10. The minimum range for fees was $1042229. The maximum range for fees was $50-$50,000. The maximum fee for Guam is $25, but each facility pays an $8/month discharge fee. Kansas has a maximum fee of $lB5/year/mgd design capacity and for any portion thereof. Nevada has a maximum of $100 plus $25 for each additional discharger. Oregon has a $50 filing fee, a $75-$10D0 permit processing fee, and a $100-$1325 compliance determination fee due annually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fee Foe Permit Initiol Fee Fee If not Fee Fee fo r S o f % o f Min M ax Stotc System System Fee Fee To To Renewal Annual W I T N t u I , for inriieitrinl Total 106 Fee 1 IT 1900 Now System System Com lnict Ulsduirgu 1 OC l"ee w!»at? extension hook-up 1 0 6 $ Fed $ tt) Indiana

Iowa No No

Knnsn3 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No 7 5 1(15 IB S

Kentucky No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5yr No No <0.1 <0.1 50 000

Louisiana No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No 79 2 50 11000

Maine Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5yr Yes Yes 3 Q 30 3335

Maryland No No

Massachusetts i i Mirhiqan 1 1 Minncf.ota No No

Mississippi No No

Missn« iri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Life No No 1 4 75 75 1 Mni ilana No No 1 ' ! Nebraska .

P a y e 2 o f h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 If not Fee Fee for % of % af Min Max Fee Fee Permit Initial Fee Fee Fee iV r Stole System System Fee Fee To To Renewal Annual annual, for industrial Total 106 19B0 Now System System Construct Discharge Fee Fee what? extension hook-up 106 $ Fed $ (S) (ii

South Dakota No No

Tennessee No No

Territory of Guam Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No 247 64 25 25»

Texas

Utah No Yes No No No Yes No 1 3 50 50

Vermont Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5yr No Yes 2 13 111 inn

Virginia No No

Washington No No

West Virginia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 5yr Yes No 0.3 1 50 50

Wisconsin Yes Yes No No No No No 20 58 110 49000

Wyoming No No

Yes 15 25 22 22 13 20 21 0 11 5 No 20 IB _3 _3 _9 _2 _4 13 14 20 TOTAL: A3 A3 25 25 22 22 25 21 25 25 production in 1985 had taken a big drop. The recovery in amended Safe Drinking Water Act (July 11, 1986, p. 412; production volumes merely offset that drop and showed a June 27, 1986, p. 251). modest real gain, they said. Under the conservation reserve program, the government enters long-term leases with farmers to take land out of Concern for the Users agricultural production. The Department of Agriculture Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich) at the hearing March 9 does this with land that is highly erodible to preserve soil expressed concern for the users of CFCs. CFCs are manufac­ and with wetlands to preserve them as wildlife habitats, to tured by only a few firms worldwide and, in the United control non-point source water pollution, and for other States there are five manufacturers, he said. “But there are purposes. thousands of user firms.” Most of the user firms, he said, are Under Durenberger’s anticipated bill, the federal govern­ probably not aware of global negotiations on a protocol to ment would be able to lease farm land in order to protect protect the ozone layer, “let alone the U.S. proposals for public drinking water wells from contamination. CFC/Halon reductions.” Dingell said he had written in January to EPA and State Timing Said Uncertain Department officials to tell them of his support for limits on The aide said he could not predict when Durenberger will future CFC use. He said that in February, he co-sponsored H introduce the measures, although the latter three may be ConRes 50 stressing that support, “while expressly opposing offered within the next month. He said it is unlikely Duren­ unilateral action by the United States, either administrative­ berger will introduce the comprehensive bill until late in ly or legislatively.” spring. He said, “I am deeply concerned that our chief negotiator, Durenberger Introduced a groundwater research measure Ambassador Richard Benedick, and his EPA staff support (S 513) drafted in the House in order to put the issue before are negotiating almost on a ‘seat-of-the-pants’ basis. I am the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee concerned that they lack adequate technical and policy (March 6, p. 1862). support within the Administration, and that they may be However, in a Feb. 5 floor statement, he criticized S 513 trying to bow too far toward those seeking very stringent because it would put USGS in full control of research on reductions now." groundwater. Durenberger said that EPA should play a Unilateral action by the United States to reduce CFC major role in directing future federal research, since it has emissions, while opposed by EPA Administrator Lee Thom­ regulatory responsibilities for protecting groundwater. as and Benedick, had the support of the World Resources Although Durenberger is preparing to introduce the other Institute. Testifying on its behalf, Irving Mintzer told the bills, the senator’s aide said that members of the Senate House Energy panel that the institute favors a $5-per-pound Environment and Public Works Committee are not yet tax on the most dangerous CFCs, and unilateral legislative ready to focus on the groundwater issue. They have been action in the United States if necessary. taken up with air pollution Issues, the aide said. Similarly, Daniel J. Dudek of the Environmental Defense Fund told the panel that, while it is desirable to have an international agreement on the issue, “it is not an impera­ Groundwater tive that should inhibit our own national efforts to achieve a solution. Rather than asserting that no one country can go it PLETHORA OF ISSUES RAISED IN COMMENTS alone and make a difference, we should consider how much ON EPA GROUNDWATER CLASSIFICATION PROPOSAL of the problem could be solved by unilateral U.S. action.” State’s rights, degradation versus non-degradation of groundwater, and problems of implementation and funding were among a plethora of questions raised in comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ground­ Groundwater water classification guidelines as the public comment period DURENBERQER PREPARES TO OFFER FOUR MEASURES, closed March 2. ONE OVERALL BILL, TWO AIMED AT FARM CHEMICALS Comments from states, manufacturing and oil companies, In the upcoming months, Sen. David F. Durenberger (R- waste handlers, environmental groups, federal agencies, and Minn) plans to introduce four separate measures aimed at associations representing pesticide manufacturers, mine op­ protecting groundwater, including two related to agricultur­ erators, and water suppliers were among 76 opinions re­ al contamination problems, an aide to the Minnesota Repub­ ceived by the agency at the comment period’s conclusion. lican told BNA March 6. When finalized, the classification guidelines will have a The aide said Durenberger plans to offer: major influence on superfund cleanup requirements, agency ► A comprehensive groundwater protection bill that will permit decisions, land use planning, and a wide-range of be a refined version of draft legislation informally circulat­ environmental matters. ed earlier this year for comment (Current Developments, Marian Mlay, director of EPA’s Office of Ground-Water Feb. 6, p. 1708); Protection, told BNA March 11 that she hopes the guidelines ► A measure to bring about more research on ground­ will come out in final form by early summer. water problems by setting up a program that would be run cooperatively by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. States File Largest Number of Comments Geological Survey, and other government entities; States constituted the single largest group that comment­ ► A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and the ed on the guidelines and they stressed the supremacy of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to re­ state control over groundwater, and in almost all cases, the duce the threat to human health of pesticide contamination need for a groundwater “non-degradation policy.” Several in drinking water, and, states echoed Nevada’s concern that the differential levels ► Legislation to amend the conservation reserve title of of protection in EPA’s guidelines “imply that a class III the recently passed Food Security Act to make it consistent aquifer [defined as not suitable for drinking water] can be with the wellhead protection program established in the further polluted.”

Copyright © 1987 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C. 0013-9211/67/$0-f .80 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS 1889 Nevada’s Department of Conservation and Natural Re­ duct an ‘‘unwarranted” rigorous hydrogeologic investigation sources wrote, “Due to the extremely limited water re­ to avoid an “improper and unnecessarily burdensome sources available to this rapidly growing state, class III groundwater classification” for its oil and gas operations or aquifers may be reclaimed in the future.” injection wells and other disposal sites. The department added that to allow “significant degrada­ The company also opposed the two-mile classification tion” to such an aquifer would be “an extremely short­ review area radius, endorsing instead the current one-fourth sighted viewpoint, and not acceptable to Nevada.” of a mile radius outlined in the underground Injection con­ The American Water Works Association made the same trol regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. point, noting that guidelines could result in a “free-for-all” The guidelines’ definition of a classification review area, for waste disposal in class III aquifers, making them “total­ as well as the Interconnection of “groundwater units ” also ly unacceptable as future drinking water sources.” Continu­ was challenged by the National Agricultural Chemicals ing, the association said that “our ability to forecast future Association. The association said a clarification is necessary demands just isn’t reliable enough to allow that to happen.” when it comes to use of agrichemicals and other agricultur­ Many states, such as New Jersey, Maine, Virginia, and al practices that may cover large areas. Additionally, the Texas, commented that their current or proposed classifica­ association urged that “shallow groundwater,” which may tion systems were preferable to EPA’s. They expressed hold agrichemicals, be “clearly” excluded from being desig­ concern over the criteria for determining “equivalency” of a nated as class II groundwater. state classification program in enforcement of environmen­ Like others, the association underscored the “primary tal laws. role” of states and local jurisdictions in determining water California, for instance, wished to ensure that its “equiv­ management priorities and urged that EPA consider views alent” method, which identifies beneficial uses of ground­ of federal agencies, such as the Agriculture Department and water and defines what program actions are needed to U.S. Geological Survey. protect those uses, would be judged at least as stringent as EPA’s classification method and therefore equivalent. USQS Comments, No Protection for Irrigation Uses Several states expressed concern that the differential USGS said the proposal would not provide sufficient con­ levels of protection would result in “inappropriate empha­ sideration for the protection of water used for irrigation. sis” on class I groundwater, which is to receive the highest This water would be classified as class III and therefore level of protection. Minnesota said it “appears inevitable” provided no specific protection for “metals and organics that use of classification would “sooner of later” affect that might be accumulated by crops,” USGS said. federal funding decisions, noting that it “may have few if The service also raised questions about the how the sys­ any” class I areas. tem would be carried out. It wrote that “different interests Three-Tier Classification System in EPA,” enforcing different regulations while using the The “Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification Under classification system, could produce possibly conflicting re­ the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy” is a 400-page sults for the same site. USGS’s also urged that guidelines be document that would establish a three-tier, hierarchical added to aid in predicting potential groundwater water classification system based on the water’s “value to development. society, use, and vulnerability to contamination” (Current Concerning how to measure vulnerability, USGS said EPA Developments, Dec. 12, 1986, p. 1331). should provide guidelines to aid in determining when a It would establish a “classification review area” delineat­ qualitative versus quantitative estimation method should be ed by a two-mile radius from the boundaries of a “facility” employed. or “activity” affecting groundwater, such as a hazardous In rating groundwater vulnerability, Battelle Corp. said waste disposal facility or a farm where pesticides are used. that neither the qualitative nor the quantitative method The proposal offered several options to be considered in were adequate, and instead recommended a rating scheme comments, such as quantitative versus qualitative methods that provides “the complete data set available to the hydro- to measure groundwater’s "vulnerability.” geologist,” including “solute transport parameters and de­ Despite the various criticisms leveled in the comments, tailed structural Information.” there was overall recognition of the need for a groundwater classification system and those commenting almost univer­ Opposition to Site-By-Site System sally applauded EPA’s attempt to initiate the system. How­ Several environmental organizations supported the plan's ever, there was little consensus beyond these points. differential protection of groundwater, but opposed a site* by-site classification system. Instead, organizations, such as CM A Says Criteria ‘Too Limiting' the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Feder­ Along with the states, the Chemical Manufacturers Asso­ ation, and the Conservation Law Foundation, endorsed an ciation called for state primacy in any classification or “anticipatory classification system,” in which groundwater groundwater management program. The association also would be classified based on existing and potential uses criticized the EPA classification criteria as “too limiting.” rather than just in the context of site specific land use In the case of class II groundwater, defined in the guidelines decisions. as a current or potential source of drinking water but one Citing EPA’s concern over the time necessary to complete that is not highly vulnerable to contamination, CMA said such a hydrogeologic inventory, EDF estimated that a EPA should modify its definition to include factors such as “rough cut” in most states could be completed in two to five the availability and cost of providing alternate drinking years. CLF said that many states already have such an water. Inventory in progress. Texaco Inc. voiced concerns that the classification system NWF added that EPA’s proposal to initiate a classifica­ could adversely affect oil and gas operations and siting and tion review when a facility is permitted or when other site- operation of hazardous waste sites. The company specifical­ specific action is considered will place pressure on private ly was concerned that the system would require it to con­ companys to seek the lowest possible rating.

Environment Reporter 0013-9211/67/S0+.50 As one of several recommendations, NWF and other complex and protective of groundwater” and recommended environmental organizations urged that the guidelines "ex­ that “where the classification process would be triggered by pressly state” that the classification not be used as “an an activity subject to SMCRA, the EPA strategy not apply.” excuse” to relax environmental controls and that the agency not delay the imposition of source controls while determin­ ing the classification level, no matter whether EPA adopts a reactive or anticipatory scheme. Water Pollution Oklahoma League of Women Voters Comments FLEXIBILITY OF EPA GUIDANCE SAID VITAL Calling the determination of vulnerability the “Achilles TO STATE TOXICS PROGRAMS UNDER WATER ACT heel” of the class I and II designation, the League of Women States’ ability to meet a February 1989 deadline for Voters in Oklahoma said the scientific information is not listing segments of state waters with toxic pollution prob­ available to make this determination. Consequently, the lems will depend on the flexibility the Environmental Pro­ league recommended a “national non-degradation goal,” tection Agency gives states to use existing resources and rather than trying to achieve consistency through an “unen­ professional judgment, according to several state officials forceable classification and guidelines strategy allowing interviewed by BNA. degradation.” Many states have databases and monitoring systems for On the other hand, Waste Management Inc., which identi­ toxic pollutants in surface waters, and state officials said fied itself as “the nation’s largest service company involved they would like to use these in the listings. The officials also in collecting, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and solid said they want EPA to allow them to use existing state wastes,” called the draft guidelines “too restrictive” and control programs, where appropriate, as the individual con­ charged that they “appear to promote a non-degradation trol strategies to accompany those lists. policy.” The Clean Water Act amendments (PL 100-4), enacted by Both Waste Management and the National Solid Wastes Congress in February, require both a "long list” of waters Management Association were concerned about how the that are not expected to meet water quality standards due to classification guidelines would be Integrated with already any toxic pollutants and a “short list” of waters that will not existing federal environmental programs. The association meet the standards due to point-source discharges of any of commented that the current standards are “already ex­ the 126 toxic pollutants listed under Section 307(a) of the tremely restrictive, and are quite adequate for protecting Clean Water Act (Current Developments, Feb. 13, p. 1731). groundwater and have a major impact on the ability of New York, for example, already has a comprehensive industry to provide needed management services for both monitoring program and a computerized database on its hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.” waters. “If they adopt a reasonable approach and provide The two waste handling organizations also were critical of states with regulatory flexibility to use best professional the two-mile classification review area, with the association judgment,” the task probably will be manageable, Daniel saying that it is excessive for point sources and may be Barolo, water division director at the New York Department inadequate for non-point sources. of Environmental Conservation, told BNA March 6. In another viewpoint, the Water Supply Citizens Advisory If, however, EPA “prescribes a specific formula,” featur­ Committee of Massachusetts noted that the two-mile area ing fixed numbers of samples, limited types of instrumenta­ was an “improvement over most state law[s].” But the tion, and assessment for all 126 “priority pollutants” in committee noted that groundwater moves slowly and EPA every water segment, the task will be difficult even for should set out standards allowing for an increase in the states with sound and comprehensive programs, Barolo radius. added. “The states can do it, if we craft the guidance correctly,” Interior Department Voices Harsh Criticisms William A. Whittington, director of water regulations and One of the harshest criticisms came from the Department standards in EPA’s Water Office, told BNA March 5. “We of Interior, which called the guidelines "fuzzy, potentially are trying to do some smart thinking up front so we don't costly and subject to misapplication, and biased against publish something that is inefficient or presents a crushing environmentally sound development,” burden” for states, he said. Assistant Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles said EPA “is grossly in error in its contention that the existing ground­ Maryland Official Urges Focus on Problem Areas water data base will satisfy [the guideline’s] data A requirement to sample for all 126 pollutants in all state requirements.” waters would impose an excessive burden on some states, He also charged that EPA’s discussion of "ecologically Kenneth E. McElroy, director of planning and analysis for vital groundwater” was so vague as to “preclude predictabi­ Maryland’s Office of Environmental Programs, told BNA lity by the regulated community.” Griles said that Interior March 6. and EPA working groups that address issues relating to “We hope there would be some rationality used and mining and fluid mineral development do not appear to have flexibility to allow states to address problem areas,” McEl­ been contacted in the course of writing the guidelines. roy said. Maryland officials are aware of the state’s water Also strongly critical was the Mining Reclamation Coun­ quality problems, and have focused their efforts on industri­ cil of America, which said the guidelines continued a focus alized areas near Baltimore; the populous Washington, D.C., on a “myopic groundwater protection (i.e. land use planning) suburbs; and tributaries feeding into the Chesapeake Bay, he process.” The council added that the coal industry was noted. (See related item in this issue.) “extremely troubled” by EPA's continued lack of consider­ Monitoring resources should be concentrated in these ation of equally “valuable and important, resources and locations, not in the sparsely populated central and western federal programs,” such as coal mining. portions of the state, McElroy said. Local pollution prob­ The mining group said groundwater protection under the lems caused by individual industries, of course, would not be Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is “sufficiently ignored wherever they occur, he added.

Copyright

Mr. Carl Hund, Manager Air & Water Quality Control CF&I Steel Corporation P. 0. Box 316 Pueblo, CO 81002

Re: Groundwater Quality Regs Dear Carl:

I have finally had an opportunity to carefully read through the final Basic Standards for Groundwater together with the statement of basis and purpose and the fiscal statement which accompany them. The changes made just prior to final adoption have made the groundwater quality regulations less onerous initially, because they do not immediately apply to any activities. The problems they may create will be in the longer term implementation by the Commission, the Division, or other state agencies. Of course, at this time, it is very difficult to assess how these regulations will ultimately be implemented, but the Commission intends to look at the permit regulations and at control regulations for pits, ponds, and lagoons. Because the new scheme is for the Commission to do any rulemaking hearings for classification and standards setting, there will be an opportunity to be heard if such a classification is initiated* It is unclear how that process would commence, but presumably another state agency, a permit applicant, someone concerned with a proposed activity, or the Commission itself could initiate rulemaking. In that process, the Commission would determine the classification based on the criteria in 3.11.4. They would also generally use the two-mile radius for the "specified area.11 Finally, the numeric criteria in the tables would generally be applied, although there is a theoretical opportunity to argue as to whether those numeric values are appropriate for the given specific location. For the first time, the Commission has also included a variance provision which allows it to modify the table values as it determines may be appropriate. As you know, I have always been Mr. Carl Hund February 4, 1987 Page 2 disturbed that the Commission has considered these matters with little or no real data on the existing quality of Colorado's groundwaters. Of course, we have no way of really determining what that present quality may be in most areas of the State, or how it would relate to the table values. The use of the State Engineer's well records and applicable court decrees for water rights continues to appear in the criteria for classification. The Commission has inserted a provision which allows an applicant to rebut such "paper" rights, but that will be difficult in the practical sense because a water right owner will necessarily argue to preserve the possibility of the future use of the permit or decree.

The narrative standards provision is unchanged from earlier versions. The Statement of Basis and Purpose at page 23, seems to limit that function to the Commission. If that is the case, there would be no basis to challenge. The Commission recommends the use of the classifications and standards as guidance to the agencies, whether or not a rulemaking proceeding has occurred. It remains to be seen how the other agencies will interpret this. The solid waste management and RCRA programs could be affected. As before, the regulations, at page 11, continue to apply the groundwater quality standards to existing as well as new activities. This will not only create burdens in retroactive application and retrofitting of existing facilities, but it will also be difficult in determining background water quality levels. I have not tried to technically review the numeric criteria in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. Obviously, there has been a good deal of discussion from various groups commenting to the Commission. Very few of those comments were accepted. My understanding was that there was substantial scientific question as to the validity or applicability of certain of these numeric criteria to Colorado groundwaters and uses. Obviously, there is also a continuing debate over whether secondary drinking water standards should be applied to groundwater in place. W ELBORN, DUFFORD, BROWN © TOOLEY

Mr. Carl Hund February 4, 1987 Page 3

These regulations will be published in early February, to be effective March 10, 1987. Judicial review must be sought within 30 days after the regulations become effective. A number of parties will be reviewing whether or not judicial review should be sought. My gut feeling is that such review would be unsuccessful in the long-run. Nevertheless, it may be important to file for judicial review in order to preserve arguments which will become important upon implementation of the regulation by the Commission, the Division, or other a g e n c i e s .

When you have had a chance to digest some of this, why don't you give me a call so that we can discuss it.

Very truly yours,

WELBORN, DUFFORD, BROWN & TOOLEY

b-. KoUr/jrf) William C. Robb WCR/jjb E n e l .

cc: Kenneth L. Roche, Jr., Esq. (w/o encl.) OOLO- LINING ASSN.

JfW l 2 1937

P. Andreas, R. BohUng DATE: January 8, 1987 D. Crouch, J. Danni FROM SUBJECT: J. Hardaway January Colorado Water Quality Commission Activities

1.0 GROUND-WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS - PROMULGATED

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopted final ground-water quality classification and standards regulations on January 5, 1987. There 1s a major change 1n the soon-to-be promulgated regulations from the more recent editions. Classifi­ cations are to be made only by the Commission through rule-making. Other agencies are encouraged to use the regulations as guidance unless the legal authorities of those agencies require use of the ground-water quality regulations. The rule-making may be initia­ ted by the Commission or by petition from the Water Quality Control Division, other state agencies, or any person (including a regulated entity). There 1s also a variance provision.

The new language, which will occur at 3.11.7, is attached (Attach­ ment I). There were additional changes in the regulations, most of which were aligned with the new tact of Commission-only classification. The final edition of the regulations 1s to be prepared by the end of the week. The change to 3.11.7 was brought about by a draft "privileged information" memorandum from the Attorney General's office regarding "delegation."

You may note, from reading new Subsection B of 3.11.7, that the acceptance of petitions is based somewhat on the Commission's workload, the adequacy of the data base, and the last date of classification of the area. On the one hand, you could hypothe­ size that, until activity-control regulations are developed, the likelihood of classification of an area affecting your operations is low. It is quite likely that there is nothing related to the authorities of the Mined Land Reclamation Division or Board that requires compliance with the regulation as promulgated. However, because a petition to classify may be instituted by "anyone,” some would argue that there could be considerable risk Involved if authorization of a ground-water impact that violated these new standards were relied upon 1n an existing or new permit.

I believe it is noteworthy that after the Commission's considera­ tion and adoption of these changes, based on guidance from counsel FOR YOUR INFORMATION Colorado Mining Association and at the initiative of Commissioner Smith, the changes were unanimously considered "not substantial." This decision was, supposedly, based on the occurrence of a similar approach in much earlier versions of the regulations. The fact that one Commis­ sioner termed the accepted changes as "major" during deliberations was ignored during the final voting. It seems inconsistent to completely remove other agency actions from the purview of the regulations and to then consider there to be no substantive change - just as others have pointed out that it is inconsistent for the Commission to nit-pick words of the regulation, to make assign­ ments to Commission members for final revisions, and to promulgate a rule without a final reading, as they have done again. Based on these actions, and from observation of the Division Director overruling his staff on typing the final version of the regula­ tions, it would appear that all involved are "burned out," and in no mood to proceed cautiously.

2.0 SURFACE-WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS - COMMISSIONERS TO STUDY FIVE "ISSUES11

On January 6, the Water Quality Control Commission continued consideration of the proposed changes in surface-water quality standards designed to protect aquatic life. The session was initiated by a "polling" of commissioners. The summary positions of the Commissioners are reported below. My sense was that no Commissioner had a clear "agenda" and, therefore, that the positions were not well-thought out. There was no strong push to proceed with the whole proposal. In fact, there was a slight tendency to retain the existing standards and methodologies, or to provide the new procedures as an alternative.

"Summary Positions of Commissioners" -

R.P. - Some things are helpful, but have not decided which ones. Definitely not substitute alkalinity for hardness. Those with low hardness conditions will have problems; those with high hardness will see benefits. (Ed: No discussion of whether aquatic life needs more stringent standards took place.)

S.J. - Equations are complex and a source of confusion, though x+s is a valid procedure.

J.L. - Unclear as to the original objectives of assigning a Task Force. Believes the ammonia data base is too small to support change. (Ed: No one considered why the metals data bases were to be considered as more complete than the ammonia data base.)

L.B. - Need to review low-flow study and need a classification system along with the proposal. Data for ammonia toxicity are too scarce for developing a change in standards. Hold off, apply a few concepts, possibly provide as an option to dischargers. (Ed: A preoccupation with nitrogen is apparent. Again, it is hard to see how anyone could find the metals data more complete than the nitrogen/ammonia data.)

C.K. - Would be comfortable with no change. Not much to gain through this added complexity.

T.S. - Because the past methodology (x+s and Chauvenet's crite­ rion) was not based on a "very scientific basis," the improved accuracy of the proposed method is an important advantage. Can't avoid complexity in science. Proceed to outline the topics for debate, but not prepared to debate just yet.

B.B. - Proposal involves more precise, tighter methodologies, but effort and costs would increase with not much change in product. Need to consider recurrence, flows, and classification in "pack­ age." If dual system and get different answers from the different methods, "one must be wrong."

T.F. - Objective was to have Task Force recommend a consensus approach to regulated community's desire for changes and the EPA's position that technical flexibility was available. Instead, "we" found that our standards are out-of-date. Possibly we could allow a dual system. Perhaps a few elements could be implemented (nitrite-nitrate in drinking water, monthly standards, hardness formulae). 5c+s is "loose." Need classification process. Move forward and grapple with issues.

B.U. - Because bottom line 1s not very different, why change? Need classification for "ephemeral" streams. Plagued by detection limits. Need to deliberate some of the items.

After more debate, much of which revolved around the use of x+s, the use of dissolved rather than total, and a lack of willingness to try to determine what the problems were that needed "fixing," the Commission decided to assign Commissioners to five Issue areas. These areas are outlined below and are explained in Attachment II. The Commissioner assignments are also shown below:

Issue Areas:

1. Use of One-Half of the Final Acute Value When Monitoring is Insufficient. (Also Alkalinity vs. Hardness) Commissioners: B.P., S.J.

2. Use of Potentially Dissolved Method Commissioners: B.B., B.U.

3. Low Flows Commissioners: T.S,

4. Ambient Standards - 50th and 90th percentiles Commissioners: C.K., S.J. 5. Unionized Ammonia Standards Commissioners: L.B., J.L.

I think it is correct to predict that the Commissioners are now involved in a subjective learning process during which we will listen to misconstructions of the Task Group's recommendations, a lack of willingness to review the EPA data base, and a lack of willingness to search for in-stream data that indicate the need for different standards, or the effect of a "potentially dis­ solved" measurement. The Commissioners will announce their meetings on these five issues through the Commission's administra­ tor. It appears that there will be verbal reports of.these one and two person groups during the February Commission meeting. While my crystal ball is cloudy, if not cracked, I think the Commissioners will become enamored with this new found knowledge and that they will propose the regulations in a slightly modified form - if given to their own devices.

(Ed; If there are two methods and they give different answers, maybe both are wrong.)

3.0 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR TOXICS - NPDES

This subject, which was discussed in a previous memo, was reported on by Tad Foster and the Division. The Commission is principally concerned that the EPA is requiring the State to undertake a non­ planned activity and that, because the monitoring would not be the subject of additional national regulations, the State would bear the brunt of complaints. From a more technical standpoint, one Commission member expressed concern that the method would lead to NPDES permit violations that could not be resolved because the cause of the toxicity could not be determined. There also was concern over the ensuing requirement to control chlorine and ammonia further.

The Commission did not recognize the potential conflict between this monitoring and the surface-water-quality standards. The Commission resolved to ask the EPA to explain its requirements (Ed: Maybe they should have attended the seminar, or been informed by the Division of previous discussions with the EPA?). I sense the State (Division) will desire some form of biological monitoring.

JEH/dj

Attachments

cc: Joe Danni Dave Cole, CMA - for distribution / } ( $zpl/c/ £fa) c&y *$ $* M 7 . £ ' * t + & 7

A. The Commission is responsible for classifying the ground­ waters of the State and promulgating water quality standards as set forth in C.R.S. 25-8-202(1)(a), C.R.S. 25-8-203 and C.R.S. 25-8-204,_ The Commission may classify groundwaters and promulgate water quality standards in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.11.4 and 3.11.r of these Regulations, fiipon its own motion or upon petition^? submitted by the Division, any ^ther state agency, or “any interested person, including a regulated entity or a person who may be affected by groundwater quality.

B. The determination to accept or deny a petition for considera­ tion under this section, and the scheduling of such petitions for hearing, shall be at the discretion of the Commission. In making such determinations the Commission shall consider the hardship or impact that inaction may have upon the petitioner, other interested persons, and the groundwaters of the State; the relative hardships or impacts that may be caused where more than one petition is submitted or is pending? the stage of development of an appropriate data base for decision-making? the Commission's workload and priorities for action; and other relevant factors.

C. Hearings under this section shall be held in accordance with >fr C.R.S. 24-4-103 and the Commission's Procedural Regulations.

D. The Commission may consider a change in classifications or water quality standards based upon substantial new informa­ tion demonstrating that the current classifications or ‘‘ standards should no longer apply. The determination to accept or deny a petition for consideration under this subsection shall be made in accordance with Subsection B, above, provided that no groundwaters shall be considered for reclassification or changes in water quality standards more than once in any twelve month period.

E. The commission may grant variances from the standards specified in Section 3.11.5 of these Regulations on a case- by-case basis considering the factors listed in C.R.S. 25-8- 204(4), and where it is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a variance from the water quality standards specified in■ Section 3711.5. is most appropriate to the protection of the classified u s e s ? The extent and duration of any such variance shall be made on a case-by-case basis. F. When the Commission has established c 1 assificatÎon(s) and standards for ground water in a specified areaj those classifi­ cations and standards shall be used with respect to the regulation and subjuguent enforcement of specific activities by the commission, the arimTni c if&t ion and otherjc

State agencies, consistent with applicable law, g. When the Commission has not established cl asstfication(s) and_ standards for ground water in a specified area, the Commission recommencé the classifications and standard set forth in these regulations asJguidance/for use by other State agencies in the implementation"of ground water protect ion■responsIbl11 ties, on a case by case basis, consistant with applicable law. This shall not be construed as a delegation by the commission of its authority to classify ground water and promulgate water quality standards. At iesuii in th" yse of a criterion mnxiim..n Rtnndard (CMC) to applied 1 in?tea«l of zz acute' standard when metals *ve rot j>reciFC.iy -U.tiuud via more monitoring* Opponents of the CMC argue that the Acute standard ic by definition the number which should protect 95X of the genera in an average body of water from acute toxic effects and is already conservative because the acute toxicity is defined as a four day period (i.e., 96-hour LC-50) and it will be applied as a one-day average. Therefore, the Acute standard should provide the needed protection on s one day basis. The CMC is arbitrarily derived by dividing the Acute standard in half making it more conservative and scientifically insupportable. The use of the CMC will result,in unnecessarily strict permit Units at excessive cost.

The proponents of a CMC point out the CMC is equivalent to EPA’s acute criteria (sometimes termed continuous maximum criteria or CMC) and the use of the Acute standard (FAV) with more monitoring is in actuality a relaxation of the EPA criteria. Because the Acute standard is that value at which death of 50 percent of the sensitive organisms may take place, • it is only appropriate to apply it in cases where the variability of the data is defined to a level that would assure that lethality would not occur. Also, the application of both the CMC and Acute standard (FAV; as one-day averages is more lenient than EPA’s interpretation of the acute criteria or CMC as one hour average concentration. Furthermore, the Nitrogen Cycle Committee, unlike the Water Quality Standards Committee, took, as did EPA, the more conservative approach of only recommending a Chronic and Acute standard with the Acute being the equivalent of the metals CMC (in other words FAV/?.),

Options t 1). Adopt the three-tiered (Chronic, CMC, and Acute) standards system for metals as proposed. 2). Delete the CMC and have a two-tiered system for metals of Chronic and Acute standards. 3) . Delete the Acute, standard and have a two-tiered system of Chronic au.l wi.v for asttls t\\2 c coasistaat trie». t.he -Jitrwav:; ;"vc.ie Committees recommendation on ammonia and nitrite.

WQCD Recommendation: The Division recommends adopting the three-tiered approach for mer.als as recommended. For those cases where data is insufficient the CMC would be the standard which would be compatible with the EPA criteria. For cases where sufficient data is available the Acute standard would be aooptee giving dischargers some relief and, with the documentation of the statistical reliability of the data, provide a rationale to adopt standards less stringent than EPA criteria.

Direct or Related Issues List on Basic Standards and Discharpe Permit Analysis Document: At issue Is the use of new analytical tueIhodology for metals developed and designated as potentially dissolved" by the Water Quality Standards and Methodology Committee without supporting data.

Justification or data in the proposal " T ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ r c o s t s ' «.oc! .t“da”ithPSpec fyi h r e e ^ U l s methods (dissolved, potentially 3 o “ . an, otSl «=ov.8rable) in Tab!« Ill then t'.ere ie at presen . The number of samples needed to support he dissolved method in effluents will be extreme and the cost will be prohibitive.

The proponents of the potentially dissolved method a r g u e that effluents unlike recieving waterB, are highly complexing with metals existing as ^Sx'ertrUclpltatU. upon release to X.so ^ i n g recieving watijr« the tnec.:ls could t;»cu«c V.o.-oaioa.n.,- * ** /;. ■' x method «ould not aeaaurc these coapiexea or p r e c x ^ w t « ^ he itotal recoverable method will yield results mu.:h higher than what could be considered representative of the potentially bioav.il.ble fract on o metals. Therefore, an intermediate analytical method to the dissolved qnd total recoverable techniques such as the potentially dissolved is appropriate to identify those metals in the effluent which are potentially biologically available upon discharge to recieving waters. Also, a discharger has the option of substantiating by ^mpiing that the dissolved and potentially dissolved in his effluent are not significan. y different and may then use the dissolved method to measure compliance with permit limits.

Options: 1). Retain the present system of using total recoje* * ^ * or Che Department of Health's acid recoverable method to set stream standards and permit limits. 2). Accept the proposal as noticed with dissolved only used for effluents if the statistical te;its are satisfied.

3). Designate that both stream and effluent standards be dissolved.

WOCD Recommendation; EPA has indicated they may have problems with using dissolved for ‘■“earn standards and has proposed an acid solub.,e method for effluents that is approximately equivalent to the po.entially dissolved method. This proposal is, however, stil.. in house and has not been released for public comment. They are s::ill endorsing the total recoverable method for stream and effluent standards at this tim ■ Therefore, the Division recommends that dissolved-potentially recommendation be accepted but with the option given to set both the stream standard and effluent limits on t:)tal recoverable or acid recoverable where that data is available.

DiresV or ’ vl....*:j-i*---':■'*- r A ;2 MuHlyair Docnifrin':« ISSUE C: Appropriateness of 1Q1Q and 7^ 10 Low Flows applied to the Acute or CMC and Chronic Standards, Respectively: :

Several concerns were raised that the 1C,10 and 7Q10 may not be appropriate and other flows either hydrclogically based or biologically based should be designated. Opponents contend that the 1Q10 and 7Q1X are not toxicologically based and that their exceedence and averaging periodu are not consistent with those specified for the recommended standards, that is, once in three years exceedences on the average for act to and chronic standards and a 30-day averaging period for chronic star.dards. Also, it is contended that these flows are extremely rare and are overly protective of the streams with resulting unnecessary costi to dischargers. Several parties suggested use of 1Q3 for acute standards and either 30Q3 or 30Q10 for chronic standards, Other parties suggested that no decision be made until receipt and review of the CSU low Slow study.

Proponents note that the 1Q10 and 7Q10 are the same as EPA recommendations for hydrologic based flews and that these were recommended as interim until the CSU lovr flow study was complete. It yas also noted that using a 7Q10 would mean that any permits written in an interim period would be compatible with the past permitting practices.

Options:

1). Do nothing until the CSU report can be reviewed and another hearing held to address flows. This would probably mean at least a six month delay before new flow recommendation, if any, could be put into the regulation. The 7Q10 would continue as the flow.

2). Adupc uue ixiO 7Q1U either .is "permanent" or "interim” until hearings can be held.

3). Adopt other flow values that were recommended in the hearing, (e.g., 1Q3 and 30Q3). These could also be adopted as either "permanent” or "interim".

4). Adopt no hydrologically based flows and instead adopt the EPA biologically based flow method that would satisfy the "not to be exceeded more than once every three years on the average" statement in the proposed regulations.

UQCD Recommendations!

In light of the many questions raised about the CSU low flow study, the Division would recommend option 1 with the acknowledgement by the Commission that both the Acute and Chror:ic standards would be implemented in the permit by use of 7Q10 flows until a decision is made on appropriate flow values or methodologies.

Direct or Related Issues Listed on Basic Standards and Dlscliarp,e Permit Document\ ISSUE D: Use of Percentile to Set Ajnbl;;nt Standards! if 4p»..p 19 the basis for the recommendation for using the 50 percentile £ a m b i e n t data to set an antidegradation ambient standard and acute ambient standard based on the 30th percentile of tin. data.

Opponents of the chan8®. in

percentile to the 50th percentile.. n

s e t t i n g of standard above the 50 percentile^ cause the average to i n c r e a s e with time ("creeping mean" effe-.t) and do., »»t .ocouat for

S S « ^ “«rpr« Bti”.nc.)?teSs,eUo" ii/50 percentile w i l l prevent long -S IS 1“ :Lree:r\nLrir;i?rJr^e^r^L1:re1hor: tfr^ ss onTouatic life. The use of percentile should alleviate arguements as to the distribution of data and.ihe need for removing outliers.

Options: 1). Adopt the 50th and 90th percentLles as proposed.

2). Adopt x + s as the approved methodology.

3) Do nothing. This would mean tiva basic standards would continue to not specify a methodology for ambient standards leaving it up to interpretation, on a case-by-case basis.

WQCD Recommendations:

^ • s r s s : « 90th percentiles. Direct or Related Issues Listed on the.Jiaslc Standards and Dlscha.r^e Permit Analysis Document:

Issues //4, 31, 32, 34, 44, 51, •>•>> 65 The most often raised issues concerning the proposed unionized ammonia atandards concern their being derived from a limited data base and the use of "safety factors". However, another issue that arose is the Commission’s notice deviating from the Nitrogen Cycle Committee s recommendations. ODoonents of the proposal indicate that dividing the formulas by 2 constitutes an inappropriate safety factor, the Acute formula for i.arm water species in particular is too stringent because of dependence on one species not found throughout Colorado, taere should be an upper liod t of 0.1 me/1 for Class 2 warm water streams as recommended by the Nitrogen Cycle Committee. Also several parties ::aund the regulations to be complicated and confusing. There were no proponents that could be .Utennined from the hearing record ff t h e proposal due to the change from tie Nitrogen Cycle Committee's recommendation. There was some advocacy for the proposal if the Committee recommendations were more doubly ooserved.

Options: 1). Leave standards ¿s is« 2). Adopt the standards as proposed. 3). Adopt the standards with charges that reflect the Nitrogen Cycle Committee’s report.

WQCD Recommendation: The Division does not have a preference at this time because of the uncertainties relating to the translation of the Nitrogen ^ l e Committee's recommendations into the proposed standard, lurther discussion of the issue is needed. Direct or Relate.! Issues Listed on Daslu .SUamlard_8_m »d Dlscliaa c J c c m U Analysis Document:

Issues 115, 10, 11, 15, 21, 25, 29, 45, 'Hi, 47, 40, 4

COLO. MINING ASSN

NOTICE OF FINAL ADOPTION JAN 2 0 ¡987

PURSUANT TO the provisions of Section 24-4-103(5) and 24-4-103(11)(a), C.R.S.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after public hearings November 4, 1985, May 6, 1986, June'3, 1986 and August 5, 6, 1986, pursuant to public notices issued July 1, 1985 and April 18, 1986, complying with the provisions of 24-4-103(3); 25-8-202 (1)(a), (b) and (2); 25-8-203, 25-8-204 and 25-8-402, C.R.S., and Section 2.1.3 of the "Procedural Regulations for all Proceedings Before the Water Quality Control Commission and the Water Quality Control Division" (5 CCR 1002-1) adopted on January 5, 1987 the Commission’s regulation entitled:

"The Basic Standards for Ground Water" Section 3.11.0

Also, pursuant to 24-4-103(8)(b), C.R.S., this regulation was submitted to the Attorney General for review and was found to be within the authority of the Water Quality Control Commission to promulgate, and further that there are no apparent constitutional deficiencies in its form or substance. Furthermore, this regulation incorporates by reference a statement of basis, specific statutory authority and purpose and economic reasonableness and a fiscal impact statement in compliance with 24-4-103(3)(8)(d) and 25-8-102(5), C.R.S.

THIS REGULATION having been submitted to the Legislative Drafting Office within TWENTY (20) DAYS after the date of the Attorney General’s Opinion, pursuant to 24-4-103(8)(d), C.R.S., and to the Secretary of State in time for February 10, 1987 publication in the Colorado Register pursuant to 24-4-103(5), and (11)(d), C.R.S., will become effective March 2, 1987.

This regulation is attached and made a part of this NOTICE.*

DATED this 15th day of January, 1587 at Denver, Colorado.

* A copy of this regulation 3.11.0 Alan M. Stewart, AICP is available at a Administrator charge of 25c per page pursuant to 24-4-103(9)» C.R.S. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Colorado Mininq Association

A 9 1 0 FACT 11TU AVtTMiin nCM\/CD r>OAnr\ o o u n u c /or\o> o o n - o o o o THE BASIC STANDARDS FOR GROUND WATER 3.11.1. AUTHORITY

These regulations are promulgated pursuant to the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, Sections 25-8-101 through 25-8-703 CRS, (1982 and 1985 Supp.). In particular, they are promulgated under the following sections:

25-8-202, 25-8-203, and 25-8-204.

3.11.2. PURPOSE

The purpose of these regulations is to establish a system for classifying ground water and adopting water quality standards for such classifications to protect existing and potential beneficial uses of ground waters.

3.11.3 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to these regulations.

1. "Activity" is any operation that may discharge or cause a discharge of pollutants to ground waters including but not limited to, point source discharges, pits, ponds, and lagoons used for storage, treatment and/or disposal of pollutants, land application of wastewater, and non-point source discharges.

2. "Agricultural Uses” are the existing or potential future uses of ground water for the cultivation of soil, the production of crops, and/or the raising of livestock.

3. "Background Level" is the level of any parameter in the ground water within in a specified area as determined by representative measurements of the ground water quality unaffected by the activity. ^

f a / "Domestic Uses" are those existing or potential future uses of ground water for household or family use, including, but not limited to: drinking, gardening, municipal, and/or farmstead uses.

5. "Ground Waters” are subsurface waters in a zone of saturation which are or can be - \ brought to the surface of the ground or to v U surface waters through wells, springs, seeps or other discharge areas.

6. "Parameter” is the physical, chemical, biological, or radiological constituent or characteristic of the ground water such as; temperature, pH, and ground water level.

7. "Specified Area" is that area within which the ground water is classified.

8. "Standard" is a narrative and/or numeric restriction established by these regulations and applied to ground waters to protect one or more existing or potential future uses.

9. "TDS" is the total dissolved solids in water.

3.11.4 CLASSIFICATION OF GROUND WATERS

A. Ground Water Classifications

The Commission hereby establishes the following classifications for ground water:

1. Domestic Use * Quality

2. Agricultural Use - Quality

3. Surface Water Quality Protection

4. Potentially Usable Quality

5. Limited Use and Quality

B. Criteria Used To Identify Classifications for Ground Water

Z The ground water classifications shall be implemented and applied to ground waters within a specified area (as determined in accordance with Section 3.11.4(C)) based upon use, quality and other information demonstrating the following:

1. Ground water within a specified area shall be classified "Domestic Use - Quality" when:

a. Ground water is used for domestic use within the specified area; or

b. If ground water is not currently used for domestic use within the specified area, the available information, including information regarding background levels, demonstrates that future domestic use of water within the specified area is reasonably probable; or

c. The most recent State Engineer’s well records or applicable water court decrees reveal that ground water is permitted or decreed for domestic use within the specified area, unless other information demonstrates that domestic use is not * being made of the ground water and is not likely to be made; or

d. The background levels are generally adequate to assure compliance with the Human Health Standards listed in Table 1 and TDS levels are less than 10,000 mg/1.

The determination of whether or not background levels are generally adequate shall be made considering the number of parameters that meet or exceed Table Values, the extent of any exceedances of Table Values, the risk to the public health associated with any such exceedance, and the adequacy of the database available for such determinations. 2. Ground water within a specified area shall be classified "Agricultural Use - Quality" when;

a. Ground water is used for agricultural use within the specified area; or

b. If ground water is not used for agricultural use within the specified area, the available information, including information regarding background levels, demonstrates that future agricultural use of water within the specified area is reasonably probable; or

c. The most recent State Engineer's well records or applicable water court decrees reveal that ground water is permitted or decreed for agricultural use within the specified area, unless other information demonstrates that agricultural use is not being made of the ground water and is not likely to be made; or

d. The background levels are generally adequate to assure compliance with the Agricultural Standards listed in Table 3 and TDS levels are less than 10,000 mg/1.

The determination of whether or not background levels are generally adequate shall be made considering the number of parameters that meet or exceed Table Values, the extent of any exceedances of Table Values, the risk to crops and/or livestock associated with any such exceedance, and the adequacy of the database available for such determinations.

3. Ground water within a specified area shall be classified "Surface Water Quality Protection" when:

A proposed or existing activity does or will impact ground waters such that water quality standards of classified surface

y water bodies within the specified area will be exceeded.

Ground water within a specified area shall be classified "Potentially Usable Quality” when: a. TDS levels are less than 10,000 mg/1; and b. Ground water is not used for domestic or agricultural uses within the specified area; and c. Background levels are generally not adequate to assure compliance with the Human Health and Agricultural Standards listed in Tables 1 and 3, or the information is insufficient to make such a determination; and d. Domestic or agricultural use of the ground water can be reasonably expected in the future, considering: background levels of water quality; geologic and hydrologic conditions; the degree to which any particular types of pollutants present are subject to treatment; the economic reasonableness of such treatment; the impact of treatment requirements on water quantity; whether or not pollution arises from natural sources; and other relevant factors.

Ground water within a specified area shall be classified "Limited Use and Quality" when: a. TDS levels are equal to or in excess of 10,000 mg/1; or b. The ground water has been exempted under Rule 324(B) of the "Rules and Regulations, Rules of Practice and Procedure" (2CCR 404-1) of the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, pursuant to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, Title 60, Article 34, CRS (1982); or c. The criteria specified in Sections 3.11.4(B)!, 2, 3, or 4 are not met. 1. When an activity exists or is proposed, the shape, depth, boundaries, and extent of a specified area shall be determined by considering:

a. the presence, extent, and nature of existing uses of ground water that may be affected by the activity, and the nature of reasonably expected future uses of ground water that may be affected by the activity; and

b* the nature and location of the activity and of its discharge; and

c. existing ground water quality that may be affected by the activity; and

d. relevant geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, including but not limited to the presence of ground water hydrologically connected to surface waters and recharge areas.

2. In the absence of an existing or proposed activity, the shape, depth, boundaries, and extent of a specified area may be determined by considering:

a. the presence, extent, and nature of existing uses of ground water and the nature of reasonably expected future uses of ground water; and

b. existing ground water quality; and

c. relevant geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, including but not limited to the presence of ground water hydrologically connected to surface waters and recharge areas.

C The Water Quality Standards specified below are deemed necessary and appropriate to protect ground water uses as specified in Section 3.11.4, and shall be adopted to protect such classified uses:

A. Narrative Standards . Ä✓ C

1. Ground Water shall be free from pollutants not listed in the Tables v referred to in Section 3.11.5(B), which alone or in combination with other substances, are in concentrations shown to be:

a. Carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings; and/or,

b. A danger to the public health, safety, or welfare.

2. Determinations made pursuant to Section 3.11.7 of specific numerical limitations under this subsection shall be based upon the best scientific information currently available.

B. Numeric Standards

1. The numeric standards shall be measured ex****** as total concentrations unless otherwise \ specified in the Tables. ^

2. When a ground water has a multi-use classification, the most restrictive standard for a parameter shall apply.

3. The following numeric standards shall apply;

a. "Domestic Use - Quality" - The Human Health and Secondary Drinking Water Standards listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, except as specified in Section 3.11.5(B)5. b. "Agricultural Use - Quality" - The Agricultural Standards listed in Table 3, except as specified in Section 3.11.5(B)5.

c. “Surface Water Quality Protection" - The standards necessary to prevent the exceedance of surface waters standards.

d. "Potentially Usable Ouality" - appropriate standards considering those factors listed in Section 3.11.4(B)(4)(d).

4. The TDS limitation listed in Table 4 shall apply to the following classes:

"Agricultural Use - Quality" "Surface Water Quality Protection" "Potentially Usable Quality"

5. For ground water classified "Domestic Use - Quality" or "Agricultural Use - Quality," where a Table value is exceeded by the background level, the applicable standard for that parameter shall be either 1) the Table value or 2) the background level for that parameter. This determination shall be made considering the increased risk to public health, crops, or livestock associated with the background levels, the extent of the exceedence above the Table value, the degree to which the pollution is deemed correctable and subject to treatment; and the economic reasonableness of such treatment requirements. One or more points of compliance within the specified area shall be established in order to ensure compliance with ground water standards established under Section 3.11.5. One or more points of compliance shall be established within the specified area, at the time a specified area is determined tinder Section 3.11.4(C), by considering the criteria listed in Section 3.11.4(C). An activity shall comply with ground water quality standards established under Section 3.11.5 at the point or points of compliance.

3.11.7 IMPLEMENTATION

A. These regulations shall not be deemed automatically applicable to any ground waters of the State.

B. The Commission,is responsible for classifying the ground waters of the State and promulgating water quality standards as set forth in C.R.S. 25-8-202(l)(a), C.R.S. 25—8—203 and C«R.S. 25—B—204. The Commission pay, classify groundwaters and promulgate water quality standards in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.11.4 and 3.11.5 of the Regulations, upon its own motion or upon petition submitted by the Division, any other state agency, or any interested person, including a regulated entity or a person who nay be affected by ground water quality.

C. The determination to accept or deny a petition for consideration under this section, and the scheduling of such petitions for hearing, shall be at the discretion of the Commission. In making such determinations the Commission shall consider the hardship or impact that inaction may have upon the petitioner, other interested persons, and the groundwaters of the State; the relative hardships or impacts that may be caused where more then one petition is submitted or is pending; the stage of development of an appropriate data base for decision-making; the Commission’s workload and priorities for action; and other relevant factors«

Hearings under this section shall be held in accordance with C.R.S. 24-4-103 and the Commission's Procedural Regulations.

The Commission may consider a change in classifications or water quality standards based upon substantial new information demonstrating that the current classifications or standards should no longer apply. The determination to accept or deny a petition for consideration under this subsection shall be nade in accordance with Subsection B, above, provided that no ground waters shall be considered for reclassification or changes in water quality standards more than once in any twelve month period.

The Commission may grant variances from the standards specified in Section 3.11.5 of these Regulations on a case—by—case basis considering the factors listed in C.R.S. 25-8-204(4), and where it is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a variance from the water quality stndards specified in Section 3.11,5 is most appropriate to the protection of the classified uses. The extent and duration of any such variance shall be made on a case—by—case basis.

When the Commission has established classification(s) and standards for ground water in a specified area, those classifications and standards shall be used with respect to the regulation and subsequent enforcement of specific activities by the Commission, the administration and other State agencies, consistent with applicable law. When the Commission has not established classification(s) and standards for ground water in a specified area, the Commission recommends the classifications and standards set forth in these regulations as guidance for use by other State agencies in the implementation of ground water protection responsibilities, on a case by case basis, consistant with applicable law. This shall not be construed as a delegation by the Commission of its authority to classify ground water and promulgate water quality standards.

Existing discharges of pollutants to ground water shall be deemed "activities" as defined in Section 3.11.3(1), and are not exempt from regulation, unless specific statutory or regulatory provisions require otherwise.

3.11,8 SEVERABILITY

The provisions of these regulations are severable, and if any provisions or the application of the provisions to any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of these regulations, shall not be affected thereby. TABLE 1 Hunan Health Standards

Biological Total Coliforms Ka 1 org/100 ml

Inorganic Arsenic (As)d 0.05 mg/1 Barium (Ba)d 1.0 mg/1 Cadmium (Cd)d 0.010 mg/1 Chromium (Cr)d 0.05 mg/1 Cyanide (FreeJ(CN) 0.20 ag/1 Fluoride (F) 4.0 mg/1 Lead (Pb)d 0.05 mg/1 Mercury (Hg)d 0.002 mg/1 Nitrate (N03)d 10.0 mg/1 Nitrite (N02 Vd 1.00 mg/1 Selenium

Beta and Photon Emitterse 4 mrem/year Strontium 90 8 PCi/1 Cesium 134 80 pCi/1 Tritium 20,000 pCi/1

Organic Chlordane 0.000004 mg/1 Endrin 0.0002 mg/1 Lindane 0.004 mg/1 Methoxychlor 0.10 mg/1 Toxaphene 0.005 mg/1 2,4-D 0.10 mg/1 2,4,5-TP Silvex 0.01 mg/1 PCB NDC Chlorophenol 0.001 mg/1 Monohydric phenol 0.001 mg/1 Benzidine 0.0001 mg/1 Secondary Drinking Water Standards Contaminants Level

Chloride (Cl)“ 250 mg/1 Color 15 color units Copper (Cu)d 1 mg/1 Corrosivity Noncorrosive Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/1 Iron (Fe)d 0.3 mg/1 Manganese (Mn)d 0.05 mg/1 Odor 3 threshold odor numbers 6.5 - 8.5 pH j Sulfate (S04)d 250 mg/1 Zinc (Zn)d 5 mg/1

TABLE 3

Agricultural Standards

Contaminants Level

Aluminum (Ai)df 5.0 mg/1 Arsenic (As)d 0.1 mg/1 Beryllium (Be)d 0.1 mg/1 Boron (B) d« 0.75 mg/1 Cadmium (Cd)d 0.01 mg/1 Chromium (Cr)d 0.1 mg/1 Cobalt (Co)d 0.05 mg/1 Copper (Cu)«J 0.2 mg/1 Fluoride (F) d 2.0 mg/1 Iron (Fe)d 5.0 mg/1 Lead (Pb)" 0.1 mg/1 Lithium (Li)?1 2.5 mg/1 Manganese (Mn)d 0.2 mg/1 Mercury (Hg)df 0.01 mg/1 Molybdenum (Mo)d 0.10 mg/1 Nickel (Ni)d 0.20 mg/1 Nitrite (N02-N)df 10 mg/1 as N Nitrite t Nitrate (N02+N03-N)df 100 mg/1 as N Selenium (Se)d 0.02 mg/1 Vanadium (V)“ 0.1 mg/1 Zinc (Zn)d 2.0 mg/1 PH 6.5 - 8.5 TABLE 4

TDS Water Quality Standards

Background TPS Value (mg/1) Maximum Allowable TDS Concentrations

0 - 500 400 mg/1 or 1.25 times the background level, whichever is least restrictive 501 - 10,000 1.25 times the background value

10,001 or greater No Limit

a K Means less than. When the Membrane Filter Technique is used for analysis, the average of all samples taken within a year must be less than 1 organism per 100 milliliters of sample. When the Filter Tube Method is used for analysis, the limit is less than 2.2 org/lOOml. b If the identity and concentration of each radionuclide in a mixture are known, the limiting value would be derived as follows: Determine, for each radionuclide in the mixture, the ratio between the quantity present in the mixture and the limit specified. The sum of such ratios for all radionuclides in the mixture shall not exceed "1° (i.e. unity). A radionuclide may be considered as not present in a mixture if the ratio of the concentration to the limit does not exceed 1/10 and the sum of such ratios for all radionuclides considered as not present in the mixture does not exceed 1/4*

c ND Means none detected using an approved analytical method with the lowest detection linit for the parameter.

d Measured as dissolved concentration. The sample water shall be filtered through a 0.45 micron membrane filter prior to preservation. The total concentration (not filtered) may be required on a case-by-case basis if deemed necessary to characterize the pollution caused by the activity.

e If two or more radionuclides are present, the sum of their annual dose equivalent to the total body or to any organ shall not exceed 4 mrem per year. Except for Tritium and Strontium 90 the concentration of man-made radionuclides causing 4 mrem total body or organ dose equivalents shall be calculated on the basis of a 2 liter per day drinking water intake using the 168-hour data listed in "Maximum Permissible Body Burden and Maximm Permissible Concentration of Radionuclides in Air or Water for Occupational Exposure," NBS Handbook 69, as amended, August 1963, US Department of Commerce. These more stringent levels are necessary to protect livestock watering. Levels for parameters without this footnote are eet to protect irrigated crops at the same level. Where a party can demonstrate that a livestock watering use of ground water is not reasonably expected, the applicable standard for lead is 5.0 mg/1.

This level is set to protect the following plants in ascending order of sensitivity: Pecan, Black Walnut, Persian (English) Walnut, Jerusalem Artichoke, Navy Bean, American Elm, Plum, Pear, Apple, Grape (Sultanina and Malaga), Kadota Fig, Persimmon, Cherry, Peach, Apricot, Thornless Blackberry, Orange, Avocado, Grapefruit, Lemon. Where a party can demonstrate that a crop watering use of ground water is not reasonably expected, the applicable standard for boron is 5.0 mg/1.

This level protects all crops, except citrus which do not grow in Colorado and therefore a more stringent level of protection is not required. Statement of Basis and Purpose for adopting the Regulations entitled: "The Basic Standards for Ground Waters". In accordance with 24-4-103(4), CRS (1982 and 1985 Supp.), the Commission adopts this statement of basis and purpose.

PURPOSE

"The Basic Standards for Ground Waters" establishes a system of classifications (classes) for determining the appropriate degree of protection (standards) necessary to maintain beneficial uses of ground waters. These standards and classes are intended to complement regulations 3.1.0, "The Basic Standards and Methodologies" which are primarily applicable to surface waters. Together, regulations 3.1.0. and 3.11.0 protect all state waters as defined in Section 25-B-203, CRS (1982). Separate regulations for surface and ground waters are appropriate, because the surface water classification system is not easily adapted to ground waters.

These regulations are the first step in developing a comprehensive, statewide ground water protection program. The complete program will include control regulations which will enforce the water quality standards. These additional regulations may include amending the current CDPS permit regulations and adopting activity-specific control regulations.

It is not the intent of the Commission to control existing or future uses of ground water (i.e., domestic, agricultural, or industrial uses). The intent is to protect ground water Quality from uncontrolled degradation and thereby protect existing and future uses of ground water. It is not the intent of the Commission or the division by virtue of adoption of these regulations or subsequent control regulations, to duplicate ground water regulations adopted by other state or federal programs. When an activity that impacts ground water appears to be unregulated or inadequately regulated with respect to those impacts, the division will conduct a thorough review of any applicable authorities prior to proposing a control regulation.

f c Ground water is the primary water source for seventy-five percent of the public water supply systems of the state (defined in the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations). There are approximately 825,000 people in Colorado that rely either wholly or partially on ground water. Ground water use to support new urban areas is increasing as surface water supplies become more difficult, to obtain in some metropolitan areas. Agriculture also relies heavily on ground water for the production of crops and livestock. An estimated 1.5 million acres are presently being irrigated with ground water and approximately 12,500 well permits have been issued for livestock watering.

Because of this heavy reliance on ground water, the water quality standards and classification system is designed to identify and protect public, private, domestic, and agricultural water supplies.

Currently, public water supply systems using ground water are not required to treat the water prior to distribution except for disinfection. In 1974, the federal "Safe Drinking Water Act" (SDWA) was passed which required regular testing of public water supplies to ensure compliance with the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). However, the regulations do not require testing for even IX of the synthetic chemicals in use in the nation today. The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act will increase the number of chemicals to be tested by public water systems. However, neither the SDWA nor the 1986 amendments require testing of private or agricultural supply wells. Although the state's lack of a comprehensive data base prevents demonstrating a widespread contamination problem, there are many reasons for adopting a regulation which creates a framework for further ground water quality protection. These reasons are:

1. The increasing reliance on ground water by public and private water supply systems in a water-short state mandates protection of subsurface water quality. There may not be any alternative surface supplies available in the event of contamination. Severe ground water contamination has occurred in ^ several specific locations in Colorado. This regulation is a necessary step to prevent a proliferation of ground water problems.

The high expense of clean up of already polluted ground water fully justifies a strong, thorough effort to prevent any contamination which will impair the usefulness of ground water.

The Commission has been recognized, at the state level, as the agency responsible for coordinating a state ground water protection program. Examples of this responsibility include:

i. By its enabling statute, the Water Quality Control Commission is the ultimate state agency authority for the protection of the waters of the State, including subsurface waters,

ii. In an executive order issued on July 15, 1985, Governor T.*«™ stated that the Colorado Department of Health is given primary responsibility for coordinating the state's ground water quality protection effort.

Coordination of various federal and state ground water protection programs is consistent with federal policy. In 1984, EPA developed a ground water protection strategy. One of the main objectives of the strategy was to achieve greater consistency in decision making on ground water protection and clean-up. EPA is providing the Water Quality Control Division with technical and financial support for the development and implementation of a ground water protection program. In 1986, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act so as to encourage state programs for well head protection.

Since other state agencies (and counties) are required to protect ground water incidental to regulating other activities, the Commission should assume— at the least— a coordinating role in assuring consistent protection of ground water quality. By promulgating a definition of the various uses of ground water and the numerical maximum chemical concentrations necessary to protect those uses, the Commission is establishing a common denominator such that ground waters will be classified and protected.

7. In the future, other causes of ground water contamination which are not now regulated may be found. A regulatory structure in place now which defines the level of risk of contamination and levels of control required will be useful when addressing future problems. Relying upon a framework of uses to be protected, future legislation, control regulations by the Commission, or regulations by other agencies, may be developed to address presently unregulated causes of contamination.

8. With standards defined to protect uses, the Division will be able to develop permit limits for surface and subsurface discharges to ground water, where other regulations authorize division control of such surface activity.

PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMISSION GOAL

The Commission and Division appointed an AD Hoc Ground Water Advisory Committee in 1982. The Committee represented the various entities who would be most affected by a ground water protection program. On May 15, 1984, the Committee recommended, and the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopted, the following statement pertaining to ground water protection:

"The goal of the Water Quality Control Commission is to provide maximum beneficial use of ground water resources, while assuring the safety of the users by preventing or controlling those activities which have the potential to impair existing or future beneficial uses of ground water or to adversely affect the public health. The necessary program is to be instituted in a manner that is consistent with and complementary to the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act.”

/? This Basic Standards Regulation for ground water, which is adopted after exhaustive public rulemaking hearings, is consistent with this goal. The focus of the Basic Standards Régulation for ground water is the identification of ground water use or uses and the quality level to be maintained to assure its usefulness. This is a framework around which existing and future licensing and permitting regulations revolve in authorizing, conditioning, limiting and denying activities which could impair existing or future beneficial uses of ground water.

DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS

Classification System

The classification system is a framework of uses of ground water which are to be assigned on a site-specific basis by the Commission so that standards for chemical pollutants can be assigned at levels necessary to protect the use.

A five (5) class system was developed for these regulations. This system is based on existing and potential future uses and actual water quality data.

1. Domestic Use - Quality 2. Agricultural Use - Quality 3. Surface Water Quality Protection 4. Potentially Usable Quality 5. Limited Use and Quality

Ground water may be assigned more than one class because it may have more than one existing or potential use.

While selection of any of these classes for a specific site is to protect the quality of the water for that beneficial use, because the classification may be based on a potential use, the classification is no warranty that the existing quality is entirely fit for that use by one who does or intends to put it to such use.

The selection of classsifications for particular ground water within a specified area shall be by the Commission. The selection of particular classes shall be based upon specific criteria found in the regulations which describe each class. The regulations provide that ground water may be classified "Domestic Use - Quality" or "Agricultural Use - Quality" if the ground water is either "used" or reasonably likely to be used for domestic or agricultural purposes within the specified area, or if the most recent state engineer’s well records or applicable court decrees reveal that ground water is "permitted" or "decreed" for such uses within the specified area. For purposes of classification of ground water pursuant to these two provisions, the Commission presumes (1) that the "use" of ground water is after a legal withdrawal, and (2) that the pertinent state engineer’s well record reveals a valid permit, and that the applicable court decree is perfected. If a domestic or agricultural use classification is based solely upon well records or court decrees, that classification may be rebutted by information demonstrating that domestic or agricultural use of ground water is not being made and is not likely to be made in the future.

Selection of applicable classes for a specified area shall occur when there is an activity which affects or has the potential to affect ground water quality within a specified area, and when a specified area for that activity is determined. Upon identification of the activity and determination of the specified area by the Commission, the owner/operator of the activity gathers information within the specified area. The owner/operator of the activity then submits this information to the Commission, pursuant to Section 3.11.7.

SPECIFIED AREA

The specified area is that area within which the ground water is classified. The Commission must determine the appropriate shape, depth, boundaries, and extent of a specified area such that existing and potential uses of ground waters are identified and protected from discharges to ground water by activities.

A specified area will be determined as early as possible after an activity has been identified. The Commission assumes that the specified area nay be modified as more hydrologic and geologic information is acquired. The Commission may determine a specified area in the absence of an activity. A conservative area of two lateral miles around the activity in question will presumptively be used as the initial specified area. The Commission finds this area to be reasonable for the following reasons:

a. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. performed a national survey, for USEPA Headquarters, of 68 ground water contamination sites. The study revealed that 95% of the plumes of contamination were limited to within 2 miles of the source. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. performed an in-house survey of 73 more such sites (a total of 141 sites) which also revealed that 95% of these plumes of contamination were limited to 2 miles from the source;

b. The ICF Corporation performed a national survey, for USEPA Headquarters, of 150 RCRA sites. In this study, ICF found that 95% of the distances from the source to ground water discharge boundries were within 2 miles.

c. Geraghty and Miller, Inc. performed a national survey, for USEPA Headquarters, of large ground water pumping systems (i.e., municipal water supply wells). This survey revealed that approximately 95% of these wells had a capture zone (i.e., zone of influence) within a 2 mile radius. GROUND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The promulgated Water Quality Standards include narrative and numeric standards.

NARRATIVE STANDARDS

The narrative standards consider all man-induced alterations of ground water. Since the Commission cannot, and will not, control the withdrawal and use of ground water, the narrative standards are designed to protect all potential uses of the waters. The narrative standards prohibit the introduction of non-natural chemicals where best available information indicates a potential threat to the public health, safety or welfare. The Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (CPDWR) do not include MCLs (maximum contaminent levels) for many chemicals such as dioxin, TCE, and EDB. There are often health advisories and other scientific studies indicating that a specific chemical is carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic, or poses a danger to public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission will have the ability to make a specific determination of a limit for that constituent in ground water. This section allows the Commission to make such a determination in the absence of an MCL for the chemical. The toxic and hazardous pollutant lists developed pursuant to sections 301(a)(1) and 311(b)(2)(A) of the federal Clean Water Act and contaminants (pollutants) that have had an EPA Health Advisory developed for them will be used as a basis for determining what specific compounds will be included.

NUMERIC STANDARDS

The numeric standards are contained in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4. These standards apply to classified ground water.

The majority of the numeric standards listed in Table 1 are the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for public drinking water supplies, as established by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The remainder are derived from the Colorado Basic Surface Water Standards. These human health levels are set to protect the public from acute poisoning and from long-term "chronic" effects. The MCLs are also contained in the CPDWR. The limits for radioactive constituents; Cesium, Plutonium, Thorium and Tritium are those which would limit human exposure to four (4) millirems/year. Table 1 will be expanded as MCLs for additional parameters are developed^, under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The numeric standards listed in Table 1 are applicable to ground waters classified "Domestic Use-Ouality".

Table 2 contains additional numeric standards for "Domestic Use - Quality" ground waters. Much debate and discussion revolved around the need for these standards. These parameters are the National Secondary Drinking Water Standards and are instituted to maintain a ground water as a drinking water source requiring very little treatment. In the judgement of the USEPA Administrator, these limits are a requisite to protect the public welfare. Contaminants (pollutants) contained in Table 2 are those which nay adversely affect the aesthetic quality of drinking water such as taste, odor, color, and appearance and which thereby nay deter public acceptance of and confidence in that ground water source as a drinking water supply.

Numeric standards meant to protect a water source for agricultural uses are listed in Table 3. Table 3 numeric values were developed through Commission review of Water Quality Criteria 1972, EPA/R/73/033 (March 1973). The value for molybdenum was developed from information provided by AMAX and the Cottor Corporation. These values are set at levels to protect livestock and crops. All "Agricultural Use - Quality" ground waters must meet these standards when implemented by any agency.

Much public input and debate resolved around Table 4, "TDS Water Quality Standards«" Some parties wanted less or no degradation of ground water, while other parties felt that more was warranted. The division proposed this version which allows for limited degradation.

The TDS numeric standard is implemented on a sliding scale and is applicable to all classes of ground water, except "Domestic Use-Quality" and "Limited Use and Quality" ground waters. TDS Table 4 values are applicable to "Agricultural Use-Quality", "Surface Water Quality Protection", and "Potentially Usable Quality" ground waters, because these three classes are not subject to ^ Table 2 for sulfates and chlorides; a TDS limitation for these three classes assumes some level of anti-degradation.

By maintaining a TDS concentration within a range, an existing or potential use should not be impacted. The sliding scale allows for a twenty-five percent increase for all ground waters with a background TDS concentration greater than 500 mg/1. If the background concentration is less than 400 mg/1 then the maximum allowable concentration of TDS is 500 mg/1. This value is the secondary drinking water standard and is instituted to maintain a high quality water. Total dissolved solids concentrations of less than 500 mg/1 are not expected to impair any ground water use. The twenty-five percent allowable incremental increase for waters with a background between 500 and 10,000 mg/1 would afford a greater degree of protection to ground water with lower TDS concentrations. Ground waters with TDS concentrations greater than 10,000 mg/1 would not have a numeric limit.

The term "representative*' contained within the definition for background level implies standard acceptable monitoring, sampling, and analytical procedures, which are available.

The criteria for determining background levels will be established by the Commission. It is important that the regulated entity work closely with the agency requiring the background level determination.

It is intended that the monitoring and sampling protocols shall be those procedures best capable for obtaining ground water samples which are representative of the water quality being monitored.

The following documents may provide useful guidance:

1. "Manual of Ground-Water Sampling Procedures", Scalf, M.R., et al., 1981. National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio.

2. "Procedures for the Collection and Preservation of Ground Water and Surface Weter Samples and for the Installation of Monitoring Wells*1, U.S. Dept, of Energy, January, 1981. GJ/TMC-08, UC-70A.

3. "Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling", Barcelona, M.J., et al., EPA/600/2-85/104 September 1985.

The analytical method selected for a parameter should be that which can measure the lowest detection limit for the parameter, unless a standard is within the range of another approved method. Approved analytical methods include those contained in the "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 16th or most recent edition, or "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA, Office of Technology Transfer, or 40 CFR "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the analysis of Pollutants under the Clean Water Act (CWA).M The owner/operator reporting the results of the laboratory studies shall identify the detection limit and method used for the analysis of each parameter.

POINT OF COMPLIANCE

The Commission intends to allow for flexibility in locating the point or points of compliance within the specified area. After the point or points of compliance are determined, applicable ground water quality standards are to be met at these locations.

Mining activities are recognized to occur within ground water bodies and that water quality within the disturbed area will obviously change. The point(s) of compliance established outside the area anticipated to be disturbed may protect the water body while allowing the mining activity.

The Commission envisions that future and/or amended regulations will specify the design criteria and/or monitoring requirements necessary at the point or points of compliance. Down-gradient ground water monitoring locations may correspond to the point of compliance for the regulated activity.

IMPLEMENTATION

The Commission has considered several approaches to implementation of these regulations. The proposed rule initially included a provision for automatic applicability, with appeals to the Commission for reclassification. The parties raised strong objections to this proposal based on due process and statutory grounds. In its deliberations the Commission deleted this approach and proposed to the delegate classification and standard setting authority to other state agencies. The Attorney General’s office indicated that the approach would constitute an unlawful delegation of the Commission's statutory duties. Next the Commission proposed to include a procedure for appeals to the Commission, but the delegation issue continued to be raised by the Attorney General's office and at least one party. The implementation provisions adopted in this rule are a response to objections raised by parties and the Attorney General. The Commission assumes full responsibility for classification and standard setting at this time. Ample opportunity for comment has been provided at each juncture in the processt and the Commission has afforded the parties two additional four day comment periods.

In the absence of some delegation of responsibility to other agencies, the Commission anticipates a potential workload beyond its capabilities to absorb. The final rule establishes a list of factors to be considered in acting upon petitions for rulemaking hearings, in recognition of the time and resource limitations placed upon the Commission.

Déconsidération of classifications and standards by the Commission is permissible in the final rule. However, the Commission has determined that C.H.S. 25-8-207 was intended to apply only to surface waters and is not applicable to ground water.

A variance provision has been included in the final rule. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a variance to demonstrate that Table Values need not be adopted in order to protect classified uses. Variances can be granted at the time that standards are initially adopted or in a proceeding under Section 3.11.7(D).

When the Commission has adopted classifications end standards, such regulations should be applied by the Commission, the Division and other state agencies in carrying out their ground water protection responsibilities. The Commission has favored the delegation of responsibilities to other agencies, but has eliminated that approach based upon the objections of the . Attorney General. However, the Commission hopes that other agencies with the authority to do so will follow the classification and standards system established by the regulations even in the absence of rulemaking by the Commission to establish classifications and standards for a specified area.

Ground water in a specified area shall not be deemed classified under C.H.S. 25-8-203, and standards shall not be deemed to be set under C.R.S. 25-8-204, in the absence of rulemaking by the Commission, FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE BASIC STANDARDS FOR GROUND WATER

The Colorado Water Quality Control commission promulgates this regulation entitled "The Basic Standards for Ground Water" under the authority to classify waters of the state and to establish water quality standards to support those classifications, Section(s) 25-8-202,203 and 204 CRS.

The regulation establishes a system for classifying ground water and describing those classifications by use and quality. The standards, when applied to specific classes of ground water, become the baseline by which one can establish if water quality has been degraded or water use has been impaired or precluded. At this point there is no economic impact with respect to these regulations, except the cost associated with adopting the regulations. As control or other regulations are proposed which will implement the classification and standards system, the actual costs and benefits for each such proposal will be developed and considered. These regulations as originally proposed would have been automatically applicable to all sources of ground water contamination* This concept has been eliminated in the final rule.

This statement discusses potential economic impacts from future regulations that may be adopted to implement this regulation. All statements regarding values and costs are subject to change during the future adoption of specific control regulations.

COSTS The fiscal impacts may occur at two different points in the regulatory system. If the regulations are implemented through source controls, then the entities responsible for the source (activity) will bear the cost. In socio-economic terms, this is the most equitable way to pay for the cost of prevention. The responsible entity may either pass the costs on to their consumers and have a relatively small percent increase in costs of service over a large user base, or absorb the costs without changing the price of their goods or services. If the regulations are implemented by pathway elimination (i.e., alternate water supplies or point-of-use water treatment), then the question is who bears the costs? If the owner or operator of the source (activity) pays for pathway elimination, then the cost remains Bpread over the users of the product. If the pathway is eliminated and the cost is borne by the ground water users who are not responsible for the source, then the cost may be borne by a larger but less appropriate user base.

Finally, if neither the source nor the pathway are controlled and contaminated ground water is delivered to its ultimate user, then the individual water user carries the burden associated with increased health costs and risks.

Treatment of waste prior to discharge as a result of a control regulation is a viable alternative but the burden Is upon the facility to provide the treatment. The elimination or reduction of the discharge includes design criteria such as pond linings, leak collection and/or detection. These costs can be significant but are limited to the life of the facility plus some limited post closure period. Eliminating or reducing the discharge 16 already required under several state statutes for some facilities such as certain solid waste disposal facilities.

Treatment of waste prior to discharge is an effective option for controlling contamination but is capital-intensive in terms of initial costs. This is a cost of production, manufacturing or operation and is considered a cost of doing business. The treatment of ^ waste prior to discharge is already required for facilities that discharge to surface water.

Treatment of water at the point of use Is the most costly option because it requires recapturing a much larger volume of contaminated water and redistribution of the water as well as treatment and maintenance. When this is related to private water supplies and maintenance, the cost rises because the treatment is not centralized. One example of point-of-use treatment costs is nitrate removal system for the McFarland Mutual Water Company water supply in McFarland, California. The capital cost in 1983 was $900,000 for a one million gallon per day facility. Operating costs are twenty-four cents per 1,000 gallons. In Colorado, provision of an alternate water supply could arguably be the most expensive option depending on the location of the contaminated resource. For example, in the Denver area the cost to replace a water supply for South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (30,000 residents) is approximately $20.9 million for water from the Metro Water Development Authority and $34 million for water from the Burlington Ditch. This does not include the costs of treating the water. In rural areas, the replacement costs may not be as high as in the Denver area but alternate water supplies are not likely to be readily available. Finally, the costs associated with cleanup of contaminated ground water tends to be the most expensive. Remedial cleanup is not always feasible, it is always costly. The costs associated with implementing these regulations as preventative measures are significantly less than the costs of implementing them as reactive or "cleanup" measures. When used in the reactive sense, the costs of cleanup and contamination investigation have been described by Geraghty and Miller Ground Water Contamination, 1984, page 16. "Hydrogeologic investigations to define contamination problems can cost from $25,000 to $250,000. Litigation may lead to doubling of this price. The minimum costs of the ground water phase of a partial cleanup and containment project is $500,000."

In Santa Clara, California, IBM has spent $20 million and Fairchild has spent $16 million to cleanup ground water contamination. California has had some nineteen sites put on the Superfund National Priorities List because the smaller companies which are responsible do not have the funds to pursue cleanup activities. In Colorado, the costa estimated for the cleanup of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal are estimated in the billions of dollars. The time needed for such cleanup is estimated to be several decades. Indeed, there will be costs associated with these rules that are likely to be large. However, when compared to the benefits or elimination of risk to the public health, those costs are warranted.

In terms of monitoring requirements, the agencies that may have to consider these standards in their permitting actions already require specific monitoring and hydrogeologic analyses to be performed. Therefore no new monitoring requirements or costs may be associated with these rules when implemented under existing regulatory controls unless frequency of sampling or the number of parameters is increased by the agency. Monitoring requirements, when implemented under the commission's future regulations, will be an additional cost to facilities which will be controlled by those regulations. The Colorado Mining Association has estimated that a new investigation designed to comply with monitoring requirements which may result from future control regulations, may cost $500,000 the first year and $68,000 for each additional year. Monitoring programs for other types of activities may be lesser or greater than these figures depending on the nature of the activity and the specific requirements of the future control regulations. State agencies, including the Division, will incur costs to adopt the future classifications, standards and control regulations and to implement them. It is not now known the magnitude of such costs or whether they will be paid by the taxpayers of the state or by facility owners through cash funding mechanisms such as discharge permit fees.

BENEFITS There are no specific benefits which can be attributed to ttiis present Commission action since these regulations only set up a framework for additional future regulations and their implementation. Several potential benefits may be realized by such future action. Tfte most obvious possible benefit would be the protection of human health. Prevention of ground water contamination which would otherwise result in long-term illness is a benefit« The prevention of the costs of remedial medical care for the sick, additional health insurance premiums and costs to business for long- term illnesses and the costs to Bociety for caring for chronically ill patients, not to mention the reduction of human suffering, is a distinct benefit. possible envrionoental benefits are.related to the preservation of a valuable resource in a water scarce state* In many areas of Colorado, ground water is the only source of water for agriculture. The prevention of contamination of ground water allows the agriculture use to continue through the irrigation of crops or watering of livestock. Such crops and livestock make up a significant segment of the Colorado economy, the protection of which is a benefit. WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

RULEMAKING AND INFORMATIONAL HEARINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND BUSINESS MEETING

THURSDAY, FRIDAY, AND SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,12, & 13, 1986.

AGENDA

House Committee Hearing Room Oil 1 (old room E) State Capitol basement.

Thursday, September 11, 1986 9:00 A.M. I. Call to Order-Determination of Quorum: II. Approval of Agenda:

III. Deliberations: For consideration of:(l) modification of all reference to ground water in the Commission's current regulation titled: "Basic Standards and Methodologies"; (2) changing the title of said regulation to "Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water"; and (3) addition of a new regulation proposed to be titled "The Basic Standards for Ground Water" which, if adopted, shall become section 3.11.0 of Article 3, Water Quality Standards and Classifications of the Policies, Regulations, and Guidelines of the Water Quality Control Commission.

Dillon Town Hall, upstairs meeting room, 275 Chief Colorow, Dillon, Colorado.

Friday, September 12, 1986 9:00 A.M. IV. Rulemaking Hearing: For consideration of revising the stream classifications and water quality standards of regulations 3.5.0, Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basin and 3.7.0, Lower Colorado River Basin (5 CCR 1002-8).

4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333 rage t Agenda far September

9:15 A.M. V. Informational Hearing: For triennial review of regulation 3.3.0, Classifications and numeric standards, Upper Colorado River Basin and North Platte River (Planning region 12) (5 CCR 1002-8).

VI. Informational Hearing: For Consideration of adoption of the 1986 Pikes Peak Region "208" plan update for Park County.

VII. Final Action: On amendment of use classifications and water quality standards applicable in Swede Gulch, a tributary to Segment 4 of Bear Creek, South Platte River Basin, 3.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-8) and in all ponds in the Swede Gulch drainage.

VIII. Deliberations: For consideration of findings of fact, conclusions of law, decision, and order concerning an appeal by the Clear Creek Club of the Water Quality Control Division’s denial of the site application for a domestic wastewater lift station by the South Adams County Water and Sanitation District.

IX. Administrator's Items:

Approval of the July 7 & 8, 30th and August 5 & 6 Summaries of Proceedings/Motions.

1:00 P.M. X. Briefing by Summit County Officials on their control of non-point sources of phosphorous through a group of agencies refered to as the "Phosphorus Club".

Keystone Lodge, U.S. Highway 6, Keystone, Colorado. XI. Informal meeting with Summit County Officials

Saturday, September 3, 1986 XII. Planning Retreat: Election of Officers

Note: Any portion of the business meeting may be taken up any time after the call to order; hearings may be reconvened at such times and places as the Commission may determine. ... s . , . . . ' ---’'i_

IHE Richard T. Schlosherg Ili, Publisher I3 e n v e r David Hall, Éditor Anthony H. Campbell, Managing Editor Chuck Green, Editorial Page Editor Sue F. Smith, Associate Editor William H. Hornby, Senior Editor *TJ* A Times Mirror U Newspaper

HE RECENT announcement As part of the decree, the com- that Martin Marietta Aero­ . pany also agreed to donate $20,000 space has agreed to pay up to $1.2, to the Colorado Toxics Forum, Tmillion for repeated violations of$20,000 to the Tri-County Health antipollution laws suggests that Department and $80,000 to the the state has finally gotten serious Colorado School of Mines for re­ about enforcement. But while search on ground-water contami­ commendations may in order, nation. they shouldn’t be handed out with The water-quality division, abandon. headed by Gary Broetzman, has A look at what led up to the con­ typically not chosen to impose sent decree shows that the Colo­ fines, preferring instead to seek rado Health Department’s re­ promises of corrective action. In sponse to signs of contamination some cases involving illegal spills at the huge Martin complex south­ at the Martin complex, the divi- ~ west of Denver has been curiously sion has taken as long as a year unbalanced. Violations of the just to issue a violation notice and state’s water-quality regulations cease-and-desist order. have been tolerated, for the most By comparison, the waste-man-; part, while hazardous-waste of­ agement branch, headed by Ken fenses have been vigorously pros­ Waesche, has taken a hard-line ecuted. approach since it took over en- i Indeed, the Health Depart­ forcement duties from the federal ment’s waste management divi­ government in 1984. In general, its i sion didn’t begin negotiations with actions have reflected the view Martin Marietta until after it had that polluters won’t comply with issued a proposal to fine the com­ environmental regulations unless ■ pany $48,000 - a figure that they’re convinced it will cost : mounted as more and more viola­ them more to ignore the laws tions were uncovered. The water than to obey them. quality division, by contrast, nev­ Politically, Broetzman’s more er publicly proposed a fine, even cautious stance is understand­ though it has the authority to sock able. Any penalties he assesses it to polluters for as much as can be — and usually are — ap- j $10,000 a day. And it didn’t get in­ pealed to the Water Quality Con­ volved in the Martin discussions trol Commission, which often re­ until-long after the toxic-waste duces the amounts that polluters folks had started the ball tolling must pay. Fines for the illegal last June. storage, treatment or disposal of The settlement, outlined earlier hazardous wastes,; meanwhile, , this month, called for the giant aren’t second-guessed by any defense contractor to pay $1 mil­ state commission. lion for numerous hazardous- But as the Martin case demon- ; waste violations dating back to strates, the low-key, bureaucratic 1980, with half the fine to be approach to enforcement doesn’t ; waived if the firm commits no always work. - more offenses in the next 18 It may be more expensive and j months.. time-consuming to take corpora- : The $110,500 penalty for water- tions into court, but polluters quality infractions covered just must not be given the message j five episodes s since 1985, even that they can continue to containi- \ though at least 20 had been re­ nate Colorado’s land, water or air ported in the previous five years. with impunity. Head Office: SUNNYSIDE GOLD CORPORATION Silverton Office: Building D AN ECHO SAV COMPANY P.O. Box 177 484 Turner Drive Silverton, CO 81433 Durango, CO 81301 Phone (303) 387-5533 Phone (303) 259-1091

May 7, 1986

Mr. William C. Robb Attorney at Law Welborn, Dufford, Brown & Tooley 1700 Broadway Denver, CO 80290-1199

Dear Bill,

Enclosed you will find your copies of Sunnyside Gold Corporation's mining and milling permits that pertain to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, they are:

1) 1977 original application for mining and milling permit, 2) 1985 - 1986 technical revisions, and 3) 112 application amendment #1.

I am also taking this opportunity to submit to you copies of the company’s correspondence to the Colorado Department of Health, which pertains to effluent limitation, violation, upsets, etc.

Sincerely

Douglas S. Murray Environmental Engineer

DSM/mm

Enclosures STATE OF COLORADO

INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Thi DlSu on Itl!! I? i Y Industrial wastewater dischargers. l i n e haL h VSnt 0n m l require actual anaWsIs for parameters A V tems 0f the aPP,ication must be completed t Ientirety or the application will be deemed Incom- I 1 ieceived AonWr M * i W,U ?Ct begln untU aU »^formation delivered only t shaH be 3ubm(tted by certified mail or hand Colorado Department of Health Water Quality Control Division Permits Section 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Item 1 - All owners of property must be Identified.

Item 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 - Self explanatory.

Item 7 - optional - for facilities which are other than a typical operation, the SIC code may assist In determining effluent limitations.

' r,'S ,S 'n'end®d ,t0 serve as an area map attachment to the permit. A legible submittal Is required.

* Ih!S T? t faci1Ity sketch for inclusion in the permit.- A legible submittal Is required. H M

Item 10, 11 - Self explanatory.

Item 12-A - The line drawing should show generally the route taken by r ^ r i i nt.ï°UP facîUtY from Intake discharge. Show all operations tltïr h*i WahteV!te^, rncIudIn9 Process and production areas. The water balance should show average flows and all significant losses of water to products, atmosphere dust control and discharge. Use actual measurement whenever possible, otherwise use your best estimate.

a" so“rces wastewal=er for each outfall. You may estimate the flow contributed by each source If no data is available, and for stormwater, you may use any reasonable measure of duration, volume or frequency. For each treatment unit indicate Its design size ^ rat« and retention time and describe the ultimate disposal’ of any solid or liquid waste not discharged.

item 12-C - A discharge is intermittent unless It occurs without interrup' tlon- during the operating hours of the facility, except for mainten­ ance, process change or similar shutdown. A discharge is seasonal If It occurs only during certain parts of the year. Item 13 - If you answer yes, a copy of the agreement, stipulation, order, compliance schedule, etc. should suffice.

Item \k - The Division Is seeking Information on In process control and monitoring which directly or Indirectly can affect the ability of the discharge to comply with permit limitations as It relates to verifying treatment system capacity.

Item 15 - Describe the Impacts expected from this discharge on the classified uses of the receiving waters and the standards assigned to those waters. If possible, Include flow analysis of receiving stream ((17/10, seasonal variations, hydrograph, etc.). If possible, provide mass-balance of all effluent parameters for which water quality standards have been assigned, using Q7/I0 (seasonally adjusted) as the critical flow regime. If possible, provide mathe­ matical modelling results of simulation of this discharge Into receiving waters.

Item 16 - Analysis for the Indicated parameters shall be performed on each outfall and receiving waters upstream of the outfall. If more than one outfall is to a common body of water, only one analy- sis of the receiving water upstream of the upper most outfall will be required. If the receiving stream Is dry during portions of the year, so indicate, in the case of sedimentation ponds for stormwater runoff, one outfall can be sampled if It can reasonably be assumed to be representative of all sedimentation pond outfalls. As high analytical detection limits provide limited information, analytical techniques should be utilized which will approach or be lower than numeric limits listed In Regulations Establishing Basic Standards, effective July 10, 1979. High detection limits may be a basis for requiring additional monitoring in the permit. The sample for an­ alysis shall be a. composite sample and is defined as a minimum of 4 grab samples collected at equally spaced 2 hour intervals and proportioned according to flow. Fecal coliform, pH, D.O., tempera­ ture, oil and grease and total residual chlorine should be a qrab sample.

Item 17 - Review the parameters listed in Appendix A and 3 and Identify any which are known or suspected to be present In any out­ fall and designate the outfall. Analytical data should be provided If available. If present because of intake source, so indicate.

Item 18 - If land application, defined as any discharge being applied to the land for treatment purposes, Is practiced or proposed the Divls needs appropriate information to understand the operation and make a judgement as to possible Impact on ground or surface waters. If not Identified elsewhere, Identify the nearest surface waters or dry stream bed.

Item 19, 20 - Self explanatory. Item 21 - The application form shall be signed as follows:

(a) In the case of corporations, by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice-president or his or her duly authorized representative, if such representative Is responsible for the over­ all operation of the facility from which the discharge described In the application originates.

(b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner.

(c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor.

(d) In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or other duly authorized employee. ‘ INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE APPLICATION

APPLICATION NUMBER / 1 7 1 1 1 7 7 7 7— 7 /_/_/_/_/ ___ /_/_/_/_/ ___ / DATE RECEIVED / 7 7 7 7 7— 7 /_/_/_/_/_/_/ YEAR MONTH DAY

Do not attempt to complete this form before reading the accompanying instructions. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE

NEW OR RENEWAL (existing permit No. )

1. Name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the facility producing discharge. 6 Property o w n e r ( s ) ______Mailing Address ______x Street A d d r e s s ______City State County______Zip Code______Name of operation ______Local contact(familiar with process)______Telephone Number ( )______Area Code 2. Is the facility operated other than by the owner?______YES * NO If YES, complete the following: Operator^______Mailing Address ______Street Address______City______State______County______Zip Code ______Name of Operation______Local Contact Telephone Number______.______

Also, on the back side of this page describe the relationship, agreements and time frame of any agreement. (This information may be designated "confidential".)

3. Specify whether owner or operator is making application for the permit. A. Legal description (Township, Range, \/k Section)______B. Street

C. city______D. State______

E- C o u n t y ______F. Ztp Code______

S. Local Contact (familiar with process) ______

H. Telephone Number ( ) ______Area Code Type of facility (coal mine, steel mill, etc,) plus brief description of in­ dustrial processes.

Principal product(s) and maximum production r.ate

« Standard industrial code (SIC) Number (if known)______

A location map designating the facility property and discharge points shall be submitted. The map shall be from a 7-1/2 or 15 minute USGS quad sheet or a map of comparable scale. A north arrow shall be shown. Any public water supply intakes within a 5 mile ¿asTlas -of the fa c M l t y sha-Wralso be. Identified.

A legible sketch of the site shall be submitted and Include appurtenant facilities (building, ponds, diversion ditches, stockpiles, etc.), stream location, numbered discharged points, sampling and flow monitoring points. Sketch shall be on paper 8-1/2 x 11 Inches.

Method of F1 ow/measurement for each discharge (?,e. 90 v-notch weir, 9 Inch parshail flume, none, etc.). Designate whether Installed or proposed. For each outfall, list the latitude and longitude of Its location to the nearest 15 seconds and the name of the receiving water. A. OUTFALL NUMBER B. : LATITUD C. LONGITUDE D. RECEIVING WATER (list) 1. OEG. 2. MIN 3. SEC. 1 DEG. 2. MIN. 3. SEC. (name)

12. Flows, Sources of Pollution, and Treatment Technologies

A. Attach a line drawing showing the water flow through the facility. Indicate sources of Intake water, operations contributing waste­ water to the effluent, and treatment units labeled to correspond to the more detailed descriptions in Item B. Construct a water balance on the line drawing by showing average flows between ' intakes, operations, treatment units, and outfalls. If a water balance cannot be determined (e.g. for certain mining activities), provide a pictorial description of the nature and amount of any sources of water and any collection or treatment measures. ,

B. For each outfall, provide a description of: (1) All operations contributing wastewater to the effluent, Including process waste- 'm w i ! sanItarY wastewater, cooling water, and stormwater runoff; (2; The average flow contributed by each operation; and (3) The treatment received by the wastewater plus an identification of chemical additives. Continue on additional sheets if necessary.

1. OUTFALL 2.-- OPERATION(S) CONTRIBUTING FLOW I 3. TREATMENT ' NUMBER a. OPERATION I b.iAV£RAGE FLOW... ” “a. • DESCRIPTION | Dssign. I Max.. Flow" (11st) --- Llkl)------£U*tl______Flow factual OUTFALL 2. OPERATION(S) CONTRIBUTING FLOW 3. TREATMENT NUMBER a. OPERATION b. AVERAGE FLOW a. DESCRIPTION Design Max Flow (list) (list) (list) Flow (actual)

C. Except for storm runoff, leaks, or spills, are any of the discharges described In Items 12A or B intermittent or seasonal?

YES (complete the following table) _____ NO (Go to item 13)

3. FREQUENCY 4. FLOW a.FLOW RATE b.TOTAL VOLUME c.DUR­ OUTFALL 2.OPERAT 1 ON (S) a.DAYS b.MONTHS (In mgd) (specify w/un(ts) ATION NUM3ER CONTRIBUTING PER WEEK PER YEAR I.LONG 2.MAX. I.LONG 2. MAX (Ir. days) (list) FLOW (specify (specify TERM DAILY TERM DAILY (list) average) average) AVG. AVG.

•

13. Improvements

A, Are you now required by any Federal, State or local authority to meet any Implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or opera­ tion of wastewater treatment equipment or practices or any other envi­ ronmental programs which may affect the discharges described in this application? This includes, but Is not limited to, permit conditions, administrative or enforcement orders, enforcement compliance schedule letters, stipulations, court orders, and grant or loan conditions.

YES (complete the following table) NO (go to Item 13-8} IDENTIFICATION OF 2. AFF ■CTED OUTFALLS 3. BRIEF DESCRIPTION FINAL COMPLIANCE CONDITION, AGREE­ a. NO. b. Source of OF PROJECT DATE MENT, ETC. D1scharqe a.Requlred b.Prolecte

'

B. OPTIONAL: You may attach additional sheets describing any additional water pollution control programs (or other environmental projects which may effect your discharges) Indicate whether each program Is now underway or planned, and Indicate your actual or planned schedules for construction. _____ MARK MXM IF DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTROL PROGRAMS IS ATTACHED.

14. For processes Identified In Item I2B provide an operations plan detailing process monitoring and control procedures as It affects the wastewater dlscharge(s), Provide on separate sheet.

15. Provide an analysis of projected water quality Impact by the proposed dIscharge(s). Provide on separate sheet. Analytical data for the following parameters unless exempted shall be submitted from at least one composite sampling of each discharge point plus state waters upstream of each discharge. See Instructions.

Temperature. ®.C _Copper, Total (mg/1)

D issolved Oxygen (mg/1) _CyanIde, Free (mg/1)

_____ AlkanlInlty (mg/I) _Cyanïde, Total (mg/1)

______80D5 Jron, Dissolved (mg/1)

_____ pH (s.u.) Jron, Total (mg/I)

Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) J.ead, Total (mg/1)

_____ Fecal Coilform (#/100 ml) ^Manganese, Dissolved (mg/1)

Ammonia (mg/1) ^Manganese, Total (mg/I)

Fluoride (mg/I) _Mercury, Total (mg/1)

___Nitrate (mg/1) _NIckel, Total (mg/1)

_____Nitrite (mg/1) __Phenols, Total (mg/1)

_____Sulfide as H£S (mg/I) _MoIybdenum, Total (mg/I)

_____Boron (mg/1) _Selenfum, Total (mg/1)

_____Chloride (mg/I) ^Silver, Total (mg/1)

_____Sulfate (mg/1) Jhallium, Total (mg/1)

_____Aluminum, Dissolved (mg/I) JJranlum, Total (mg/l)

____ Antimony, Total (mg/1) Oil and Grease

____ Arsenic, Total (mg/1) _ZInc, Total (mg/l)

_____Barium, Total (mg/I) Total Dissolved Solids

_____Beryllium, Total (mg/1) _Gross Alpha pCl/1

Cadmium. Total (mg/1) Gross Beta pCl/I

____ Chromium, Hexavalent (mg/1) _RadIum 226 £ 228 pCl/1

Chromium. Trivalent (mg/1) Other

____ Total Residual Chlorine (mg/1)

The analytical method selected for a parameter should be the one that can measure the lowest detection limit for that parameter, unless the State Guideline (see appendix C) Is within the testing range of another approved method. A. Use the space below to list any of the pollutants listed In Appendix A and B which you know or have reason to believe are discharged or may be discharged from any outfall. For every pollutant you list, briefly describe the reasons you believe It to be present and report any analytical data In your posses­ sion.

1. POLLUTANT 2. SOURCE I. POLLUTANT 2. SOURCE

•

•18:. Is or will :la«d a'ppi IcafSTon of any wastewater be practiced? ____ YES __ NO

If YES, Identify disposal area, crop, specify acreage, quality and quantity of wastewater, method of application, seasonal operation, pretreatment and groundwater monitoring program.

19« Estimated life of the activity from which the dlscharge(s).IdentIfted In item I2B originate. ______Years.

20. Projected treatment costs, 1Ife -cycle,’ including capital and*0 5 M expenses for period of permit requested. Attach separate sheet.

21. I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the Information submitted In this application and all attachments and that, based on my Inquiry of those Individuals Immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the Information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false Information, Including the possibility of fine and Imprisonment.

A. SIGNATURE B. DATE SIGNED

C. NAME (PRINTED) D. TITLE Organic Toxic Pollutants in Each of Three Fractions by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)

Volatlles Base/Neutral

Acrolein Acenaphthene Acrylonltrile Acenaphthylene Benzene Anthracene Bromoform Benzidine Carbon Tetrachloride Benzo(a)anthracene Chlorobenzene Benzo(a)pyrene Chlorod I bromorr,ethane 3,4-Benzofluoranthene Chloroethane Benzo(ghi)perylene 2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether Benzo(k)f1uoranthene Chloroform Bls(2-chloroethoxy)methane D i chlorobromomethane Bls(2-chlorolsopropyl)ether 1,1-Dlchloroethane Bts(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1,2-Dlchloroethane 4-Bromophenyl phenylether , 1,1•Diehloroethylene Butylbenzyl phthalate 1,2-Dlchloropropane 2-Chloronaphthalene 1,2-0lchloropropylene 4-Chlorophenyl phenylether Ethylbenzene Chrysene Methyl Bromide Dl-benzo (a,h) anthracene Methyl Chloride 1,2-Dlchlorobenzene Methylene Chloride 1,3-Olchlorobenzene 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,4-Dlchlorobenzene Tetrachloroethylene 3,3-DIchlorobenzidlne Toluene Diethylphthalate 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene Dimethylphthalate 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Di-n-butylphthalate 1,1,2-TrIchloroethane 2,^-Dinitrotoluene Trichloroethylene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Vinyl Chloride Dl-n-octylphthalate 1,2-Di-phonyWtydrazine (as azobenzeme) Acid Compounds Fluoranthene Fluorene 2-Chlorophenol Hexachlorobenzene 2,4-Dichlorophenol Hexachlorobutadlene 2,4-Dimethylphenol Hexach1orcycIopentad i ene A,6-Dinitro-o-cresol Hexachloroethane 2,4-Dlnitr.ophenol: lndlno(l,2,3’cd) pyrene 2-Nitrophenol 1sophorone 4-NItrophenol Naphthalene P-chloro-m-cresol Nitrobenzene Pentachlorophenol N-Nltrosodlmethylamine Phenol N-Nltrosodl-n-propylamine 2,k,6-Tr1ch1oropheno1 N-Ni trosod1 phenyl amine Phenanthrene Pyrene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene bi s (2-chloroethy\)ether Organic Toxic Pollutants In Each of Three Fractions In Analysis by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)

Pesticides

Aldrln Alpha-BHC Beta-BHC Gamma-BHC Delta-BHC Chlordane M'-DDT M'-DDE M'-DDD DIeldrtn Alpha-Endosulfan Beta-Endosulfan Endosulfan Sulfate Endrln Endrln Aldehyde Heptachlor Heptachlor Epoxide PCB-12^2 PCB-1254 PCB-1221 PCB-1232 PCB-1248 PCB-1260 PCB—1016 Toxaphene Lindane Ml rex Demeton Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous Substances

Toxic Pollutants Methoxychlor Methyl mercaptan Asbestos Methyl methacrylate Methyl parathlon Hazardous Substances Mevlnphos Mexacarbate Acetaldehyde Monoethyl amine Allyl alcohol Monomethyl amine Allyl chloride Naled Amyl acetate Napthenlc acid' Anl1Ine Nitrotoluene Benzon11 r11e Parathlon Benzyl chloride Phenolsulfanate Butyl acetate Phosgene Butylamlne Proparglte Captan Propylene oxide Carbaryl Pyrethrlns Carbofuran Qui noi Ine Carbon disulfide Resorelnoi Chlorpyrlfos Strontium Coumaphos Strychnine Cresol Styrene Crotonaldehyde 2,4,5-T(2,k ,5-T rI ehIorophenoxy Cyclohexane acetic acid) 2,*i-D(2,A-DIchlorophenoxy acetic acid) TDE (Tetrachlorodlphenylethane) Dlazlnon 2,4,5~TP[2-(2,^,5"TrI chiorophenoxy) Olcamba propanoic acid] Dlchlobenl1 Trlchlorofon Dlchlone Trlethylamlne 2,2-Dlchloroproplonlc acid Trlmethylamlne Dlchlorvos Uranium 01 ethyl amine Vandlum Dimethyl amine Vinyl Acetate D ¡nitrobenzene Xylene Dlquat Xylenol Dlsulfoton Zirconium Dluron Eplchlorohydrln Ethanol amIne Ethlon Ethylene diamine Ethylene dlbromlde Formaldehyde Furfural Guthlon Isoprene Isopropanolamlne Kelthane Kepone Malathlon MercaptodImethur METAL'PARAMETERS

PARAMETER RECREAT10MAI AQUATIC LIFE AGRI. DOMESTIC WATER SUPPIY n o n n u in O T — O » — 3 -• « CUSS 1 3 •» «■» o •» CLASS CLASS 1 CLASS 2 •» m w m a *» o -* n a - r » tiN C old W ater and Warm W ater B io ta ■n OR Bloassay •< Water Hardness or A lkalinity (ag/l) (Application TOTAL METALS - T o ta l to 0 100 100 t o 200 200 to j 00 j o b t o **00 400 p lu s ' fa c to r o r conc. in wg/l o th e r ) Aluminum(soluble) > .1 ( 0 0 .1 (C ) 0 .1 (C ) 0 .1 (C ) 0 . 1 (c ) B loa ssay .... A rs e n ic 1.05(C ) 0 .0 5 (C ) 0 .0 5 ( c ) o 0 .0 5 (C ) 0 .0 5 (C ) B io a ssa y S. 1 (A) 1.0 5(E ) Bar ium — r — 1 .0 (E ) - » — 1 .0 (E ) r* B eryl 1 urn 3.01 (A) 0 .3 ( c ) m 0 .6 (C ) 0 .9 ( c ) 1 .1 (A ) ) . 1 (A .B ) Cadmium ).00MA,C,H) O.OOI(A.C.H) 0 .0 0 5 (C,H) 0 .0 l0 (C ,H ) 0 .0 I5 ÍC .H ) «• B io a ssa y 1 .0 1 (B ) > .010(E ) 0 01 0 (E ) • Chramii«n-lr ¡valent a. 1(H) 0.1 (II) 0 . |(H ) a 0 .1 (H ) 0 .1 (H ) 1 .1 (B ) 3.0 5(E ) ----- o----- Chrom'im-Hexl valent D.025(H) 3 0 .02S (H ) 0 .0 2 5 (H ) 0 .0 2 5 (H ) 0 .0 2 5 (H ) > .K B ) 9 .0 5 (E ) 0 0 5 (E ) Copper Î . 005(C) 0 .0 1 (C ) 0 .0 1 (C ) 0 .0 2 (C ) 0 .0 4 (C ) O.IAF(A) ft » J -2 (8 ) l-O (F ) 1 .0 (F ) • Ir o n l-O (A .C ) I.O(A.C) l.0 ( A ,C ) I.O(A.C) I.O(A.C) • 9.3(sol)(F) le a d l.O O M C .H ) 0 .0 2 5 ÍC .H ) O.OSO(C.H) 1 O.IOO(C.H) 0 .I5 0 (C ,H ) B lo a ssa y n 3 .1 (B ) 0.05(E) 0.05(E) Manganese — 8 — 1 .0 (C ) 1 .0 (C ) l- o ( c ) 1 .0 (C ) • 1 . 0 (c ) B io a ssa y 0 .2 (B ) 0.05(sol)(F) 0.05(«ol)(F) M ercury at l).00005(A) 0 .0 0 0 0 5 (A ) 0 .0 00 0 5(A ) 0 .0 00 0 5 (A ) 0 .0 0 0 0 5 (A ) m 9 .0 0 2 (E ) 0 .0 0 2 (E ) N ic k e l 0 .0 5(C ) 0 . 10(C) 0 .2 0 (C ) 0 .3 0 (C ) 0 .4 0 (C ) O.OIAF(A) 0 .2 (B ) Selenitim 9 .0 5 (C ,II) 0 .0 5 (C ,K ) 0 .0 5 (C .H ) O.OS(C.li) O.OS(C.H) O.OOIAF(H) 0 .0 2 (8 ,0 ) 9 .0 1 (E ) 0 .0 1 (E ) S ilv e r O.OOOIO(C.H) O.OOOIO(C.H) O.OOOIS(C.H) 0.00020(C,H) 0.00025(C.H) O.QIAF(A) 9 .0 5 (E ) 0 .0 5 (E ) T lia l) luat 1.015(C ) 0 .0 1 5 (c ) 0 .0 1 5 (C ) 0 . 0 1 5 (c ) 0 .0 1 5 (C ) B lo a ssa y Uranium 1.03(C ) 0 .2 (C ) o . M O 0 .8 (C ) l.% (C ) B io a ssa y Z in c l.O S (C .H ) 0 .0 5 ÍC .H ) O .IO (C .li) 0 .3 0 (C ,H ) 0 .6 0 (C ,h ) O.OIAF(A) 1 .0 (B ) » •0(F ) 5 tP{f ) WELBORN, DUFFORD, BROWN 8 TOOLEY ROBERT F. WELBORN PHILIP Q. DUFFORD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY RANOALL J.FEUERSTCIN THOMAS G. BROWN 3 .KIRK INGEBRETSEN DALE TOOLEY DIANE L . BURK HAROT DAVID W. FURGASON DENVER,COLORADO Ö0290-II99 STEPHEN J.SULLIVAN WILLIAM C. ROBB (303) 8 61*6013 JOHN M.SPILLANE JOHN F.WELBORN ELLEN TOLL WILLIAM A.MCLAIN DOUGLAS P. RUEGSEGGER BEVERLY J. QUAIL EDWARD D. WHITE RICHARD L.FANYO KATHRYN L.POWERS JO H N F. MECK THEODORE B.ATLASS COUNSEL PHILLIP D. BARBER GREGORY A.RUEGSEOGER

November 20, 1985 HAND DELIVERED

Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Attention: Karen Young

Res Sunnyside Mine— Transfer of Ownership Dear Karens

„ Enclosed are the requests for transfer of the three flnf' J\e r m i 5°r tue SunnVside Mine, The transaction did in fact close last night, and Sunnyside Gold Corporation-has Miir!iperation?SetS 00n,prisin9 the Sunnyside Mine and Mayflower

P*eaSe *et IJie know if you have any questions. We appreciate your consideration of this on an expedited basis.

Yours very truly,

WELBORN, DUFFORD, BROWN & TOOLEY

Wi l l i a m C. Robb WCR/jjb Encl. S unnyside Gold Corporation 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 13, 1985 Mr, Gary G. Broetzman Director, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

He: CPDES Permit No. CO-0036056 Terry Tunnel Standard Metals Corporation Dear Mr, Broetzman:

^ j Pursuant to paragraph 6.9.6 of the Regulations for the Colorado Discharge Permit System, notice is hereby given that the water quality permit No. C0-0036056 for the Terry Tunnel, which is a part of the Sunnyside Mine, will be transferred to Sunnyside Gold Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Echo Bay, Inc., upon the purchase of all of the Sunnyside Mine assets from Standard Metals/' Corporation. The anticipated date of closing for the purchase of assets is November 19, 1985.

By their signatures on this notice, Standard Metals Corporation and Sunnyside Gold Corporation hereby agree that from and after the date of closing of the purchase of assets, Sunnyside Gold Corporation will have responsibility, coverage and liability for meeting the obligations of the permit.

Because of our prior meeting and conversations with your staff regarding this proposed purchase of assets, and because the purchase has now been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the reorganization proceedings of Standard Metals Corporation, we would request that the transfer be accomplished on an expedited basis. The cooperation of you and your staff in this is very much appreciated.

STANDARD METALS CORP<

f / O ( h f s \ . . S i . / L v / / - Date

SUNNYSIDE GOLD CORPORATION ? Sunnyside Gold Corporation 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 13, 1985 Mr. Gary G. Broetzman Director, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Res CPDES Permit No. CO-0000426 Mayflower Mill Standard Metals Corporation Dear Mr. Broetzman:

Pursuant to paragraph 6.9.6 of the Regulations for t Colorado Discharge Permit System, notice is hereby given that the water quality permit No. C0-0000426 for the Mayflower Mil will be transferred to Sunnyside Gold Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Echo Bay, Inc., upon the purchase of all of the Sunnyside Mine assets from Standard Metals Corporation. The anticipated date of/closing for the purchase of assets is November 19, 1985.

By their signatures on this notice, Standard Metals Corporation and Sunnyside Gold Corporation hereby agree that from and after the date of closing of the purchase of assets, Sunnyside Gold Corporation will have responsibility, coverage and liability for meeting the obligations of the permit.

Because of our prior meeting and conversations with your staff regarding this proposed purchase of assets, and because the purchase has now been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the reorganization proceedings of Standard Metals Corporation, we would request that the transfer be accomplished on an expedited basis. The cooperation of you and your staff in this is very much appreciated.

SUNNYSIDE GOLD CORPORATION Sunnyside Gold Corporation 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 13, 1985

Mr. Gary G. Broetzman Director, Water Quality Control Division Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Re: CPDES Permit No. CO-0027529 American Tunnel Standard Metals Corporation

Dear Mr. Broetzman

Pursuant to paragraph 6.9.6 of the Regulations for the Colorado Discharge Permit System, notice is hereby given that the water quality permit No. CO-0027529 for the American Tunnel, which is a part of the Sunnyside Mine, will be transferred to Sunnyside Gold Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Echo Bay, Inc., upon the purchase of all of the Sunnyside Mine assets.from Standard Metals Corporation. The anticipated date oi closing for the purchase of assets is November 19, 1985.

By their signatures on this notice, Standard Metals Corporation and Sunnyside Gold Corporation hereby agree that from and after the date of closing of the purchase of assets, Sunnyside Gold Corporation will have responsibility, coverage and liability for meeting the obligations of the permit.

Because of our prior meeting and conversations with your staff regarding this proposed purchase of assets, and because the purchase has now been approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the reorganization proceedings of Standard Metals Corporation, we would request that the transfer be accomplished on an expedited basis. The cooperation of you and your staff in this is very much appreciated.

Date:

SUNNYSIDE GOLD CORPORATION Ec h o Bay Inc, 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 19, 1985

Standard Metals Corporation 645 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022

Re: Transfer of Water Discharge Permits Sunnyside Mine San Juan County, Colorado

Gentlemen:

In connection with the sale of Sunnyside Mine and related assets by Standard Metals Corporation ("Standard Metals") to Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("Sunnyside"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Echo Bay Inc. ("Echo Bay"), on November 19, 1985, Standard Metals requested the transfer to Sunnyside of Water Quality Discharge Permit Nos. C0-0027529 (American Tunnel), CO-0000426 (Mayflower Mill), and C0-0036056 (Terry Tunnel) issued by the State of Colorado (the "Permits").

5 C.C.R. 1002-2-6.9.6 of the regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (the "Division") ' require that 30 days' notice be given before a permit transfer may become effective. Accordingly, unless the requested transfer is specifically made effective on an expedited basis by the Division, Standard Metals will remain the permitee of record and will remain responsible for permit compliance and liable for permit violations until December 19, 1985.

In order to allow Sunnyside immediately to commence operations at the Sunnyside Mine and related facilities, in consideration for the right to assume Standard Metals' rights under the Permits, Echo Bay hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Standard Metals for any and all penalties, orders and other responsibilities, duties or liabilities stemming from or related to the Permits which are attributable to conditions, events or omissions occurring within the period from November 19, 1985 until December 19, 1985, or until such other time as the transfer of the Permits officially becomes effective.

ECHO BAY INC.

Approved this 19th day of November, 1985, by STANDARDMETALS^G0RPORATION

By. Echo Bay Inc, 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 19, 1985

Standard Metals Corporation 645 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022

Re: Transfer of Water Discharge Permits Sunnyside Mine San Juan County, Colorado

Gentlemen:

In connection with the sale of Sunnyside Mine and related assets by Standard Metals Corporation ("Standard Metals”) to Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("Sunnyside"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Echo Bay Inc. ("Echo Bay"), on November 19, 1985, Standard Metals requested the transfer to Sunnyside of Water Quality Discharge Permit Nos. CO-OQ27529 (American Tunnel), C0-0000426 (Mayflower Mill), and C0-0036056 (Terry Tunnel) issued by the State of Colorado (the "Permits").

5 C.C.R. 1002-2-6.9.6 of the regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (the "Division") require that 30 days* notice be given before a permit transfer may become effective. Accordingly, unless the requested transfer is specifically made effective on an expedited basis by the Division, Standard Metals will remain the permitee of record and will remain responsible for permit compliance and liable for permit violations until December 19, 1985.

In order to allow Sunnyside immediately to commence operations at the Sunnyside Mine and related facilities, in consideration for the right to assume Standard Metals* rights under the Permits, Echo Bay hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Standard Metals for any and all penalties, orders and other responsibilities, duties or liabilities stemming from or related to the Permits which are attributable to conditions, events or omissions occurring within the period from November 19 1985 until December 19, 1985, or until such other time as ' the transfer of the Permits officially becomes effective.

Approved this 19th day of November, 1985, by STANDARD METALS CORPORATION

By; Ech o Bay Inc. 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 19, 1985

Standard Metals Corporation 645 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022

Re: Transfer of Water Discharge Permits Sunnyside Mine San Juan County, Colorado

Gentlemen:

In connection with the sale of Sunnyside Mine and related assets by Standard Metals Corporation ("Standard Metals") to Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("Sunnyside"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Echo Bay Inc. ("Echo Bay"), on November 19, 1985, Standard Metals requested the transfer to Sunnyside of Water Quality Discharge Permit Nos. C0-0027529 (American Tunnel), C0-0000426 (Mayflower Mill), and C0-0036056 (Terry Tunnel) issued by the State of Colorado (the "Permits").

5 C.C.R. 1002-2-6.9.6 of the regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (the "Division") require that 30 days' notice be given before a permit transfer may become effective. Accordingly, unless the requested transfer is specifically made effective on an expedited basis by the Division, Standard Metals will remain the permitee of record and will remain responsible for permit compliance and liable for permit violations until December 19, 1985.

In order to allow Sunnyside immediately to commence operations at the Sunnyside Mine and related facilities, in consideration for the right to assume Standard Metals' rights under the Permits, Echo Bay hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Standard Metals for any and all penalties, orders and other responsibilities, duties or liabilities stemming from or related to the Permits which are attributable to conditions, events or omissions occurring within the period from November 19, 1985 until December 19, 1985, or until such other time as the transfer of the Permits officially becomes effective.

ECHO BAY INC.

Approved this 19th day of November, 1985, by STANDARD. METALS CORPORATION Ech o Bay Inc, 3300 Manulife Place 10180-101 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5J3S4

November 19, 1985

Standard Metals Corporation 645 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10022

Re: Transfer of Water Discharge Permits Sunnyside Mine San Juan County, Colorado Gentlemens

^ connection with the sale of Sunnyside Mine and related assets by Standard Metals Corporation ("Standard Metals ) to Sunnyside Gold Corporation ("Sunnyside"). a wholly owned subsidiary of Echo Bay inc. ("Echo Bay"), on November 19, 1985, Standard Metals requested the transfer o Sunnyside of Water Quality Discharge Permit Nos, CO-0027529 (American Tunnel), C0-0000426 (Mayflower Mill), and C0-0036056 (Terry Tunnel) issued by the State of Colorado (the "Permits»).

rnlnr , I C.C.R. 1002-2-6.9.6 of the regulations of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (the "Division") ^ uJre d^ s? notice be given before a permit transfer is SDP M ? f n ^ f 0CtlJe‘ ,Jccoiding1y i unless the requested transfer is specifically made effective on an expedited basis by the stai?dard Metals will remain the permitee of record fnr will remain responsible for permit compliance and liable ror permit violations until December 19, 1985.

°5def to aH 0W Sunnyside immediately to commence operations^at the Sunnyside Mine and related facilities, in consideration for the right to assume Standard Metals' rights the Permits> Echo Bay heret>y agrees to indemnify and and o?hrm Standard Metals for any and all penalties, orders or r » u f / f P?!!Sln •leS' duties or liabilities stemming from or related to the Permits which are attributable to conditions °yiomissl°ns occurring within the period from November 19, 1985 until December 19, 1985, or until such other time as the transfer of the Permits officially becomes effective.

ECHO BAY INC.

Approved this 19th day of ^ ¿L November, 1985, by STANDARD METALS CORPORATION

By: I Botis Gresov, President Attorney General C harles B. Howe âlu' ^îati' ni (Enlnraön Chief Deputy Attorney General STATE SERVICES BUILDING 1525 Sherman Street Richard H. Forman DEPARTMENT OF LAW Denver, Colorado 80203 S o licito r G eneral OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Phone 866-3611 & 866-3621

November 5, 1985

William C. Robb, Esq. Welborn, Dufford, Brown 6 c T o o l e y 1700 Broadway Denver, CO 80290-1199

RE: Sunnyside Mine

Dear Mr. Robb:

With reference to your letter of October 4, 1985, to Cary Unkelbach, I am in agreement that, in the event of Echo Bay s purchase of the Sunnyside Mine, the outstanding notices of violations should continue to be the liabilities of Stand­ ard Metals. This assumes that all purchase documents, etc., will continue to specify that it is not assuming responsibility for the violations.

Furthermore, the Water Quality Control Division is will­ ing to forego the issue in reliance upon Echo Bays1 representa­ tions that the facility will be brought into immediate com­ pliance with the discharge permit upon its purchase from Stand­ ard Metals.

Sincerely,

FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Section J W G : bbs cc : Sandy Squire Robert Shukle Cary Unkelbach STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220

William C. Bobb 1700 Broadway Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80290-1199 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PERMITTEE Water Quality Control Division ______’ 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303)+320-8333, Ext. 3231

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER

AND ACCEPTANCE OF TEFMS

OF A COLORADO PERMIT

i am the new owner of the following facility:

I hereky apply for transfer to me of this Colorado Permit No. CO-______which was issued to the previous owner. I have reviewed this permit and accept its terms in full.

Please print or type.

A. CXvner______

B. Facility Name

C. Hailing Address______

D. City ______

E. State______F. County______

G. Zip Code ______

H. Telephone Number J______) ______Area Code Name______(Print) Signature

Title______

Cate COLORATO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PERMITTEE Water Quality Control Division 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303)+320-8333, Ext. 3231

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER

AND ACCEPTANCE OF TEEMS

OF A COLORADO PERMIT

I,______am the new owner of the following facility:

I hereby apply for transfer to me of this Colorado Permit No. CO-______which was issued to the previous owner. I have reviewed this permit and accept its terms in full.

Please print or type.

A. CWier

B. Facility Name

C. Mailing Address

D. City

E. State F. County

G. Zip Code

H. Telephone Number ( ) Area Code Name (Print) Signature

Title_

Date COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PERMITTEE Water Quality Control Division _’ 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303)+320-8333, Ext. 3231

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER

AND ACCEPTANCE OF TEFMS

OF A COLORADO PERMIT

Xr______, am the new cwner of the following facility:

I hereby apply for transfer to me of this Colorado Permit No. CO-______which was issued to the previous owner. I have reviewed this permit and accept its terms in full.

Please print or type.

A. Cwner

B. Facility Name

C. Mailing Address^

D. City______

E. State______F. County

G. Zip Code______

H. Telephone Number (______) Area Code Name (Print) Signature

Title

Date WATER QUALITÀ DL COMMISSION

December 18, 1984

Greg Hobbs, Esq. Davis, Graham & Stubbs Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 185 Denver, CO 80201

Mr. Doug Murray Environmental Engineer Standard Metals Corporation P.O. Box 247 Silverton, CO 81433

Dear Messrs. Hobbs and Murray:

The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, at its meeting on December 4, 1984, determined to hold a combined triennial review of the Arkansas, San Juan, and Rio Grande River Basins in May, 1985. A notice of informational hearing announcing the dates and locations will -be presented to the Commission on February 4, 1985 for its approval.

This decision was made because: 1) On December 4, 1984, I advised the Commission that Standard Metals would not be ready for a rulemaking hearing in the spring on the Animas River (today, December 14, 1984, Mr. Murray told me the use attainability analysis will be distributed early in January, 1985); 2) there was only one response to the Commission's memo of July 30, 1984, to "Persons Interested in the Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards in the Rio Grande and San Juan River Basins - Subject: Early Start on Triennial Review" (this lack of response dictates that an informational hearing be held); and 3) triennial review of the Arkansas River Basin is also due in the spring of 1985.

The Commission needs more advice from the public as to what specific changes, if any, should be taken to rulemaking hearing. Your recommendations should be presented at the rulemaking hearing to assist the Commission in its decision. The notice of informational hearing will describe the form in which the recommendations should be provided.

Sincerely,

Administrator Water Quality Control Commission

AMS:mds

4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER,COLORADO 80220 PHONE (303) 320-8333 D a v i s , G r a h a m 6 c S t u b b s ATTORNEYS AT LAW

£600 COLORADO NATIONAL SUILDINO S U IT e 8 0 0 9S0 SEVENTEENTH STREET 1001 TWENTY-SECOND STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 POST OFFICE BOX IBS TELEPHONE 202-822-6060 DENVER. COLORADO 80201 TELECOPIER 203-293-4794 TELEX 24-8260 OGSW

TELEPHONE 303-892-9400 S U IT E 3 0 0 TELECOPIER 303-893-1379 DENVER CORPORATE CENTER, TOWER TELEX 45-0239 003 OVR 7600 EAST UNION AVENUE GREGORY J. HOBBS, JR. CABLE OAVGRAM, DENVER DENVER, COLORAOO 80237 TELEPHONE 303-694-4464 6 9 2 ' 4 3 4 2 August 27, 1984 TELECOPIER 303-771-6592 S U IT E 6 0 0 621 SEVENTEENTH STREET POST OFFICE BOX 185 DENVER, COLORAOO 60201 TELEPHONE 303-298-9664 Mr. Alan Stewart TELECOPIER 303-293-2916 Administrator Water Quality Control Commission 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220

Re: Upper Animas Basin Water Quality Classification and Standards Review

D e a r A l&n:

We represent Standard Metals Corporation which has contracted to do a water quality study in the vicinity of its Silverton operations. This will confirm my understand­ ing, based on a telephone conversation with you, that the classifications and standards for the Upper Animas Basin will be reviewed in May of 1985. / Standard Metals believes that no changes to the classi­ fications and standards for Eureka Gulch, Cement Creek, and the Upper Animas are warranted. The area is heavily affected by non-point source pollution and physical constraints in this historical mining district. It is inappropriate to classify the Upper Animas, Cement Creek, or Eureka Gulch for aquatic life, agriculture, or water supply, since these uses do not exist in the area and cannot reasonably be a t t a i n e d .

Please inform me of all activities, proposed meetings, and hearings involving the Upper Animas Basin.

Best regards. S i n c e r e l y ,

Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.

G J H s m b

cc: Mr. Greg Sparks Date From To Subject

2/2/83 Std Metals CDH Control Plan for Tailings Seepage

2/18/83 CDH Std Metals Questions on Seepage Plan

3/15/83 CDH Std Metals NOV - Mayflower Mill

3/21/83 Std Metals CDH Answers to questions on Tailings Seepage Plan Submitted 2/2/83

3/22/83 Std Metals CDH Answer to 3/15/83 NOV

4/28/83 CDH Std Metals Questions concerning Spill Containment Plan Submitted

5/18/83 CDH Std Metals NOV * Mayflower Mill

5/25/83 Std Metals CDH Answer to NOV 5/18/83

7/20/83 Std Metals CDH Report on Tailings Pond Seepage Plan — Progress Report

9/26/83 CDH Std Metals Revisions to American Tunnel-Mayflowor ' - j -Mill *NOV s issued 9/1/83 " '

11/30/83 CDH Std Metals Cease and Desist Order American Tunnel dated 12/2/83

12/2/83 Davis, Graham Std Metals Cease and Desist Order of 12/2/83 and Stubbs

12/6/83 Std Metals CDH Answer to Cease and Desist Order 12/2/83 Part I

12/12/83 CDH Std Metals Non-compliance Questions Related to Mayflower Mill

1/13/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to Cease and Desist Order American Tunnel 12/2/83 Part II

2/13/84 Std Metals Std Metals Status of Environmental Program

2/24/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to Cease and Desist Order Anerican Tunnel 12/2/83 Part III

5/11/84 CDH Std Metals NOV - Mayflower Mill

5/29/84 Std Metals Std Metals NOV of 5/11/84 Date From To Subject

5/31/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to NOV of 5/11/84

6/8/84 CDH Std Metals Seepage Control - Failure to Report

7/12/84 Std Metals CDH Seepage Control » Schedule of Construction

7/20/84 CDH Std Metals NOV - Mayflower Mill

8/3/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to NOV 7/20/84

8/3/84 CDH Std Metals Mayflower Mill - Change in Discharge Point

8/14/84 EPA Std Metals NOV - Mayflower Mill

9/7/84 CDH Std Metals NOV - American Tunnel

9/13/84 Std Metals Std Metals American Tunnel - Permit Compliance

9/18/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to NOV - American Tunnel 9/7/BT^«J7‘l-l/fr4 ......

9/27/84 CDH Std Metá¿Ls -NOV7 — American Tunnel

- 10/29/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to NOV - American Tunnel 9/27/04

10/24/84 CDH Std Metals. Cease and Desist — Mayflower Mill

10/29/84 Davis, Graham Std Metals Cease and Desist Order of 10/24/84 and Stubbs

11/31/84 Std Metals CDH Answer to Cease and Desist Order of 10/24/84

12/10/84 CDH Std Metals NOV - Terry Tunnel

1/23/85 CDH Std Metals Cease and Desist Order - American Tunnel

1/28/85 Davis, Graham Std Metals Cease and Desist Order of 1/23/85 and Stubbs

1/28/85 Davis, Graham CDH Answer to Cease and Desist Order of and Stubbs 1/23/85

Colorado Memo on Resolution of Mayflower Mill Attorney N O V s General Date From

2/14/85 Davis, Graham Std Metals Mayflower Mill — NOV resolution and Stubbs

2/15/85 Std Metals Davis, Cease and Desist Orders - Mayflower Graham and Mill - American Tunnel Stubbs

2/21/85 Davis, Graham CDH Answer to NOV and Request for Hearing and Stubbs American Tunnel

2/21/85 Std Metals CDH Statement of Compliance Cease and Desist Order American Tunnel 1/23/85

2/25/85 Davis, Graham Std Metals Answer to 1/23/85 Cease and Desist Order and Stubbs American Tunnel

3/4/85 Std Metals CDH January 1985 Explanation of Violation on DMR Mayflower Mill

3/11/85 Colorado Attorney Davis, American Tunnel - Answer to NOV 1/30/83 • General Graham and 1/23/85 NOV (Cease and Desist) Stubbs ~ t

3/18/85 Davis, Graham Std Metájs -State"Response to Answer to American' and Stubbs y 'Tunnel NOV

3/21/85 CDH Std Metals Meeting - Mayflower Mill - Cease and Desist Order 10/24/84 Negotiations

3/25/85 Davis, Graham Colorado American Tunnel NOV Answer and Stubbs Attorney General

4/9/85 CDH Std Metals Mayflower Mill - Cease and Desist Negotiations

4/21/85 CDH Std Metals DMR Reporting Deficiencies - American Tunnel

4/23/85 CDH Std Metals DMR Reporting Deficiencies - Mayflower Mill

4/24/85 Std Metals CDH; EPA Performance Audit Inspection

5/13/85 EPA Std Metals Performance Audit Inspection

5/24/85 Std Metals CDH Mayflower Mill - Cease and Desist Negotiations NPDES Violation File Summary Page 4

Date From To Subject

6/18/85 CDH Std Metals Mayflower Mill - Cease and Desist Negotiations

7/28/85 Std Metals CDH Mayflower Mill - Cease and Desist Negotiations \ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE JIM R. CARRIGAN

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

The undersigned hereby certifies that on 8/29/82

she placed a true and correct copy of STTHJIATICN FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

^and_ORDER FOR DISMISSAL,WITH PREJUDICE______signed hy Judge Jim R. Carrigan on 8/23/82 in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to:.

James W. Winchester, Esquire Carol E. Dinkins, Esquire Assistant U.S. Attorney Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division Dept. Justice Washington, D.C. 20530

Clyde 0. Martz, Esquire Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr., Esquire Davis, Graham & Stubbs P.O. Box 185 Denver, CO 80201

Magistrate Hilbert Schauer

RE: 81-C-489, U.S.A. v. STAIQ\RD METALS CCHP p i l e d IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT '«Í2I? »'»were FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OFiF AMERICA, ) JAMES R. MANSPEAKER . CLERK Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 81-C-489 STANDARD METALS CORPORATION, ) STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

This civil action was filed by Plaintiff United States of America against Defendant, Standard Metals Cor­ poration (Standard) on April 8, 1981. The United States and Standard now consent to the entry of this Stipulation for Entry of Judgment for purposes of settlement. No trial has been held. Good cause appears for the Court to approve the settlement, and it is hereby approved in accordance with the following stipulation. 1. The Complaint alleges violations of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251,,,.,at^seq. » and Stan-. dard's National Pollutant Discharge-EIimination System .... ("NPDES") permit Numbers C0-0000462; CO-0027529, which implement the Act. Standard does not admit to any of the alleged violations. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Section 1319 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1345 3. This stipulation is a settlement only of those issues raised-in the Complaint. It is not and shall not be interpreted to be a permit, or modification of existing permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, nor shall in any way relieve Standard from its obliga­ tions to comply with the provisions of any permits which have been issued to it or may be issued in the future pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Any new permits, or modi ication of existing permits, must be accomplished in accord­ ance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 4. Standard shall pay to the United. States, the sum of $25,000.00 in settlement of all claims of the United States asserted in this action or which could have .been * ? asserted through the date of approval by the Court and entry of this stipulation. Standard shall pay $12,500.00 of this amount within fourteen days of approval and entry of this Stipulation, and the remaining $12,500.00 on or before January 15, 1983. An additional $25,000.00 payment by Standard to the United States shall be suspended and waived conditioned upon the provisions of paragraphs 5 and'6.of this Stipulation. Potential liability for the suspended amount shall end on the dates specified in paragraph 5- All payments due under this paragraph shall be made . by check payable to the United States Treasury which shall be delivered to the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. --- 5. For the purposes-only crf-rhe-sus-pension of the— * -¿A • $25,000 payment set forth in paragraph'74, Standard, from-the date of approval and entry of this Stipulation by the Court and up to and through July 1, 1983,. shall not exceed the fol- lowing conditions, unless excusable or allowable under the applicable permit then in effect: American Tunnel Discharge 30 day average daily maximum mg/1 mg/1 Total zinc -- 9 15.0 pH - shall be greater than 6 Mayflower Mill Discharge 30 day average daily maximum mg/1 mg/1 Total Copper - 0.4 1.0 Total Lead - 0.6 1.2 Total Cyanide - 0.3 0.5 -3- Terry Tunnel From May 1, 1983, up to and through July 1, 1983, Standard shall not exceed the following condition,.unless excusable or allowable under the applicable permit then in effect: 30 day average daily maximum mg/1 mg/1 Total Zinc - 4.0 7,0 pH “ shall be greater than 6 6. Should Standard violate any of the effluent limi- A tations specified in paragraph 5 of. this stipulation, the United States shall notify Standard Metals in writing of the intention to collect the $25,000.00 suspended amount. Such notification shall state the date(s), times, and circumstances of the alleged violation or violations, and provide Standard with all information known to the Regional Administrator, Region VIII, EPA, regarding the alleged violations. Standard may, within 14 days of the receipt of such notification, request in writing a 'uieuting-with the -— ..... ‘ Regional Administrator, Region? VI S T - iEPA, and the United States " ** * * Attorney to rebut the alleged violation or explain any mitiga­ ting circumstances. The United States shall, decide within 60 days of such meeting whether to enforce the suspended pen­ alty provisions, and shall promptly notify Standard of this decision. The content of any discussion with the Regional Administrator and the U. S. Attorney regarding collection of the suspended amount shall not be admissible in any judicial proceeding before this Court concerning this Stipulation. Payment of the suspended penalty shall be due and payable by delivery of a check to the United States Attorney made payable to the United States Treasury, within 60 days of the decision by the United States to enforce the suspended penalty provision. > 7. The State of Colorado and EPA shall not be pre­ cluded from any action to enforce any applicable1 NPDES permit limitations for violations occurring after the date of entry , of the stipulation except that EPA will not bring an action with respect to any violation occurring prior to approval $nd entry of this stipulation by the Court, or any violation for which the suspended amount has been collected, or any alleged violation which has been the subject of a conference under paragraph 6 that resulted in a decision not to collect the suspended amount. 8. Standard shall develop-operating procedures for- the tailings wastewater treatment system-.at the Mayflower Hill that will maintain compliance with permit effluent limitations during intermittant as well as normal mill operation periods. Standard shall submit a plan outlining such procedures to the EPA Regional Administrator, Region VIII, within 60 days of the entry of this Stipulation. The plan shall inclu3& consideratiorTof: *—f** ~ (a) Maintenance of -Citings pond pH " ' during mill shut down periods.. (b) Monitoring of pond water prior to start-up of milling opera­ tion. (c) Monitoring of effluent quality in relation to mill feed characteristics and blending of ore to minimize pond upsets. 9. Standard shall undertake a study to evaluate optimization of the performance of the American Portal and Terry Portal wastewater treatment systems. As experience is gained from this study, the system variables, pH and flocculant addi­ tions, shall be evaluated to ensure that the systems are being operated as efficiently as practicable. As part of this evalu­ ation, the relationship between pond Ph and total zinc concentra­ tion shall be established. A target level of 1.5 ing/1 total zinc shall be utilized during this evaluation. Standard shall submit its outline describing the optimization study to the Regional Administrator, within 60 days of the entry of this stipulation. No later than November 1, 1982, Standard shall submit a report to the EPA Region VIII, Regional Administrator which contains the results of the optimization evaluation. This provision is for the purpose of an evaluation and shall not impose a requirement on Standard to operate its treatment system at 1.5 mg/1 total zinc on a continuous basis. 10. The parties agree that upon approval' of this stipulation by the Court, the Court may enter an order dismis­ sing the complaint of the United States with prejudice, but retaining jurisdiction upon motion of the parties to compel compliance or grant other appropriate relief to insure com­ pliance with the provisions of this stipulation. 11. Each party shall bear its own costs. Dated this day o f ' / ^.1982.. "5-\ "L'T TT ~

Approved: A- V ' 1 * ! A United States District Judge // The foregoing Stipulation for Entry of Judgment is approved as to form and contents.

_ __ TALS CÔ'RPÔ'RÂÏÏÔÏÏ Carol E. Dinkins Assistant Attorney General Land and Natural Resources Division C-S ______Department of Justice Clyde 0. Martz Washington, D. C. 20530. Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS P. 0. Box 185 Robert N. Miller Denver, Colorado 80201 United States .Attorney (303) 892-9400 Attorneys for Defendant States Attorney Standard Metals Corporation .ted States Courthouse Denver, Colorado 80294 Attorneys for Plaintiff , filed UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DENVER, COLORA«« IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO AUG 23'1982 JAMES R. MANSPEAKER UNiTED STATES OF AMERICA, CLERK Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 81-C-489 STANDARD METALS CORPORATION ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Defendant.

The Court, having read and approved the stipulation of the parties for the purpose of settling this case and having considered all pleadings and matters of record in this case, and good cause appearing therefor, DOES HEREBY ORDER that this action is dismissed with prejudice, in accordance with said stipulation,.each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Court retains jurisdiction upon motion of any party to compel performance with the terms ofr^the stipulation and to grant. other appropriate relief. -A Dated this, day^of 1982. BY THE COURT, c /

/'A

blSTRÏCÏ JUDflÉ u