Laserfiche WebLink
Tabetha Lynch, DRMS <br />Page 12 <br />4/30/2015 <br />4.16.3 Section 4.2.6 of Trappers permit discusses osp sible alternate post mine land uses. If any changes <br />to the approved post mine land uses that are discusses in previous sections of section 4.2 of the permit are <br />proposed by Trapper Mine in the future, they will need to comply with Rule 4.16.3 prior establishing <br />these uses on the reclaimed land. <br />4.18 Protection of Fish. Wildlife and Related Environmental Values <br />(1) This subsection of the rule is a performance standard that Trapper must comply with. See section <br />2.05.6(2)(a) above regarding the review of Trappers wildlife impact mitigation plan. <br />(2) According to Section 2.4.2 of the permit, there are no areas within or adjacent to the mine plan area <br />that have been or are pending designation as "essential habitat" for any of the threatened or endangered <br />species that could potentially occur within the permit area. <br />(3) This subsection of the rule is a performance standard that Trapper must comply with. <br />(4) Section 4.6.2 of the permit discusses physical improvements for wildlife. Powerline structures are <br />designed to protect birds and raptors. These protection measures are discussed on page 4 -161. <br />(5) This subsection of the rule is primarily performance standards that Trapper must comply with. <br />Regarding subpart (i), Trappers revegetation plan is designed to enhance the use of the reclaimed area for <br />wildlife and grazing use. <br />4.24 Alluvial Valley Floors <br />4.24.2 <br />(1) -(2) See section 2.06.8 of this document, subpart (5). <br />(3) See section 2.06.8 of this document, subparts (1) -(4). <br />4.24.3 <br />(1) See section 2.06.8 of this document subpart (5). <br />(2) -(3) Appendix H and section 2.7.7 indicates the mining operation will have negligible impact on the <br />AVF's of the Yampa and Williams Fork Rivers. Section 4.8.4 of the permit also discusses the impact the <br />mining operation will have on the identified AV-Fs. For the Yampa River, previous analysis indicates that <br />the river receives an insignificant amount of water from the mine area, the groundwater contribution to <br />the base flow of the Yampa river from the mine plan area is undetectable, and the alluvial aquifer of the <br />Big Bottom area is hydraulically isolated from the bedrock aquifers of the Williams Fork Formation <br />where the mine is located. Also, according to page 2 -532, the Williams Fork River is not hydrologically <br />connected to the mine plan area. Previously, the Division has found that disturbed areas in the permit <br />area which drain to the Williams Fork River are located in the Elk, Ute, and Deer drainages; these are <br />relatively small drainages of less than 30 acres each. Surface discharge from the sediment ponds in these <br />