Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Trapper had been requested to expand on the Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) <br />section of the permit application. This expansion should include more quantification of <br />predictions and should include springs, both natural and spoil. <br />Trapper revised its PHC in a September ~, 1997 submittal. The Division believes that the <br />revised PHC is acceptable, except for one item, as explained in comment number 3l of <br />the second adequacy review letter, which refers to comment number 16 of that same <br />letter. The Division is requesting a quantified prediction of the effect of mine water <br />quantity and quality on the Yampa River. <br />3, Trapper was requested to expand its discussion of springs, both natural and spoil. <br />Trapper submitted revised page 4-248a as well as a map showing the spring locations. <br />The result of the Division's review is detailed in comment number 32 of the second <br />adequacy review letter. The Division believes this concern has been resolved. <br />4. Trapper was requested to revise its water monitoring program for springs to include <br />natural as well as spoil springs, and to test for the full suite of parameters. <br />Trapper submitted a revised water sampling plan by revising pages 4-248a and 4-241c. <br />Comment 33 of the second adequacy review letter states this. The Division considers this <br />issue to be resolved. <br />5. Trapper was requested to add a discussion to the permit application that details the <br />procedures that Trapper uses to obtain water monitoring samples. <br />Trapper added the water sampling procedures in Section XXXI of Appendix Q. Comment <br />number 34 of the second adequacy review letter details this issue. The Division believes <br />this issue has been resolved. <br />6. Trapper was requested to include data from baseline up to the present in the charts and <br />graphs for future annual hydrology reports. <br />The Division has not received a written response to this question so the question is being <br />asked again. This is stated in comment number 35 in the second adequacy review letter. <br />Trapper was requested to include graphs of flow versus time for all of the discharging <br />NPDES sites in future annual hydrology reports. <br />The Division has not received a written response to this question so the question is being <br />asked again. This is stated in comment number 36 in the second adequacy review letter. <br />