Laserfiche WebLink
- D~{pFT ~ - - - _ - <br />3. According to OSM, there is very little discussion of springs <br />in the PAP, and what is there is confusing. OSM would like to <br />see a better discussion of springs, identifying the natural <br />and spoil springs on a map (it is possible that only the spoil <br />springs are on a map now), provide an inventory of natural and <br />spoil springs in the PAP, identify those springs which are to <br />be monitored, discuss how the springs have been used pre- <br />mining or will be used post-mining and what the effect of <br />mining will be on the springs (same as item number 2 above). <br />4. OSM believed that springs should be sampled for more than the <br />current list of parameters. The required water monitoring <br />parameters for springs is similar to the NPDES discharge <br />parameters. OSM would like to see the list include the full <br />suite parameters, which was referred to as SMCRA parameters. <br />Also, it was desired that natural springs be included in the <br />water monitoring plan. <br />5. OSM would like to see a detailed description of how the <br />operator samples for water monitoring. This description would <br />include what procedures are being used to obtain the water <br />samples and what measures are being used to ensure holding <br />time and chain of custody. <br />6. In the Annual Hydrologic Report (AHR), OSM would like to see <br />charts and graphs that depict all of the data, baseline up to <br />the present monitoring, not just the last few years. <br />7. In the AHR, OSM would like to see graphs of flow versus time <br />for all of the discharging NPDES sites. only the larger pond <br />discharges were graphed. <br />8. In the AHR, OSM would like to see the term "no flow" used for <br />those sampling dates when a spring was not flowing, as opposed <br />to leaving the space blank. <br />9. OSM reviewed the Division's adequacy letter for Trapper's 1994 <br />AHR, and will review the Division's adequacy letter for the <br />1995 AHR as soon as the Division finishes the adequacy review. <br />FIELD Z88QE8 <br />10. A small percentage of water quality lab reports stated that <br />the water samples had exceeded the maximum holding time. <br />Trapper said that the lab is in Denver, but that they could <br />look into using a lab closer to Craig. <br />11. The flume just below the Coyote pond needed leveling. OSM <br />thought the flume in Flume Gulch needed leveling also. <br />2 <br />