My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC38280
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC38280
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:43:26 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 11:05:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981010
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
11/14/1996
Doc Name
SPECIAL FOCUS INSPECTION ISSUES AT TRAPPER MINE TRAPPER MINE PN C-81-010 TRAPPER MINING INC
From
DMG
To
TRAPPER MINE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
In addition to reorganization, the Division also requests that <br />Trapper expands upon the discussion in the PHC. All of the <br />topics listed in Rule 2.05.6(3) need to be discussed fully. <br />Some discussions that need to be expanded upon are the <br />projections of water quantity and quality impacts of surface <br />water and of natural springs. Apparently, there is only a <br />brief and general discussion concerning surface water quantity <br />and quality projections, found on pages 4-172 and 4-223. No <br />mention is made of projected impacts to the Yampa River. Also, <br />natural springs, that potentially could be affected by mining, <br />do not appear to be discussed in the permit application. <br />Finally, the Division recommends that Trapper quantify the <br />predictions found in the PHC. The projections found in the PHC <br />now are only general in nature. <br />3. According to OSM, there is very little discussion of springs <br />in the permit application, and what discussion is in the <br />permit application is confusing. <br />The Division agrees that the discussion of springs needs <br />additional work. Some of the information on springs is in the <br />permit, but the information is scattered in different sections <br />and is not definitive in nature. For instance, in searching <br />for documentation of which springs were pre-mining, one <br />reference concerning natural springs was located in Appendix <br />J, which is a 1979 study of macrovertebrates. Appendix J <br />references map M44, which shows the location of natural <br />springs, but it is not clear if all of these springs had been <br />inventoried prior to mining disturbance. Also, page 2-577 <br />contains a reference to a 1972 study by Ecology Consultants <br />which may document pre-mining springs, but the study was not <br />included in the permit application. The Division is not aware <br />of any other references in the permit application concerning <br />pre-mining springs. <br />Some information on some spoil springs can be found in the <br />permit application, such as the discussion on pages 4-227 and <br />4-227a. Locations of spoil springs are shown on map M52, <br />although natural springs that may be affected by mining <br />operations are not shown on the map. Also, each year, Trapper <br />conducts a spoil spring survey, conducting water quality <br />monitoring for those spoil springs that exceed 5 gpm in flow. <br />This commitment to sample spoil springs is referenced on page <br />4-241c of the permit application, but no list of springs is <br />given, nor is there any reference to the springs' locations. <br />The Division agrees with OSM that the permit application needs <br />a better discussion of springs, identifying the natural and <br />spoil springs on a map, providing an inventory of natural and <br />spoil springs in the permit application, identifying those <br />springs which are to be monitored, discussing how the springs <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.