Laserfiche WebLink
though the IdPDES pond which is treating that drainage is not discharging. This was item no. 10 <br />in the Division's September 8; 1995 adequacy letter. The Division's position was stated more <br />completely in the Division's December 8, 1995 letter for TR-66. This issue had been transferred <br />to the midterm, and then transfeaed to this 1996 Annual Report. <br />18. The Division understands that Trapper wishes to meet to discuss the exact nature of a <br />water quality monitoring plan that would provide full suite surface water quantity and <br />quality data for the purpose of providing bond release demonstrations for those disturbed <br />area drainages where NPDES ponds seldom discharge. Please suggest a time convenient <br />for Trapper and the Division to meet. <br />Groundwater <br />On page 4-237a of the April 17, 1997 PHC submittal, it is stated that the Second White <br />Sandstone probably would not be affected by mining. However, Figure A-2 in the 1996 Annual <br />Report shows that the water level elevation in well P-5 has been decreasing steadily since about <br />1984. Therefore, the Division is asking question number 19. <br />19. Please comment on whether the Second White Sandstone is being affected by mining, as <br />evidenced by the falling water level elevations shown in Figure A-2 for well P-5. If this <br />sandstone is being affected, please update the April 17, 1997 PHC, on page 4-237a. <br />The April 17, 1997 PHC, on pages 4-237a and b, speaks about the possibility of the formation of <br />additional springs being developed down gradient of reclaimed pits, due to increased <br />groundwater flow through the spoils. However, no mention is made of the potential effect of <br />increased groundwater flow on the natural springs and seeps in the azea. Therefore, the Division <br />asks question number 20. <br />20. Please add to the discussion, on pages 4-237a, b and c of the April 17, 1997 PHC, the <br />anticipated effect, both on quantity and quality, on the natural springs and seeps, due to <br />the predicted increase in groundwater flow down gradient of reclaimed pits. <br />There is a fair amount of discussion in the April 17, 1997 PHC concerning the impact of spoil <br />ground water quality on spoil springs. However, there is not much discussion conceming the <br />effects of spoil ground water quality on the aquifers that may have a future potential use. Only <br />one paragraph, on page 4-237c, talks about the Upper Williams Fork aquifers, but does not go <br />into any detail. Therefore, the Division asks question number 21. <br />21. On page 4-237c of the April 17, 1997 PHC submittal, please elaborate on the effect of <br />spoil groundwater quality on the aquifers that may be affected by mining operations. <br />Please include discussions on the present and potential future uses of these aquifers and <br />how mining may affect the quantity and quality of the ground water within them. <br />