PERMFILE47512 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bill York-Feirn - 2 - November 22, 1993 3. The operator stated on page 3 first paragraph that "because the drainages area all ephemeral and rarely flow, gaging stations have not been established on the project site". However on Figure G-2, Northeast of DFMW-1 there appears to be a gauging station located. If it is a USGS gauging station, there probably is a water quality and flow data for the station. Please provide the data. Since the gauging station is outside of the permit area and the two quarries are located up stream of the gauging station it will give the Division additional data to make an educated determination of the impact your quarry will have on downstream water users. 4. On page 3, last paragraph operator stated "The results of the historical surface water quality analysis for SVC-1 and SVC-2 are summarized in Table G-4". Table G-4 has only water quality data for SVC-l. Where is the water quality data for SVC-2? Where are these monitoring locations located on the map or Figure G-2? 5. Operator had stated on page 3 that water surface quality data was collected on a quarterly basis starting in June of 1990. However the water quality data provided on Table G-5 is for June 1990, September 1990 DFSW1; for June 1990, September 1990 and December 1990 for DFSW-2 and DFSW-3. Where is the rest of the data? Why was there no data collected in early May when spring runoff is at the maximum? At a minimum four quarters of data should be provided to properly evaluate seasonal variations. If there were no flows during a quarter it should be reported as such. In Table G-6 are the DOW flats water quality concentrations the averages for DFSW-l, DFSW-2, and DFSW-3? If not where did the figures come from? If the data is the averages of the above stations please explain in detail how it was divided because some of the numbers do not make sense e.g. Temperature column has the following numbers: 226, 55, 86.9. The only explanation at the bottom of the page states, "Concentrations are highest values recorded or highest and lowest for the station over three quarters of monitoring ground water. 6. On page 8 the operator stated that "because of the thickness and the low permeability of the Niobrara Formation, it anticipated that none of the deeper aquifers below the Niobrana will be impacted by the proposed quarry." The Division can not accept this statement without the appropriate ground water modeling which will show that operation in relation to the deeper aquifer. It is the understanding of the Division that there will be a lot of blasting taking place during the mining operation. It is also true that the Niobrana formation is not impervious. What about fractures that would likely be caused by the blast? Are there any plans to dewater the pit? Please provide a detailed ground water modeling to show that the operation will not impact the deep aquifers so the Division can come up with the same conclusions you did.