My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE122086
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
300000
>
PERMFILE122086
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:20:14 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 10:00:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/17/1999
Doc Name
COPY OF LETTER ENUMERATING CONCERNS WITH BLM EIS
From
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
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.
/
12
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
<br />Also, trees that were greater than four inches in diameter had been dozed over, not cut down and removed <br />as required. The ntix of topsoil and trees shoved into piles was clearl}~ in violation of road construction and <br />erosion control requirements. <br />Item 5: The package of information transmitted to me did not have Attachment 5. Therefore, 1 have not had an <br />opportunity to review the water level data in this Attachment. However, BLM's response raises several <br />questions. First, what is "enough continuous operation"? What levels of pumping were assumed in the first <br />place, and how does Ote lower volume of pumping fit in the context of the Test Mine Plan. Second, I would <br />anticipate that the confined aquifers (A-Groove, B-Groove and Dissolution Surface) would respond to changes <br />in potentiomelric head pressures well before water qualiq• changes. Hopefull}•, the data will be continuous <br />with hourly averages rather than periodic since it will be more difficult to interpret the data. I look forward <br />to receipt of Attachment 5 as soon as possible. <br />Item 6: The purpose of the 2,000 mgJl water quality requirement vvas ostensibly to establish a threshold which would <br />be used to indicate the possibility of Lower Aquifer water being drawn into the Upper Aquifer. COA t/8 was <br />a mandatory perl'onnance condition, i.e., "shall be discontinued." The bicarb values in this well have <br />increased substantiall}• since pumping has been initiated, as has llte overall TDS. Based on a comparison <br />between the Itigltest monitored value (2,906 mg/I) and the water quality baseline (793 mg/I), bicarb <br />concentrations have increased up l0 3.6 times the baseline value. Tltis is a significant increase and indicative <br />of drarttiatic changes in water quality in this well. Chloride experienced a maximum five-fold increase over <br />the baseline value, and TDS incurred a maximum 1.69 increase over the baseline value. Further, the ratios <br />between the I»glt bicarb/I'DS/cliloride parameters are not consistent. These collective changes in <br />concentrations either indicate errors in sampling and anal}•sis, in which case HLM should have shut down <br />the pumping and conducted its own independent sampling in order to obtain a realistic picture of water <br />quality, or the Ouauations arc so significant as to indicate some intrusion of another water source, either the <br />Lower Aquifer or rele<~scd drilling fluids or return product. In a recent letter to Rio Blanco County (3/8/99), <br />American Soda acknowledged flaws in its data: "American Soda acknowledges that some of the data appear <br />to be anomalous and tltc reasons for the anomalies arc unknown. American Soda believes that the regional <br />data should be given careful consideration in evaluating the existing qualit}' of groundwater." This <br />acknowledgment supports tltc need (or BLM to obtain a vvatcr quality baseline for the proposed commercial <br />mining area prior to an}• further possible damage to the aquifers bcneatlt the mining area. <br />Item 7: Anachment 7 does not provide dma for monitor well 20-8, unless it has been inappropriately designated Well <br />20-9. Further, the dates on Atmchmenl N7 arc not assigned to a specific year. Finally, it muss be assumed <br />that the water level is in feet below ground surface, even though the graph does not so indicate. Please <br />provide the most recent monitoring data, with appropriate definition, for Well 20-8 and 20-1. <br />Item 8: The significantly high values for the 6-29-98 s~mplc of Monitoring Wcll 20-5 either indicates poor sampling <br />or lab quality assurance, or it demonstrates an impact from mining or drilling operations. With discovery of <br />such a Iugh value, did BLM immediately stop operations and request an explanation Cor the spike in the data. <br />Further, the water qualip data, summarized bdotw, demonstrate high fluoride concentrations (four-told <br />increase) which would be indicative of mixing between aquifers. What has BLM done to examine this issue. <br />Further, bout the TDS and bicarb concentrations has shown substantial increases, which is inconsistent with <br />the readings shown in the WRN water qualip data base. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.