Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5. Outfall 011 showed a marked increase in flow for the period of February 5-12, 1996. The <br />excwsion from average is not discussed in the report text. Has OCM determined a cause for <br />this increase? <br />6. The AHR mentions OCM has submitted information from the monitoring of Springs 1-11, so <br />that DMG can approve the baseline data. The report further states that monitoring of Springs <br />1-6 continues pending approval of the report by the Division. Item 3 of DMG's October 24, <br />1996 letter to OCM regazding the 1995 AHR states that the data aze acceptable as submitted, <br />and the OCM should continue on the approved monitoring plan. <br />7. Map E8-3286 shows the locations of the water monitoring points. It appeazs that NF-2, which <br />should be the downstream site, is not downstream of all swface distwbance azeas. The <br />Somerset Mine facilities area and the confluence of Elk Creek with the North Fork (swface <br />disturbance azeas draining to Elk Creek) are both downstream of the depicted NF-2 site. If <br />this is the case, OCM should reevaluate the location of NF-2, or provide information as to <br />how OCM will verify the prediction that these facilities will not have a negative impact on <br />swface water quality. <br />8. The PHC includes a discussion that water from the Somerset Mine may seep into the North <br />Fork alluvium. OCM also discusses the remote possibility that mining may have some impact <br />on the alluvium, although this possibility is heavily discounted due to the proximity of the <br />proposed workings to the North Fork. Since there aze no monitoring wells in the alluvium, <br />DMG is concerned that OCM will not have a reliable means of demonstrating that the mine <br />has not had a negative impact on the Norih Fork alluvium. How does OCM propose to, <br />demonstrate that there has been or will be no impact on the North Fork alluvium? <br />9. DMG's letter discussing our review of last year's report mentioned some items which would <br />be helpful to DMG if included in future reports. We appreciate the addition of a table of <br />contents, well completion data, and baseline data in this year's report. <br />10. It would be helpful if, in futwe reports, OCM would also include the minimum, maximum, <br />and average values for all constituents for each site. Currently OCM includes baseline values <br />for each constituent. DMG believes the report values would be more useful if they <br />represented the period of record rather thanjust one year of baseline. <br />11. In futwe reports, OCM should be including a discussion of the hydrologic data being reported <br />in the AHR. Trends which are apparent in the data should be discussed, as well as possible <br />explanations for any apparent anomalies. Such discussion should compare monitoring results <br />to the prediction of probably hydrologic consequences set forth in the approved permit <br />application package. Rule 4.05.13(4)(c)(iii) states that the annual hydrologic report, if required <br />by the Division, should include a written interpretation of the data and identification of mining <br />related impacts to the hydrologic balance. Accordingly, the Division will require said <br />discussion in futwe reports. <br />Should you or the operator have questions or need additional information, let me know. <br />c: David Berry <br />SLB\032097 <br />Bill Carter 2 March 21, 1997 <br />