|
|
Friday, April 4, 2008
|
|
| |
Here's some snowpack news from FOX 21. They write: "As of March 30, the Arkansas river basin is at 141% of average. That does include the Pikes Peak region. The Arkansas has the highest percentage in the state. The South Platte, which includes Denver and northern Colorado, is at 109%. That total is the lowest in the state, but still above average."
Category: Colorado Water
7:20:51 AM 
|
|
Here's a recap of Wednesday's meeting to discuss Horizon Nevada's proposed uranium in-situ mining operation in Park County, from The Fairplay Flume. From the article:
Experts fielded questions for approximately one and a half hours after their presentations on in-situ uranium mining in South Park at a meeting in Fairplay on April 2. The meeting was sponsored by the Headwater Authority of the Upper South Platte. HASP is a joint business venture between the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Upper South Platte Water Conservancy District. Among the speakers was William Wilson, president and chief executive officer of New Horizon Uranium Corp., the company proposing in-situ uranium mining northeast of Hartsel along the Elk Horn Road. The county road bisects South Park from Como to Hartsel. Wilson said the company has approximately 25,000 acres of land leased in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Nevada for both traditional surface/underground and in-situ uranium mining operations.
Wilson opened the meeting by explaining the time frame of operations. The company is now in the first stage of a five-stage process. During the first stage that will last about one year, the company will stake claims, acquire leases from surface property owners and select target areas for exploration drilling. The company plans to drill 20 holes to identify areas for mining uranium. During stage one, surface and groundwater samples will be taken and tested for uranium content. Wilson said the company would sample private wells at the request of the property owner. Stage two would involve drilling approximately 100 holes to establish the extent of the uranium ore body. Then a mining feasibility study would be completed. That would take between one and two years. During stage three, applications for all federal, state, and local permits would be submitted. It could take up to three years to receive all permits. Permits Wilson mentioned include an exempt aquifer permit form the United States Environmental Protection Agency, permits from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a surface reclamation permit for Colorado Department of Reclamation Mining and Safety and any permits that Park County would require. Stage four, mining, would commence once all permits are received. Wilson anticipated that would be seven or eight years from now. He said mining would probably last five to seven years. Stage five, restoration of the well field and surface reclamation, would take about three years after mining was completed.
The second speaker at the April 2 meeting was Jeffrey Parsons, senior attorney with Western Mining Action Project based in Lyons, Colo. Parsons said the organization is a non-profit that provides legal representation for citizen groups on mining issues. He is currently working with a citizens' group in Weld County where Powertech Uranium Corp. has proposed an in-situ uranium mining operation...
Parson said even though the mining process uses harmless substances such as oxygen, carbon dioxide and baking soda, it isn't harmless. These substances not only release uranium from the ore body, it also releases any other heavy metals found in the rock. These are then all pumped to the surface. According to Parsons, several issues exist including "excursions" where the aquifer in the geologic formation being mined and used to transport uranium travels into other groundwater aquifers. Water under pressure is pumped into the mining zone and then pumped back to the surface. The geologic layers above and below the mining area must be impermeable (water can not travel through them) to prevent contamination of other aquifers. Parsons said cross contamination can happen if the subsurface is fractured or if wells are nearby. "Track records of the companies show there are excursions," Parsons said. A second issue, Parsons said, is that national regulations require companies to attempt to restore the mined aquifer to pre-mining standards. "Again, the track record is fairly poor," Parsons said. Three examples were cited by Parsons. In Texas where 32 mines exist, groundwater regulations were lowered so companies could meet the standards. In Wyoming, the Smith Ranch Highlands Mine was cited for violations on March 10, 2008, for several reasons, including lack of groundwater restoration. Parsons said that 10 years after mining has ceased, the aquifer is in the same condition as it was when mining stopped. Another example was near Grover in Weld County, where post-restoration of 1980s mining shows a 16-fold increase in radiation in the aquifer. Grover is near the Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado state lines.
Parsons also elaborated on the permits needed to mine. The EPA exempt-aquifer permit requires a mining company to prove the aquifer in the formation to be mined is not currently being used as drinking water and contains economically viable minerals. The Bureau of Land Management, which manages minerals owned by the federal government (as is the case in most of Park County), will require a National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. If a surface owner signs a lease with a mining company, the process is not as detailed as when an owner does not sign a lease. Then a full-blown NEPA process will be required. Parsons said regulations by both the Colorado Department of Reclamation, Mining and Safety and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment did not specifically address uranium in-situ mining. He said House Bill 1161, a bi-partisan bill that just passed Colorado's House of Representatives, will set standards for in-situ mining reclamation, permits and restoration of groundwater. It now will be heard by Colorado's Senate...
The third speaker at the April 2 meeting was James O'Brien, certified geologic consultant and college professor. O'Brien explained that in-situ mining involves a series of injection wells and another series of extraction wells. He said that in addition to having a confined aquifer that is not connected to another aquifer, the company must prove "the aquifer does not have water good enough to be drinking water". O'Brien said the company would probably have to fracture the rock formation it is mining. That is usually done by pumping down sand to break up the rock formation. He said all wells would need to be double-cased to reduce the possibility of "excursions". But even then, he said, failure of the system is possible in several places. He said the high pressure needed to inject water into the uranium ore formation could cause failure in any place in the piping system. Using a diagram showing a typical operation, O'Brien showed where failure could take place in the piping system. Critical points included a pipe failure in a formation above the ore body, above- ground piping to the facility where uranium is extracted from the water, in the facility itself, in piping to the evaporation pond, or a breach in the liner of the pond. He said if soil contamination occurred, all the soil would need to be removed. O'Brien said other avenues for contamination included natural fractures and faulting in the area that extended through the target formation to other formations and old abandoned water or exploration wells. O'Brien said residents should conduct tests now for radon in both their house and their drinking water to establish background limits before mining begins. He recommended two samples be taken in the house, one in the basement or crawl space and one in the living space.
More coverage from The Fairplay Flume: "Bill Wilson, President of Horizon Nevada Uranium Inc, said he doubts he changed anybody's mind at the April 2 meeting in Fairplay regarding possible uranium exploration and mining near Hartsel. The meeting, hosted by the Headwater Authority of the South Platte River, brought together Wilson, Jeff Parsons of the Western Mining Action Project, James O'Brien, a geologist and professor for the Colorado Mountain College, and Jim Culichia, attorney for the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District. Wilson said after the meeting that many landowners he spoke with on the phone had similar concerns, but the meeting seemed to increase the residents' anxiety."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here and here.
Category: 2008 Presidential Election
7:12:04 AM
|
|
From The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, "More than 150 people are expected to turn out for an all-out assault on the tamarisk this weekend at the Island Acres Section of the James M. Robb Colorado River State Park...People can volunteer Saturday or Sunday, or both days, and camp at the park. A morning and evening meal will be provided...Volunteers need to register prior to the tamarisk battle. To sign up and get more information, visit www.voc.org, call 800-925-2220 or e-mail vov@voc.org. Volunteers also can register by calling John Heideman of the Western Colorado Conservation Corps at 250-5206. On-site registration also is available."
Category: Colorado Water
6:58:42 AM
|
|
Here's a recap of last night's Reclamation public meeting about Colorado Springs' proposed Southern Delivery System, from The Pueblo Chieftain. From the article:
The Southern Delivery System alternative picked by the Bureau of Reclamation doesn't do much for their peace of mind when it comes to flooding. "This plan doesn't speak to the increasing flows down Fountain Creek," said Otero County Sheriff Chris Johnson. "There's a 60 percent chance of flooding this year and a lot of that water is coming down the Fountain." Johnson, one of about 35 people attending Reclamation's open house on SDS Thursday, was not alone in his concerns about flooding. Other public officials and private citizens were primarily concerned about flood issues, along with water quality...
Flooding is one issue in the draft EIS, but not the primary purpose of the report. But residents downstream say their costs won't go down if SDS is built. "I'm ticked off because the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project wasn't designed to get Colorado Springs water they bought down here to Colorado Springs," said Red Freidenberger, a resident of North La Junta. Freidenberger weathered floods in 1955, 1965 and 1999, and said the main concern of Reclamation should be to reduce flooding on Fountain Creek. "I think the bureau is trying to convince even themselves that it's best (for the pipeline) to come from the dam," Freidenberger said. "I'm more concerned this will create more problems downstream."[...]
Bob Fowler, Otero County coroner, said the problems downstream aren't all a result of Colorado Springs, but increasing flows down Fountain Creek will make matters worse. The river bed is significantly higher than in past years. "It says here that this is the least costly alternative," Fowler said, pointing to a chart explaining why the pipeline from the dam is preferred. He put his hand on Fountain on the map and swept north toward Colorado Springs. "It's the lowest possible cost to this area, but that means it's the highest possible cost to everyone downstream." Fowler said the exchange of pure water from Lake Pueblo for treated sewage return flows down Fountain Creek will continue to hurt water quality downstream. Fowler said his preference would be to build a regional reverse osmosis plant in Crowley County, where Colorado Springs bought water rights in the 1980s, and pump the water from there. That is actually a part of Colorado Springs' 1996 water resources plan and was considered, then rejected, by Reclamation in evaluating alternatives. It was rejected because it was too costly to Colorado Springs.
Given the current choices, many of those who attended the open house thought an alternative for a river intake downstream of the Fountain Creek confluence at the Arkansas River would be best for the Lower Arkansas Valley. "I do feel they should take it east of the confluence," said Otero County Commissioner Jake Klein. "They may as well get the same water they're sending us." Klein said the east of confluence intake would require Colorado Springs to become more concerned about water quality in the Fountain. But flooding remained the primary concern. "The thing we're concerned with is increased flows," said La Junta City Manager Rick Klein. "Can they shut 'em down in a flood "
More coverage of reuse as part of the Southern Delivery System from The Pueblo Chieftain
A major proponent for a multipurpose dam or series of dams on Fountain Creek is dismayed the Bureau of Reclamation did not include the idea as a component for the Southern Delivery System in its draft environmental statement. "We're missing an important opportunity to regulate flows on Fountain Creek," said Ray Petros, Pueblo County's land-use attorney. "I'm disappointed they have not chosen to study a multipurpose reservoir or an off-channel reservoir that would siphon flows off Fountain Creek." Petros suggested the possibility of a dam that would control flooding, provide recreation and serve as a settling basin for return flows to be recycled as potable water during the alternatives meetings in 2005.
Reclamation looked at six options for potable water recycling last year, but rejected them as expensive. Meanwhile, the draft EIS for SDS says there are minor flood control benefits associated with Williams Creek Reservoir, which would be constructed northeast of Fountain and would regulate return flows on Fountain Creek. Petros said a larger reservoir on Fountain Creek - or one that would intercept flows from Fountain Creek and store them off-channel - could have greater flood control benefits and at the same time be a storage vessel for return flows. "It has a number of benefits that were glossed over and not sufficiently studied," Petros said. Water could be collected closer to where it is needed, rather than allowed to flow to the mouth of Fountain Creek, as suggested in an alternative that would create an Arkansas River intake downstream of the Fountain Creek confluence, Petros said. "That could obviate the need for pumping costs and provide a way to blend stormwater and effluent to put water quality in acceptable parameters," Petros said. Petros said the capture of water farther upstream on Fountain Creek could also avoid transit loss on exchanges or recapture at the confluence...
Finally, a reservoir on Fountain Creek could improve flows through Pueblo, depending on how exchanges were managed, Petros said. Petros noted he is not a water engineer and said he does not want to prejudge the SDS project, but he said Reclamation did not give adequate study to the idea of a dam, and how it might affect the value of water that could be recovered.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Category: Colorado Water
6:43:09 AM
|
|
From The Denver Post, "The water in Alamosa is finally fit to drink again -- as long as you boil it first.
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment announced Thursday that the city is now under a modified yellow alert. Residents should boil water for at least one minute before drinking, cooking, brushing teeth, or using it to wash fruits, vegetables or utensils and plates."
Category: Colorado Water
6:35:29 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2008
John Orr.
Last update:
5/1/08; 7:36:58 AM.
|
|
|
