From The 2006 South Dakota Integrated Report surface water quality assessment

APPENDIX C – Public Participation Displays and Response to Public Comments
181
Summary of Public Comments Received on South Dakota’s Draft 2006 Integrated Report and DENR’s Response to Comments
Comment: Charmaine White Face, Defender of the Black Hills, Coordinator. Ms. White Face had the following comments:  “Please accept the following as our comments on the 2006 Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment.

On Page 8, the report states: "Priority toxic pollutants are relatively expensive to analyze and are not routinely monitored except for special situations." Although we are aware of many types of pollution of water in South Dakota, and particularly in western South Dakota, our concern is for the amount of radioactive runoff from abandoned openpit uranium mines within the state, and coming from the surrounding states. This should be considered a "special situation" as nuclear radiation should be considered a "priority toxic pollutant" and no expense should be spared.

Therefore we respectfully request the following studies be completed for radionuclides and any other forms of nuclear radiation that are generated in open-pit uranium mines in addition to the natural uranium that is found in the Upper Midwest region, in the following locations:

1. The Missouri River where it enters South Dakota at the North Dakota border;
2. The Missouri River where it exits South Dakota at the Nebraska border;
3. The Grand River prior to its entrance to Shadehill Dam;
4. The Grand River at its exit from Shadehill Dam;
5. The Morreau River where it enters the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation;
6. The Morreau River at its mouth to the Missouri River;
7. The Belle Fourche River where it enters South Dakota on the Wyoming border;
8. The Belle Fourche River where it enters the Cheyenne River;
9. The Cheyenne River where it enters South Dakota on the Wyoming border;
10. The Cheyenne River where it enters the Missouri River;
11. The Bad River where it enters the Missouri River;
12. The White River where it enters South Dakota on the Nebraska border;
13. The White River at its mouth to the Missouri River.”

Response to Comment: DENR has developed a sampling plan to conduct water quality monitoring for radioactive elements due to abandoned uranium mine sites in western South Dakota. The sites that will be monitored are shown in the map on page 183. All samples collected will be analyzed by a certified laboratory using EPA approved methods. The purpose of the sampling plan is to sample and analyze surface water downstream from the uranium mining areas to determine if it contains metals and/or other elements above levels of concern.

DENR has already started sampling for the parameters of concern, which include Arsenic, 182 Vanadium, Molybdenum, Selenium, Copper, Lead, Antimony, Barium, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, Nickel, Thallium, and Uranium (all the metals parameters will be analyzed for both the total and dissolved portions). DENR will also be sampling for Radium 226 and Radium 228 isotopes. However, the sampling plan is subject to change depending on initial
results. DENR will determine the frequency and distribution of sampling necessary to track long-term trends in water quality. If you have further questions about the sampling plan please feel free to contact Patrick Snyder of the DENR Surface Water Quality Program at (605) 773-3351.

In addition, The US Forest Service, Northern Region and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (also collaborating with the Oglala Lakota College) have entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to: “evaluate impacts to air, water and soil resources, as well as, potential impacts to human health stemming from the migration of contaminated material from past mining activities on or adjacent to lands in the North Cave Hills”. According to this agreement other areas, such as South Cave Hills and Slim Buttes, may be added to this agreement as mutually agreed to. For more information related to this joint venture project please contact
Laurie Walters-Clark, Sioux Ranger District, PO Box 32, Camp Crook, SD 57724, (P) 605-797- 4432, e-mail: lwaltersclark@fs.fed.us

_______________________________________________________________
Comment: Harold One Feather. Mr. One Feather had the following comments: “I would submit my comments on the "The 2006 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment."

I feel that this report is basically flawed and is therefore very misleading to the public since the SD DENR is well aware of the imminent health threats out at the US Forest Service Riley Pass Abandoned Uranium Mine and the other abandoned uranium mines at the North Cavehills, South Cavehills, and Slim Buttes in Harding County. The fact that these sites are on the Custer National Forest should not be the reason why the SD DENR has not acted to protect its citizens from these dangers. The very fact that the US Forest and US EPA have initiated reclamation efforts at the Riley Pass and have notified previously the State of South Dakota of this CERCLA [Superfund] action should cause the SD DENR to place Harding County as their highest priority in terms of water quality monitoring to determine the levels of radioactivity and other toxic substances leaving the area and contaminating downstream and downwind populations and environments.”

Response to Comment: DENR is working with the United States Forest Service to address the reclamation of Riley Pass. Because of concerns with offsite contamination, additional monitoring of several sites in the West River region of the state has been initiated. Please refer to the response given above to Charmaine White Face of the Defender of the Black Hills.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment: Todd A. Duex, Homestake Mining Company, Closure Manager. Mr. Duex had the following comments: “On behalf of Homestake Mining Company, I would like to submit the following comments in regards to the 2006 Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment prepared by the SD DENR. These comments are limited to the middle portion of Whitewood Creek in the Belle Fourche River Basin and in particular to the proposed listing of this segment of the stream for mercury impacts.

Since I do not have access to the data from which the report is derived, I would like to know whether the number of samples taken represents a reasonable number of samples showing noncompliance.

Is there a statistically valid number of samples to ensure that the public is adequately informed as to the reliability of the data? Is the data showing consistent results that can be statistically validated? What is the confidence level of non-compliance? There is a potential that as few as one sample could lead to the listing of this segment of stream and this sample could be an outlier not representing the true concentration of mercury in Whitewood Creek. What are the sampling protocols that would lead one to believe that the sample accurately represents the entire stream segment, for instance is this one sampling location or is it a composited sample of the entire stream segment? As you know, mercury analysis is extremely difficult and cross contamination can occur between samples. Has a quality assurance program been implemented that assures accurate results?
 

185
If there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the sampling results, Homestake would recommend that this segment of Whitewood Creek be placed in Category 3 and additional sampling be conducted in this stream in order to more fully assess the concentrations of mercury in the water.”
Response to Comment: The Homestake Mining Company commented on the state’s listing of Whitewood Creek for mercury. The department had 61 samples during the evaluation period covered by this report. One of these samples was collected on September 20, 2005. The mercury level in this sample was 2.0 μg/L; the daily maximum standard for mercury is 1.4 μg/L.
The department carefully considers the validity of all samples used in the Integrated Report. The report includes a detailed description of the required specifications for a sample to be considered in the listing decisions. These samples were collected by trained department personnel and analyzed by a qualified laboratory using approved methods. All of the samples on Whitewood Creek met the criteria for consideration in the report. While this single sample is higher than all the other samples collected on Whitewood Creek, the department has no reason to believe the sample does not accurately reflect the conditions at the time of the sampling.
Therefore, the department will leave this sample result in the final report.
The Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Section 74:51:01:55, discuss the state’s criteria for toxic pollutants, including mercury. South Dakota’s water quality standards for toxics are based on the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. The national criteria state the toxic criteria shall not be exceeded more than once every three years. Therefore, the department agrees with Homestake that it would not be necessary to list Whitewood Creek for mercury based on this single sample. The final report will be modified to remove mercury as a cause for listing Whitewood Creek as impaired. Please note, this section of Whitewood Creek will still be listed as non-supporting its beneficial uses based on fecal coliform violations.

Table 6 of the draft report listed the department’s criteria for reviewing the available data to determine support status. Under the section for Toxic Parameters, the department stated the following:

STREAMS: One or more violation(s) of toxic criteria within the past 3 years.
Based on the discussion above, the department will be changing this table in the final report to state:
STREAMS: More than one violation of toxic criteria within the past 3 years.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Comment: Vern Berry, US Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO. Mr. Berry had the
following comments:
“We have reviewed the Department’s draft 2006 Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. We commend the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for the continued use of the integrated report

186
(IR) format to combine the Section 305(b) Water Quality Report to Congress, and the Section 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waterbodies in need of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) into one cohesive document. DENR’s draft IR is well-organized and comprehensive. However, we have several comments that should be addressed prior to finalizing the document.”
Comments Related to Categories 1 - 4
We recommend that DENR, with the abundance of regularly monitored fixed stations, conduct a trend analysis for at least some of the stations. This would be useful for determining if water quality is improving or declining, and it would be especially interesting in areas where there are ongoing projects designed to improve water quality.
Response to Comment: Temporal and natural variation can greatly effect parameter concentration. Trend analysis would have to be coupled with precipitation and flow to accurately depict changes in water quality. Currently flow information is not collected during ambient water quality monitoring. Without flow information trend analysis would be misleading.
Therefore, DENR does not plan on conducting trend analysis at this time.A cost/benefit assessment is required as part of the integrated report. The 2006 IR Guidancerecommends providing a brief narrative section that includes as much information as possible. It appears that most of the cost information is included in the NPS Control Program Funding
Strategy, and benefit information is included in the Statewide Surface Water Quality Summary.
We recommend creating a short cost/benefit section that cross references these other sections and provides any other available information (including references to other existing sources of cost/benefit information). See page 16 of the July 2005 IR Guidance for a discussion of what could be included under costs and benefits.
Response to Comment: Detailed cost/benefit information is not available. DENR provides the Governor and the Legislature annual reports summarizing water and wastewater development activities for the preceding calendar year. The 2004 and 2005 annual reports can be accessed on-line at DENR’s website. Information on operation and maintenance costs for local units of government is not readily available. What is available has been included in the “Statewide Surface Water Quality Summary” section of this report. Additional language has been added to the Integrated Report text. The report presents an assessment of most streams in the State classified for fish life. However, a large amount (over 70%) of waters classified for coldwater permanent fish life had insufficient information to assess. Similarly, more than 30% of warmwater marginal fish life waters either had insufficient information or were not assessed. We recommend that DENR develop plans to
achieve greater representation of these streams as part of the final South Dakota monitoring strategy.

Response to Comment: 961 of the 1,390 stream miles (70%) designated as coldwater permanent fish life are on the Missouri River. Our data on the 961 miles of the Missouri River segments from Big Bend Dam to the North Dakota border was inconclusive because the samples are taken from the power houses and are not considered representative of actual water quality
187
within the river. DENR is currently conducting a water quality monitoring study of all reservoirs on the Missouri River to be completed in 2008. At that time, the water quality data will be analyzed to determine if the river is fully supporting its current designated beneficial uses.
It would be useful to consider monitoring other Black Hills streams for metals periodically, in addition to the Belle Fourche tributaries. This would give a greater understanding of the extent of metals issues in the other mountain streams of South Dakota.
Response to Comment: The major hardrock mining areas in South Dakota are mostly located in the Belle Fourche River basin. However, we will take this comment into consideration in developing our water quality monitoring strategy in the future.
The IR should include an estimate of the extent to which Clean Water Act programs have improved or will improve water quality. For example, how many miles of stream or acres of lakes now meet beneficial uses as a result of CWA program implementation?