Laserfiche WebLink
2. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Text Change <br />Response No. 49. The text has been changed for <br />clarification or to reflect your suggested change. Please refer <br />to Section 3, TEXT CHANGES. <br />Vegetation <br />Responre No. 50. The natural vegetation communities <br />would be lost to surface disturbance for more than just <br />a "temporary" period of time. To achieve predisturbance <br />species composition and condition may require numerous <br />years. Far example, as explained in Section 4.6 of We draft, <br />it could take up to 150 years for the pinyon juniper plant <br />community to achieve tree cover comparable to that before <br />disturbance. <br />ResponreNo. Sl. As stated under the referenced section, <br />"approximately 35 of the 45 acres within the remnant <br />vegetation association (RVA) would be disturbed by the <br />Proposed Action or 50,000 TPY Alternative. This represents <br />78 percent of the RVA and would essentially eliminate the <br />value of this area for future studies and comparisons, This <br />would be a significant impact to this specific population <br />but would cot be a significant impact to the general plant <br />association because of its common occurrence in the area." <br />The Proposed Action is the 125,000 TPY Alternative. <br />Waste Water Disposal <br />Response No. 52. No change necessary. The statement <br />"unless otherwise approved in writing by the authorized <br />officer", allows for alterations of approved operations on <br />tract as necessary. <br />Response No. 53. No change. This mitigation allows <br />the flexibility for disposal of drilling Buids by other methods <br />if approved by the authorized officer. Evaporation may be <br />a feasible alternative provided necessary time frames did <br />not interfere with planned phase reclamation efforts. <br />Response No. 54. The "General Development Compo• <br />Hants" section in the draft EIS, as stated oo page 2-I, describes <br />the project only as proposed by WRC in their mine plan. <br />It does not describe the action as BLM would approve it <br />(i.e., with BLM mitigation applied). As stated under the <br />"Committed Mitigation" section on page 2-25 of the draft, <br />BLM will require that evaporation pond liner integrity be <br />maintained during periodic removal of solids. if the liner <br />is damaged during solids removal operations, the liner shall <br />be repaired to the satisfaction of the BLM authorized officer. <br />For further clarity, please see Appendix C. <br />Water Resources <br />Response No. 55. Your comment is noted. BLM <br />recognizes and acknowledges the information and data <br />submitted by WRC's consultants, BLM has not attempted <br />to bias data or concepts in this EIS process, but has tried <br />to present the most aceurate and most accepted description <br />of the hydrologic environment. BLM acknowledges <br />hydraulic connections between the upper and lower aquifers; <br />however, we do not agree with the one aquifer concept <br />presented by WRC's consultants. That is why this EIS <br />describes a two aquifer system in the Piceance Basin that <br />is hydraulically connected and in communication to varying <br />degrees, dependent upon strata and location. <br />Response No, 56, Your concerns have been clarified <br />in the rewrite of the Water Resources section. Please refer <br />to the TEXT CHANGES section for pages 4-8 through <br />4-13 (Water Resourtxs, Environmental Consequences). <br />Response No. 57, WRC's representatives were made <br />aware of the potential use of saline water for an alternative <br />to fresh water supplies. However, because of technological <br />and economic reasons, the saline water sources are not <br />considered a viable water supply alternative for this project <br />at this time. <br />Response No. 58. Yes, we agree in part with your <br />statement. The use of groundwater for the pilot project, <br />in and of itself, will not measurably deplete or alter the <br />surface water system; however, the water usage from the <br />project, when considered cumulatively, will contribute to <br />adverse alteration of downstream endangered fish habitat <br />as explained in Section 4.9.5 and in Appendix D of the <br />draft EIS. Please reread these sections for clarification. <br />Response No. 59. The 20 percent figure was derived <br />from the assumption that there is approximately 1,000 acres <br />of saline minerals in contact with the lower aquifer along <br />the trunption zone of the Boies and L-SE with the dissolution <br />surface. Under the 125,000 TPY Alternative approximately <br />200 additional acres would be in conaa with the saline <br />minerals at the end of mine life. <br />Response No. 60. Your concerns have been clarified <br />in the rewrite of the Water Resources section. Please refer <br />to the TEXT CHANGES section for pages 3-8 through <br />3-14 (Water Resources, Affected Environment). <br />Response No, 6I. (I) This section is describing the <br />regional groundwater characteristics and is not site-specific; <br />therefore, describing the Mahogany Zone to the site-specific <br />project area is cot appropriate within this section. <br />(2) By stating that the Mahogany Zone is a semiconfining <br />layer, there is no need to add leaky; it is implied in the <br />statement. <br />2-48 <br />