My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36281
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36281
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:41:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/18/1998
Doc Name
RESPONSED TO BLM ISSUES WITH THE COMMERCIAL MINE PLAN
From
AMERICAN SODA
To
BLM WITH COPY PROVIDED 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.
/
45
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
78. Page 8-21, last paragraph. [t is unclear the extent that American Soda can restrict access <br />to public land. Please explain. <br />The access restrictions mentioned in this section with respect to wildlife habitat are <br />discussed further with respect to recreation access in Section 3.10, page 8-29. Physical <br />restriction of access would only occrer in areas where American Soda has a vested <br />interest in protecting specific structures and/or resources or where security and <br />public safety may be breached by allowing public access. For example, it would only <br />be prudent to fence and gate the processing fncility area for security reasons and to <br />fence the evaporation pond both for public safety reasons and to exclude wildlife. <br />Clearly, signage and unlocked gates cannot actually "restrict" access, but they can act <br />to discourage public entry to active working areas. In general, the plant site will be <br />fenced, the active mining panels will be posted with signs, and the main access road <br />into an active panel will be signed and may be gated. <br />79. Page 8-23, raptors. This section does not address avoidance of raptor nests during <br />pipeline construction. Will raptor surveys be conducted for each panel before construction <br />starts? <br />The same avoidance techniques described for development and operation of the <br />solution mining and processing facilities would apply to construction of the <br />pipeline. <br />A copy of the 1998 raptor survey is enclosed. American Soda is assuming that the <br />1998 raptor sxrvey provides adequate information for the avoidancelprotection of <br />raptor nesting habitat in the initial mining panel, where commercial development <br />is scheduled to begin within less than 1 year of that suruey. Additional raptor <br />surveys would be conducted prior to development of each subsequent mining <br />panel, if determined necessary in consultation with the BLM. <br />80. Page 8-23, sage grouse. "Construction activity neaz all sage grouse leks..:' What is <br />"neaz"? Is this 1.5 miles? <br />The ach~al avoidance distance would be determined by BLM and/or CDOW. The <br />Environmental Assessment of Colorado Interstate Gas Company's Parachute Creek <br />Lateral Nat=ural Gas Pipeline in Northwestern Colorado (CIG 1995) cited a no-activihj <br />zone of 1.5 miles on either side of the lek during the sage grouse breeding/nesting <br />season. <br />81. Page 8-24, third paragraph. The incoming fluid will be 200 degrees. Will this be sufficient <br />to maintain much of the pond ice-free through the winter? What kind of temperature gradients <br />are expected within the pond? (Saline ponds tend to have high thermal stratification.) Will the <br />Piceance pond be single-celled, or multiple? <br />To be addressed later. <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.