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
The existing water rights would allow zoater for the project to be taken from the <br />1lnocal wells (alluvial) on Parachute Creek during much of the time. If a call is <br />placed on Parachute Creek, water would be taken directly from the Colorado via the <br />existing intake and pipe system. ' <br />7. Section 1.5, page 1-4 - What are the chemical formulas for soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, <br />and nahcolite? <br />See Section 3.2 (pages 3-14 and 3-15) and Section 7.2.1 (page 7-3). <br />Soda Ash - NazCO3 <br />Sodium Bicarbonate - NaHCO~ <br />Nahcolite - NaHCO, <br />8. Section 1.5, page 1-4 - How will the product be kept in solution while being transported <br />by pipeline? <br />Control of the concentration and temperature of the fluid will yield a stable fluid for <br />transport. <br />9. Section 2.1.1, page 2-2 -Need to determine if 43 CFR 3594.5 (c) applies to this project or <br />not. The EIS should cleazly state this project complies with regulations and eliminate any <br />language that implies that American Soda thinks the regulations should not apply to them--- <br />especially when their explanations says cavity will only be 200 feet in diameter and they later <br />state that there is a lot of uncertainty related to the fmal size of the cavities. They cannot state <br />that there will be no impact to adjoining property. <br />As the Mine Plan indicates, 43 CFR 3594.5 applies a 500 foot buffer unless the <br />authorized official approves a different buffer. BLM originally indicated that we <br />needed to include a justification for a different buffer in the Mine Plan. BLM has <br />since indicated that this needs to be requested separately from the Mine Plan. <br />American Soda will submit a separate request to use a smaller buffer. White River <br />Nahcolite has a smaller buffer for their operations. We should check with Paul <br />Daggett at BLM to see if this issue even needs to be addressed in the EIS. This may <br />be an administrative item tltat reallu doesn't have anti implications for the EIS. <br />The uncertainty related to cavity size is with respect to having smaller cavities. 200 <br />feet is the maximum diameter, and it is uncertain that the cavities can grow to that <br />size. American Soda's point here is that, because a solid is being mined rather than <br />a solution deposit that extends off-lease, the rnaximum extent of mining is, in fact, <br />the maximum extent of t{te cavity. Therefore, a smaller botmdary is appropriate. <br />10. Section 2.1.1:2, page 2-3 -Well field layout. The wells shown in Figure 2-1 aze supposed <br />to be on the ridgetop. What slope criteria was used to define the ridgetop? Will some of the <br />wells be on upper side slopes and require a lot or some cut and fill? Do the well acreages <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.