Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />24. Comment: Western Fuels should be prepared to mklgate any reduction h flows caused by a <br />drop In water levels. <br /> <br />Response: No change. There are no expected reduction In flows In the Whke RNer as a resuk <br />of the drop in aquker levels, therefore mkigation IS not necessary. <br />25. Commerrt: In addkion, the BLM should be prepared to provide some assurances that the <br />development w01 not Jeopardise the wOd end scenic qualkies or other retxeatlonal opportunkles <br />on the Whke RNer. <br />Response: No change. There Is no expected Impact to the Whke RNer or recreational <br />opponunkies as a resuk d expected development d the proposed coal lease. The Whke RNer <br />Resource Area is currently evaluating the Whke RNer's eliglblky under the W9d and Scenk <br />RNers Act No decision as to e11glbOky has been made. There Is no requirement for minimal <br />flows for wtld and scenic rNer ellglbOky. Any requlremems for minimal flows to protect other <br />outstanding remarkable values would be developed as part of a Wild and Scenk RNer ActNky <br />Plan k the Whke RNer Is designated as wOd and scenic as a resuk of the Resource Management <br />Plan. <br />Historic recreational use on the Whke River, except for Kenney Reservdr, fs small scale and <br />seasonal, associated wkh runoR and other high water flows. <br />• <br />26. Comment: Second, the EA should address the issue of expected methane emissions more <br />directly. Specifically, the last paragraph on page 22 of the draft which reads, In parC '... <br />methane emissions up to five (6) tons per year could be allowed wkhout a permit. With <br />expelled methane emission levels of 119 million cubic feet per year, Western Fuels may need a <br />permk from the Cdoredo Air t]ualiry CoMrd Division.' Would a pertnlt be required or not? <br />Response: See revised text. Revised methane emission levels are 1.24 million cubic feet per <br />day. The EA has been revised to have Cdoredo Air Oualfry Corrtrd DMslon review expected <br />mine emissions at the mine plan review stage and permks, as a resuk d that review, shall be <br />required, as necessary. <br />27. Comment: Fgures should be Included M the EA to compare true (5) tons wkh 1 t9 m011on cubic <br />feet, I.e., cornert tons to cubic feet. our calculations kxiit:ate the expected methane emissions <br />would vldate the standard. <br />Response: See revised text and response to Comment 26. Cornersbn of a vdume of a gas to <br />a weigh Is dependent on the temperature end pressure at the time the gas Is measured. <br />Assuming standard temperature end pressure 119 mflllon cubic feet d methane would equal <br />2,521 tons. However, that b e very simplistic corversbn. <br />• <br />28. Commerrt: In the opinion d the CEC, Western should be required to capture or flare the gas. <br />Emission of the gas should not be allowed, given the comroversy surrounding the Influence of <br />methane emissions on global wartning. <br />Response: See revised text We note your concem, however, the manner In which the gas is <br />emkted as well as the vdume and pressure d the emission does not readily lend ksek to <br />capture. Flaring, may be acceptable, but is a safety concem that must be approved by the <br />Mining Safety and Heakh Administration. Provision has been made for review of potential <br />capture and/or flaring of gob gas at the mine plan review. <br />