GENERAL53802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CNAPTERFOUR. Responses to Public and Agiency Comments Letter and Comment No. Response U. S. Geological Survey F-3.1 Water remaining in the solution mining cavities has been ;accounted for in the water use estimate. The consumptive water use estimane of 1.6 cfs on page 2-17 of the Draft EIS includes all the consumptive water uses for the project. Regazding water quality effects, there should be rro adverse effects from water remaining in the solutions cavities after minis; ceases. F-3.2 Water quality information for the three gaging stations for the period 1986- 1998 has been summarized and included as in Table 3.3-1 (modified). Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS was also revised. F-3.3 Refer to response to Comment F-3.2. F-3.4 Data collection was discontinued at station 09306061 (abcrve Hunter Creek) in 1992, and at stations 09306202 (Horse Draw) and 09306203 (Horse Draw at Mouth) in 1978. However, data from the three other stations aze more recent and have a longer period of record. Therefore„ these data aze adequate to characterize the baseline water quality and flow conditions at Piceance Creek. F-3.5 Comment noted. The reference has been revised acwrdin~gly. F-3.6 Data from the three gaging stations presented suggest that. Piceance Creek is a gaining creek throughout its length; however, a detailed synoptic stream flow survey would be necessary to identify gaining and losing reaches. The water monitoring plan (Appendix G) includes a tracer dilution study along the section of Piceance that borders the leases to obtain stream gain loss baseline information. F-3.7 A Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan is included•as Appendix G to the Final EIS. A summary of the proposed surface water monitoring plan is provided in Section 2.3.3 of this Final EIS. USDA Forest Service F~.1 The BLM-Glenwood Springs Resource Area (GSRA) published a Final Supplemental EIS on oil and gas leasing and development (BLM 1999). Page 4-10 of this EIS states "A visibility screening level ;uuilysis predicted that operations would not result in a perceptible (1.0 deci~riew reduction) visibility impact at any of the PSD Class I wilderness aze;as under either the `reasonably foreseeable' or `low' compressor NOx emission rate scenarios." It is further stated in the Final Supplemental EIS that the "USDA-Forest Service, Region 2 (Haddow 1998) believes the State of Colorado could permit existing natural gas compressors to be replaced, azid additional 4-12