Laserfiche WebLink
CNAPTERFOUR Responses to Public and AllencY Comments <br />Letter and <br />Comment No. Response <br />another. Therefore, comparing groundwater quality resul ~s from American <br />Soda monitoring wells in their 7.0 squaze mile leaseblock to results across <br />a basin covering 7,225 square miles would not be a beneficial exercise. <br />However, Section 3.4.2 has been revised to present ranger of chemical <br />constituent concentrations in American Soda and neazby Hells in addition <br />to the frequency with which a specific constituent exceeded Colorado <br />drinking water standazds. A table presenting a summary of American <br />Soda's groundwater quality data collected has been included in this section <br />and all results are presented in Appendix K so the reader can review all <br />results. Colorado drinking water standards have also been included in the <br />table. <br />It should be noted that apparent "inconsistencies" in the document relating <br />to groundwater flow dvection and chemical concentrations (page 3-17 <br />compazed to page 3-20 of the Draft EIS) aze not inconsistent at all. The <br />discussion on page 3-17 of the Draft EIS is based on published regional <br />data (i.e., Section 3.4.1 Regional Hydrogeology) while discussions on page <br />3-20 of the Draft EIS are based on site-specifc data (i.e., Section 3.4.2 <br />Project Area Hydrogeology). One would expect some differences to occur • <br />between general regional information when compared to ;>ite-specific data. <br />L-3.2 The Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan ha:o been prepared to <br />address these concerns (Appendix G). Additionally, curn;nt data do not <br />suggest that the hydrogeologic conditions at Alkali Flats located <br />approximately 7 miles to the northeast exist at the project site. <br />In addition, the Subsidence Monitoring Plan (Appendix F) has been <br />prepared to monitor potential subsidence and mitigate nel;ative impacts. <br />L-3.3 The monitoring plans provided in Appendices E, F, and (i of the Final EIS <br />were prepazed with the rationale that potential impacts need to be detected <br />at an eazly stage to immediately mitigate problems if they arise. <br />L-3.4 Comment noted. The referenced monitoring plans address these concerns. <br />NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS <br />Msnerai Policy Center <br />N-1.1 The Draft and Final EIS' provide an adequate level of information and <br />analysis to respond to all comments and allow for an informed decision to <br />be made by the BLM. The mitigation and monitoring plans included in the <br />Final EIS, combined with conditions of approval imposed by the BLM, <br />will ensure that no."unnecessary and undue degradation" of public <br />resources will occur. <br />4-20 <br />