GENERAL53802 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTERFOUR Responses to Publtc and Agency Comments Letter and Comment No. Response F-2.14 The bonding requirements do cover disturbances on all private land. Private land would be reclaimed to the level required by the private landowner, or in absence of specific landowner requirements, to the BLM's requirements. Reclamation of the pipeline corridor on private land is discussed in the Wildlife Mitigation Plan (Appendix I) and Pipeline Plan of Development (Appendix E). F-2.15 Plugging and abandonment of the solution mining wells has been revised as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative to include cement plugging of the entire cased borehole length from the bottom hole cast iron bridge plug (CIBP) to the ground surface. Refer to Section 2.3.6.1 of this Final EIS. F-2.16 In the Draft EIS, the purpose in presenting Section 2.2.8 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions is to describe reasonably foreseeable actions of the proponent on the undeveloped lease azea after the 30-yeaz Proposed Action is complete. This discussion was prepazed in response to questions raised during scoping. To eliminate the confusion with Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIS, which discusses cumulative effects of other reasonably foreseeable actions, Section 2.2.8 (page 2-29) has been re-named to "Potential Future Mining Activity". Chapter 5.0 discusses other reasonably foreseeable actions, including White River Nahcolite; oil and gas leasing, including ~coalbed methane development as described in the recent BLM -Glenwood Springs Resource Area EIS; and other pipeline projects. F-2.17 Refer to response to Comment F-1.1. Since the ponds would be netted under the Agency Preferred Alternative, no monitoring would be necessary. F-2.18 The two evaporation ponds and MVR pond would be constructed with a double liner and leak detection system. The two stormwater retention ponds would be constructed with a single high density polyethylene (HOPE) layer. The water storage pond at the Parachute Site, which stores fresh water from the water delivery system prior to treatment and use by the project, would have a clay liner. The stormwater and evaporation ponds at the Piceance Site would be regulated by CDMG under the Section 112 Reclamation Permit, The ponds at the Parachute Site would be regulated by CDPHE. CDPHE requires a groundwater dischazge pemrit for process water ponds, unless it can be demonstrated that the percolation rate of the liner is less than l Od cm/sec. CDPHE would exempt such ponds from needing permit approval. Stormwater retention and raw water ponds aze also exempt from the groundwater discharge permit program. 4-7