GENERAL55525 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. PURPOSE AND NEED discussion of the alternatives, please refer to Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives. The fallowing major issues were identified during the scoping process and have been addrested in the EIS. Under each issue is an initial statement generally describing what the issue involves. Following the general statement are a series of questions to clarity how the esue will be addressed in the EIS. I. Hydrology This issue addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project on surface and groundwater gr~ality and quantity. a. W hat is the existing extent of communication between the upper and lower aquifers within the project area? b. What will be the impact of the project on local and regional groundwater quality and quantity? c. Will contamination of the groundwater system by brines be prevented by WRC"s proposed drilling, completion, and plugging program? d. Is WRC's proposed subsiden~x and groundwater quality monitoring adequate? e. What is the ability of the ca~oities to contain the dissolving Buid? f. Will ash disposal into mined-out cavities impact the groundwater resources? g. Are there alternatives to evaporation ponds for waste water disposal, and will the proposed ponds adequately handle the amounts expected? h. How will project mnoff be controlled? i. What are the spill contingency plans and are they adequate? j. What is the continuity and competency of the "rubber beds"? Is it an effective aquitard? 2. Oil Shale This issue addresses the potential impacts of the proposed project on the rich oil shale resources in the area. Existing lease terms prohibit damage to the quantity, quality, or minability of the oil shale resources within the sodium lease boundaries. a. How competent is the Mahogany Zone (R-7) within the sodium lease boundaries? b. What effect will solution mining have on future mining of the oil shale resources? 3. Solution Mining Buller Zones Section 2(p) of the lease requires that where the minerals are taken from the earth in solution that " .... the location within a producing formation of an entry, well, or opening Cor extraction shall not be within 500 feet of the boundary line of leased lands without the permission of or unless directed by the lessor, nor shall induced fracturing extend to less than 100 feet from the boundary line." WRC is requesting in their mine plan that this 500-foot buffer width be entirely eliminated in the case of a boundary separating two contiguous leases. They also request that it be dropped to 50 feet along outside lease boundaries. These two requests will be treated as issues for identification and analysis in the EIS. a. What impacts would occur as a result of dropping this stipulation entirely from contiguous lease boundaries? b. What impacts would occur as a result of lowering this buffer zone to 50 feet from outside lease boundary lines? 1.5 Background Effective July 1, 1971, (our sodium preference right leases were issued as follows: Lease No. Owner C-0118326 Wolf Joint Venture C-0118327 Wolf Ridge Minerals Corporation C-0119986 Ridge Minerals Venture C-0I 19985 Rock School Joint Venture In March 1972, lease no. C-0119985 was partitioned by the members of Rock School Joint Venture and as a result, Advance Minerals Corporation (AMC) acquired approximately 1,200 acres of land covered by that lease. In September 1972, the owners of the original lease nos. C-0118326, C-0118327, C-0119986, and AMC, as the owner of 1,200 acres of original lease no. C-0119985, assigned the leases to Utah Shale Land Corporation. On October 25, 1972, the Colorado State Office of the BLM issued a decision approving the assignments to Utah Shale Land Corporation effective November 1, 1972, and consolidating the assigned leases into one lease, number C- 0118326. The Utah Shale Land Corporation instituted a name change after the consolidation of sodium lease no. C-0118326. The new corporation name became Industrial Resources, Inc. ([RI). Effective March 1, 1980, lease no. C-0118326 was assigned from IRI to Wolf Ridge Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary. On June 9, 1980, Multi-Minerals Corporation (MMC) acquired lease no. C-0118326 from WRC, and on September 5, 1980, MMC and WRC filed a request far approval of the assignment with the BLM Colorado State Office. While waiting for the approval, MMC conducted exploration on the lease, drilling numerous holes (11) and conducting other work. However, effective June 29, 1982, MMC assigned all interest in the lease back to WRC; shortly thereafter, MMC filed a withdrawal of its request for approval of the assignment with BLM, which was accepted effective July 7, 1982. 1-3