Yessir, and ma'am,
There is some right interesting reading in that database. Louise, thank you again.
From the Intrepid EA;
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
UTU-087809-087818
UT-020-2006-002
20
4.3.2.2 Alternative B Proposed Action with Mitigation
Primary Pond Relocation: The impacts would be the same as the Proposed Action.
New Ditch Location on South Leases: The impacts would be the same as the Proposed Action
Fringe Acreage Lease: The impacts would be the same as the Proposed Action
Salt Laydown: The effect of the salt laydown project on the resource would be the same as under the proposed action.
The only difference is that Intrepid would be obligated to conduct the salt laydown project.
Reclamation: The ditches in the ACEC would be filled in and the ditch berms would be removed.
This would bring the surface of the land back to its original contour.
The above was approved by the BLM in the document:
Mining Plan Environmental Notice,
http://www.save-the-salt.org/s/Intrepid-Potash-Mine-and-Reclamation-Plan.pdf(I'd cut and paste here but I'm incompetent, so I will quote the notice for emphasis)
Mostly it deals with the Salt Laydown.
3 year rolling average ion mass balance and report to th BLM within 60 days after completion for the year.
(I'd like to see the numbers myself.)
And the 2018 salt study.
Measure what is left and "...revise terms and conditions when the lease is readjusted in 2023."
(2023? YIKES!)
and the closing paragraph on the top of page 5.
"... This approval is contingent upon strict compliance with the specifics of Alternate B as outlined in the EA..."
(top of this page)
Has the Reclamation section of the approved Alternative B Proposed Action with Mitigation been implemented without my noticing?
Sam
#6062