GENERAL31182 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~l ~~ CNAPTERFOUR Environmental consequences 1 dischazged to Piceance Creek is within CDPS dischazge permit limits and would not violate any water quality standazds. Should the test water exceed permit limits, the water would be hauled to a disposal facility. ' Protection of surface water resources from accidental spills or leaks in the well field is largely reliant upon monitoring, prompt containment and clean-up. Regulaz visual inspection of the piping network would be performed to detect any leaks. American Soda project personnel would be trained in spill prevention and control. It is unlikely that any released material would reach an intermittent drainage or Piceance Creek. ' There would be a potential for adverse impacts to Piceance Cteek from possible introduction of groundwater with elevated total dissolved solids dischazging into the creek. (Refer to Section 4.4.2 for further discussion.) 1 There would be no significant effect on surface water quantity from activities on the Piceance Site. Only hydrostatic test water would be taken in priority firm Piceance Creek. Al] water used on the well field or at the processing plant would be with trucked in or piped in from the Pazachute Site. ' Pipeline Corridor The pipeline route would cross the three perennial streams in the Project Area, plus several intermittent drainages. A total of six crossings of the perennial streams occur along the pipeline comdor: two under Piceance Creek, two under Stewart Gulch, and two under Pazachute Creek (Middle Fork and East Fork). Intermittent drainages crossed by the pipeline include: Hatch Gulch, Collins Gulch, Dry Fork Stewart Gulch along Bames Ridge, and Grantee Gulch and Wheeler Gulch along the Pazachute Creek valley (Steigers 1998b). All the crossings would be constructed with BMPs to control sediment and minimize water quality impacts in accordance with the COE Section 404 permit process. Impacts to wetlands associated with these stream crossings would also be permitted by the COE, as discussed in Section 4.9.2. It is anticipated that all impacts to streams and wetlands would be covered under a single Nationwide Permit. All t stream and wetland crossings would be open cut. Streams would be temporarily dammed to allow construction across the channel, or active streams may be diverted temporarily if flows aze too great. The pipeline would be buried at least 3 feet below the bottom of each drainage, and the surface would be restored to preconstruction contours. The crossings would not permanently alter stream channel morphology or hydraulic capacity. Any exposed slopes and stream banks would be stabilized immediately upon completion of the pipeline crossing. The crossings would result in only temporary disturbances with temporary, minor increases in suspended sediment from construction. No long-term, significant effects to surface waters would be anticipated. After the pipe is in the trench, it would be hydrostatically tested for leakage. Any leak in the pipe would be repaired. Water for hydrostatic testing would come from alluvial water wells or the Colorado River south of the town of Pazachute under an existing water right. Test water would be routed from the Pazachute Site up one pipe to the Piceance Site and then down the second pipe back to the Parachute Site. Water quality would be tested before running the hydrostatic test and again before the water is dischazged at the Pazachute Site to confirm that test water would not violate water quality standards. ' Surface Water and Surface Water Drainages 4-11