Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTERFIVE Draft EIS Recisions <br />Page 4-76; Cultural and Paleontological Resources <br />A BLM Class III cultural resources inventory of the Piceance Site azea has been conducted <br />(Conner et al. 1998). This survey resulted in the evaluation of 41;47 prehistoric sites, 5 historic <br />sites, 45 prehistoric isolated fords, and 2 isolated fossil bone localities. The isolated finds are <br />ineligible for the NRHP and so are the five historic sites. Of the 4847 prehistoric sites, seven <br />have been recommended as eligible for the NRHP, 27 have been recommended as ineligible, and <br />additional data are required in order to determine the NRHP status of the remaining-1413 Sites <br />with undetermined eligibility should be treated as if they were eligible until such data are <br />gathered to determine otherwise. Therefore, a total of 2120 potentially significant prehistoric <br />sites are located within the Piceance Site azea. <br />Page 4-81; Land Use and Recreation <br />The existing land use is primarily wildlife habitat, dispersed recreation, livestock grazing and <br />sodium exploration. Wildlife issues aze discussed in Section 4.8. The primary recreational use <br />of the site is deer hunting. Access to the lease azea by the general public would be maintained, <br />except for the processing plant and evaporation pond. Roads leading into the active mine panel <br />would be signed and potentially gated. Recreationists would still have access along the Yellow <br />Creek Jeep Trail, although the road would need to be relocated azound the processing facilities. <br />An existing access road, which crosses the Squaze S Ranch State Wildlife Area and into an <br />unnamed draw in the northern end of the lease azea would also be available as access into the <br />site. Hunters would still be able to access and hunt in the lease azea, although the numbers of <br />• deer, and the quality of the surroundings would be diminished by the presence of the industrial <br />activities. Hunting would likely not occur within an active mine panel or azound the permanent <br />facilities. On average, this would mean about 244 acres may be unavailable for hunting activities <br />at any one time. Due to the availability of land for hunting within the White River Resource <br />Area, this impact would not be considered significant on a regional level, although would be <br />disruptive for those hunters who have traditionally hunted in this azea. <br />Page 5-4; Cumulative Impacts <br />5.4 GROUNDWATER <br />Cumulative degradation of groundwater quality and alteration of groundwater flow patterns and <br />availability could occur from activities of the listed projects. However, the impacts would likely <br />be localized and not regionally significant. '* °'•^^'a'~° ^*°a *'•°* °^y a°P'°'~^ ^~ ^'°• <br />..,n^^°*:^^ ^F °...F ^° .,.°.°.:^ *~,° n:^°°^^° °°°:^ Groundwater would not be withdrawn at <br />the Piceance Site for the Yankee Gulch Project. Therefore, impacts to availability of <br />groundwater would not occur. Furthermore, of the four additional projects evaluated for <br />cumulative impacts, only White River Nahcolite (WRl`n is known to use groundwater. WRN <br />withdraws annroximately 50 etrt from the Unner Aquifer at its nrocessin¢ faciliri. This <br />use is not expected to affect availability of groundwater beyond the WRN project area. <br />As stated eazlier, cumulative impacts to <br />from three of the four <br />. evaluated (i.e., two gas pipeline operations and oil and gas drilling operations as a whole) are not <br />expected to be significant because of the nature of these operations. Oil and gas drilling and well <br />completion operations are permitted activities with specific requirements for aquifer protection. <br />5-31 <br />