GENERAL49886 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II ~J CNAPTERFIVE cumu~atiue ~maacts , appropriate BMPs aze followed, additional activities within the Piceance or Pazac:hute Creek watersheds should not result in long-term cumulative effects to surface waters. Increased industrial activities also increases the potential of accidental release of contaminants during field construction and operations. Immediate and effective responses to any such rele~cse should minimize effects to surface waters. The surface water system in the Piceance Basin is over allocated and any depletion in surface water flow would be considered significant and would affect the quantity of water available for other uses. Colorado state law requires that adverse effects to other water users be mitigated through a water augmentation plan (BLM 1986.) The White River Nahcolite project currently withdraws water for production, process and domestic purposes, and filling mine cavities. The Yankee Gulch Project would not require the use of Piceance Creek water for mining and process activities. Water would be taken short term in priority from Piceance Creek for Hydrostatic testing of the natural gas pipeline. The four projects identified for the cumulative analysis do not propose consumptive use of Colorado River water. 5.4 GROUNDWATER Cumulative degradation of groundwater quality and alteration of groundwater flow patterns and availability could occur from activities of the listed projects. However, the impacts would likely be localized and not regionally significant. It should be noted that any depletion in surface water flow caused by groundwater withdrawal would be considered significant because of the ' overallocation of surface water in the Piceance Basin. 5.5 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY A Potential air pollution emissions from the Proposed Action would have cumulative effects in the Yankee Gulch Project Area when combined with a number of existing and foreseeable sources (e.g., White River Nahcolite plant, TransColorado Gas Transmission project, Glenwood Springs RMP -oil and gas projects, etc.). Existing projects listed in Table D-3 in Appendix D are included in the cumulative analysis. The State of Colorado (Air Pollution Control Division), ' USFS, and the BLM have met to cooperatively address these issues. For the Piceance and Parachute Sites, cumulative compliance sources were included in the demonstration of the NAAQS and Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards (CA.4QS). The conservative dispersion modeling performed for this project indicated that the maximum ground level concentration (total concentration) predicted for all pollutants (PM~t„ NOx and CO) are well below the applicable standards (NAAQS/CAAQS concentrations) (Tables 4.5-3 and 4.5-4). Table 4.5-5 presents the results from the Class I increment analysis. The combin~:d impacts from both the Piceance and Parachute facilities are less than the Class I significant impact levels. Impacts predicted below the significant and impact level are by definition determined to not ' significantly affect the air quality at the Class I area. A cumulative analysis for the Class I increment was not performed since this project would not contribute significantly. 5-4 '