My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE134580
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE134580
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:35:16 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 2:28:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/4/1999
Doc Name
COPY SENT TO DMG OF BOB TOBINS WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
From
ROBERT TOBIN
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
v <br />~`~ .t <br />~y~ <br />a' <br />CHAPTERFIVE <br />appropriate BMPs aze followed, additional activities c <br />watersheds should not result in long-term cumulative <br />industrial activities also increases the potential of acci <br />construction and operations. Immediate and effective <br />Impacts <br />Pazachute Creek / <br />:rs. Increased <br />uninants during field ~•: I i <br />: release should ~ ~~ i' ~ <br />minimize effects to surface water. ~ t,,~:' ~,r% <br />W <br />The surface water system in the Piceance Basin is over allocated and any depletiot in surface <br />water flow would be considered significant and would affect the quantity, of water available for <br />other uses. Colorado state law requires that adverse effect~to other water users be mitigated <br />through a water augmentation plan (BLM 1986.) The White River Nahcolite project currently <br />withdraws water for production, process and domestic purposes, and filling mine cavities. The <br />Yankee Gulch Project would not require the use of Piceance Creek water for mining and process <br />activities. Water would be taken short term in priority from Piceance Creek for hydrostatic <br />testing of the natural gas pipeline. The four projects identified for the cumulative analysis do not <br />propose consumptive use of Colorado River water. <br />eJ ~ ty s~^~+.. <br />5.4 GROUNDWATER ~,,~ ~<< ~^`"'~ <br />Cumulative degradation of groundwater quality apd alteratiop of groundwater flow patterns and <br />availability could occur from activities of the listed projects. However, the impacts would likel <br />be localized and not regionally significant. It should be noted that any depletion in surface wale <br />flow caused by groundwater withdrawal would be considered significant because of the <br />overallocation of surface water in the Piceance Basin. <br />5.5 METEOROLOGY AND AIR QUALITY <br />Y ~Gr- <br />r ~.~ <br />~r^ 1"' <br />.~ py~a <br />e ` J~-_ <br />.~ <br />-~ ~. ~' <br />5 <br />Potential air pollution emissions from the Proposed Action would have cumulative effects in the <br />Yankee Gulch Project Area when combined with a number of existing and foreseeable sources <br />(e.g., White River Nahcolite plant, TrazisColorado Gas Transmission project, Glenwood Springs <br />RMP -oil and gas projecu, etc.). Existing projects listed in Table D-3 in Appendix D aze <br />included in the cumulative analysis. The State of Colorado (Air Pollution Control Division), <br />USFS, and the BLM have met to cooperatively address these issues. <br />For the Piceance and Pazachute Sites. cumulative compliance sources were included in the <br />demonstration of the NAAQS and Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standazds (CAAQS). <br />The conservative dispersion modeling performed for this project indicated that the maximum <br />ground level concentration (total concentration) predicted for all pollutants (PMio, NOx and CO) <br />are well below the applicable standazds (NAAQS/CAAQS concentrations) (Tables 4.5-3 and <br />4.5-4). <br />Table 4.5-5 presents the results from the Class I increment analysis. The combined impacts from <br />both the Piceance and Parachute facilities aze less than the Class 1 significant impact levels. <br />Impacts predicted below the significant and impact level aze by definition determined to not <br />significantly affect the air quality at the Class I area. A cumulative analysis for the Class I <br />increment was not performed since this project would not contribute significantly. <br />5-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.