DOCSLIB.ORG

Gunlock Arsenic Treatment Plant

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gunlock Arsenic Treatment Plant United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Preliminary Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2016-40-EA May 2017 Gunlock Arsenic Treatment Plant Applicant: City of St. George 175 East 200 North St. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management St. George Field Office 345 East Riverside Drive St. George, Utah 84790 Phone: (435) 688-3200 Fax: (435) 688-3252 Gunlock Arsenic Treatment Plant DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2016-40-EA 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................... 4 1.4 Decision to be Made........................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan ......................................................................... 4 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans ...................................................... 4 1.7 Identification of Issues .................................................................................................... 5 1.7.1. Issues Identified for the Proposed Action............................................................... 5 1.7.2. Resources Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................ 6 1.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ........ 7 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Alternative A - Proposed Action..................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. Location .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2. Right-of-Way .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3. Construction Schedule .......................................................................................... 13 2.2.4. Access Road, Pipeline and Transmission Line Construction ............................... 13 2.2.5. Arsenic Treatment Plant Construction .................................................................. 13 2.2.6. Standard Operating Procedures............................................................................. 14 2.2.7. Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................. 15 2.3 Alternative B – No Action ............................................................................................ 16 2.4 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Evaluation ........................................................ 16 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 17 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 General Setting.............................................................................................................. 17 3.3 Resources Brought Forward for Analysis ..................................................................... 18 3.3.1. Water Resources/Quality (drinking/surface/ground) ............................................ 18 3.3.2. Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 18 3.3.3. Soils....................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.4. Fish and Wildlife Resources (excluding USFWS Designated Species) ............... 20 3.3.5. Migratory Birds ..................................................................................................... 21 3.3.6. Visual Resources................................................................................................... 22 3.3.7. National Historic Trails (Old Spanish Trail) ........................................................ 23 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................... 24 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 24 4.2 General Analysis Assumptions and Guidelines ............................................................ 24 4.3 Direct and Indirect Impacts ........................................................................................... 24 4.3.1. Alternative A – Proposed Action.......................................................................... 25 4.3.2. Alternative B – No Action .................................................................................... 32 4.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ........................................................................................ 33 4.4.1. Past and Present Actions....................................................................................... 33 4.4.2. Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS) ............................................... 33 4.4.3. Cumulative Impacts .............................................................................................. 33 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................................... 34 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 34 5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted.................................................................... 35 5.3 Summary of Public Participation .................................................................................. 35 5.3.1. Comment Analysis ................................................................................................ 35 5.3.2. List of Commenters............................................................................................... 36 5.3.3. Response to Public Comment ............................................................................... 36 5.4 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 36 6.0 REFERENCES, GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ..................................................... 37 6.1 References Cited ........................................................................................................... 37 6.2 List of Acronyms Used in this EA ................................................................................ 37 Tables Table 2-1. New Surface Disturbance Summary ............................................................................. 8 Table 2-2. Estimated Personnel & Equipment Required for Project ............................................ 14 Table 2-3. Estimated Personnel & Equipment Required for Operation & Maintenance .............. 16 Table 4-1 Terms Used to Describe the Environmental Effects .................................................... 25 Table 5-1: List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA . 35 Table 5-2: List of Staff Used in the Preparation of this EA .......................................................... 36 Figures Figure 1-1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2-1 Existing BLM ROWs .................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-2 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-3 Site Plan ...................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-4 New Water Lines ......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3-1 Existing view (upper) of proposed project from Gunlock Road (Travel Route KOP) 23 Figure 3-2 Existing view (lower) of proposed project from Gunlock Road (Travel Route KOP) 23 Figure 4.1 Existing view of proposed project site due west of site .............................................. 31 Figure 4.2 Existing view approximately 30 feet above project site looking Northeast ................ 31 Appendices Interdisciplinary Team Checklist ................................................................................... Appendix A Plan of Development ...................................................................................................... Appendix B Best Management Practices and Standard Operating Procedures ................................ Appendix C Visual Contrast Rating Worksheet ................................................................................. Appendix D 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the Gunlock Arsenic Treatment Plant (GATP) as proposed by the City of St. George. The EA is a site-specific analysis of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Floods of December 1966 in Southwestern Utah
    LIBRARY COPY U.S.GEOLC: 'URVEY.WBF iROUA, MfiSQUBL Floods of December 1966 In Southwestern Utah GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-A Floods of December 1966 In Southwestern Utah By ELMER BUTLER and J. C. MUNDORFF FLOODS OF 1966 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1870-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1970 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract_____________________________ Al Introduction. ____________________________ 1 Physical setting-_____________________ 2 Precipitation.. _ ______________________ 5 Streamflow- _____________________________ 6 Description of the floods_____________ 6 Determination of flood discharges____. 7 Stages and discharges at selected sites___ 9 Summary of flood stages and discharges. 10 Water quality.___________________________ 11 Flood damage_____-__-____---_-_-___-____ 19 Selected references..______________________ 26 Station data_____________________________ 27 ILLUSTRATIONS Page PLATE 1. Map of southwestern Utah showing stream-gaging and water-quality sampling sites, geology, vegeta­ tion, and precipitation at selected sites during period December 3-7, 1966____________________________ In pocket 2. Maps showing location and size of radar echoes in parts of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah during December 3-6, 1966________________________________________ In pocket FIGURE 1. Map showing altitudes in part of southwestern Utah_____ A3 2. Map showing normal annual precipitation in part of south­ western Utah-________-_______________---_-_-----_ 4 3. Hydrograph of discharge at selected gaging stations in the Virgin River basin_________________________________ 8 4. Hydrograph of discharge at selected gaging stations in the Santa Clara River basin___________________------___ 9 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology and Ground-Water Conditions of the Tertiary Muddy Creek Formation in the Lower Virgin River Basin of Southeastern Neva
    HYDROLOGY AND GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS OF THE TERTIARY MUDDY CREEK FORMATION IN THE LOWER VIRGIN RIVER BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN NEVADA AND ADJACENT ARIZONA AND UTAH Geological Society of America 2002 Rocky Mountain Section Annual Meeting Cedar City, Utah May 10, 2002 FIELD TRIP LEADERS By Michael Johnson, Virgin Valley Water District, Mesquite, NV 89027 500 Riverside Road (702) 346-5731 Gary L. Dixon, Southwest Geology, Inc., Blackfoot, ID 83221 Peter D. Rowley, Geologic Mapping, Inc., New Harmony, UT 84757 Terry C. Katzer, Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc., Reno, NV 89511 Michael Winters, Virgin Valley Water District, Mesquite, Nevada 89027 284 HYDROLOGY AND GROUND-WATER CONDITIONS OF THE TERTIARY MUDDY CREEK FORMATION IN THE LOWER VIRGIN RIVER BASIN OF SOUTHEASTERN NEVADA AND ADJACENT ARIZONA AND UTAH Geological Society of America 2002 Rocky Mountain Section Annual Meeting Cedar City, Utah May 10, 2002 FIELD TRIP LEADERS By Michael Johnson, Virgin Valley Water District, Mesquite, NV 89027 Gary L. Dixon, Southwest Geology, Inc., Blackfoot, ID 83221 Peter D. Rowley, Geologic Mapping, Inc., New Harmony, UT 84757 Terry C. Katzer, Cordilleran Hydrology, Inc., Reno, NV 89511 Michael Winters, Virgin Valley Water District, Mesquite, NV 89027 ABSTRACT The lower Virgin River Basin is a complex structural basin formed by Neogene extension in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. There is a large volume of ground water in transient storage moving through the basin. Ongoing investigations to characterize the basin have determined that it is one of the deepest in the Basin and Range Province. The estimated depth to basement underlying the carbonate rock may be as great as 5 miles.
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed
    TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed EPA Approval Date: September 20, 2004 Submitted to: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Kent Montague Project Manager Harry Lewis Judd Project Supervisor Submitted by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Water Resources and TMDL Center Utah Division of Water Quality TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ...................................................................................................................5 2.1 303(d) List Status ........................................................................................................................5 2.2 Parameters of Concern.................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Salinity and Total Dissolved Solids ........................................................................................7 2.2.2 Temperature ............................................................................................................................8 2.2.3 Total Phosphorus and Dissolved Oxygen ...............................................................................8 2.2.4 Selenium..................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • The Virgin River Basin Study: a Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Reports Utah Water Research Laboratory January 1977 The Virgin River Basin Study: A Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources John E. Keith Jim Mulder Trevor C. Hughes V. A. Narasimhan Lance Rovig Karl Eriksen See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Keith, John E.; Mulder, Jim; Hughes, Trevor C.; Narasimhan, V. A.; Rovig, Lance; Eriksen, Karl; Fowler, Don D.; Borchard, Lucinda; Kimball, Kirk; Ballard, Spence; Turna, K. S.; and Hoggan, Daniel H., "The Virgin River Basin Study: A Regional Approach to Multiobjective Planning for Water and Related Resources" (1977). Reports. Paper 276. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/276 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors John E. Keith, Jim Mulder, Trevor C. Hughes, V. A. Narasimhan, Lance Rovig, Karl Eriksen, Don D. Fowler, Lucinda Borchard, Kirk Kimball, Spence Ballard, K. S. Turna, and Daniel H. Hoggan This report is available at DigitalCommons@USU: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/water_rep/276 THE VIRGIN RIVER BASIN STUDY: A REGIONAL APPROACH TO MULTIOBJECTIVE PLANNING FOR WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES by John E. Keith Jim Mulder Trevor C. Hughes V. A. Narasimhan Lance Rovig Karl Eriksen Don D. Fowler Lucinda Borchard Kirk Kimball Spence Ballard K.
    [Show full text]
  • Virgin River Watershed Management Plan
    Virgin River Watershed Management Plan February 2006 Virgin River Watershed Management Plan i Contents Section One Watershed Management Planning . I-1 The Virgin River Watershed . I-1 Watershed Management . I-2 Watershed Management Planning . .I-4 Watershed Management Activities in the Virgin River. I-5 Current Watershed Planning Activites . .I-6 Total Maximum Daily Load I-6 Drinking Water Source Protection Plan I-8 Storm Water Management Plans I-8 The Virgin River Watershed Management Plan I-9 Use of the Watershed Management Plan . I-11 Virgin River Watershed Management Plan Mission Statement . I-13 Section Two Overview of the Virgin River Watershed . II-1 Natural Features of the Virgin River Watershed . II-2 Soils II-2 Topography II-2 Climate and Hydrology II-4 Wildlife II-4 Human Factors . II-5 Land Use II-5 Population Growth and Trends II-6 Land Ownership II-8 Stakeholders II-8 Section Three Virgin River Watershed Key Concerns. III-1 A Snapshot of the Virgin River Watershed: Establishing Overall Baseline Conditions . III-2 Water Quality III-2 Water Quantity III-8 Biological Community III-9 Habitat. .III-9 Wildlife. III-10 Contents ii Virgin River Watershed Management Plan Stakeholders’ Key Issues in Watershed Planning Areas . III-12 Water Quality Problems and Natural Resources III-13 Dissolved Solids III-14 Sedimentation III-17 Lack of Stream Flow III-18 Nutrients III-19 Healthy Land III-20 Healthy Fish and Animals III-22 Watershed Planning Area: East Fork Virgin River III-22 What.Are.Stakeholders’.Key.Concerns?. III-24 Riparian.Corridor.Health . III-24 Stream.Flow.Management .
    [Show full text]
  • LPP BOR Southern Paiute Acknowledgements
    Lake Powell Pipeline Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Supplement Number 5 Cultural and Ethnographic Resources: The Official Southern Paiute Cultural Assessment Prepared for Rick Baxter, Nate Thomas, and Zac Nelson Bureau of Reclamation 302 E 1860 S, Provo, UT 84606 Prepared by Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Southern Paiute Advisory Committee 1 North Pipe Spring Road Fredonia, AZ 86022 With assistance of Richard Stoffle School of Anthropology University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ February 20, 2020 Acknowledgements The Southern Paiute Advisory Committee (SPAC) and Dr. Richard Stoffle wish to thank the tribal governments and tribal councils of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe for their continued support of the SPAC’s efforts. The SPAC and Dr. Stoffle also want to extend their gratitude towards the following researchers at the University of Arizona who have assisted on this project since 2009- Dr. Kathleen Van Vlack, Mariah Albertie, Hector Acosta, Katie Beck, Katherine Brookes, Stephanie De Sola, Jennie Delfs, Philip Dukes, Christopher Johnson, Hannah Johnson, Heather Hyealim Lim, Evelyn Pickering, Christopher Sittler, Daniel Velasco, and Jessica Yaquinto (Savage). 1 Letters of Tribal Approval The letters provided in the following pages show how the original ethnographic report produced by the Southern Paiute Advisory Committee officially approved by the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, and the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe. 1 Chapter One: Introduction The Southern Paiute Advisory Committee (SPAC) stipulates that the Creator placed Southern Paiute people in their homelands at least 12,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for the Virgin: Conservationist Approaches to River Management
    A Vision for the Virgin: Conservationist Approaches to River Management Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 1471 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 801/486-3161 September 1993 SUWA gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Outdoor Industries Conservation Alliance, and of the Tides Foundation's 777/Environmental Fund, in preparing this report. ...even the weariest river Winds somewhere safe to sea. --Algernon Charles Swinburne The Garden of Prosperine A Vision for the Virgin: Conservationist Approaches to River Management Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of this Report .............................................................................................................. 2 Chapter I. The Virgin River Basin ........................................................................................ 5 A River in the Desert ................................................................................................................... 5 Utah Segment ................................................................................................................... 5 Arizona and Nevada Segments ........................................................................................ 7 A River of Opportunity ................................................................................................... 7 Virgin River Geology ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Paiute Relations with Their Early Dixie Mormon Neighbors by Edward Leo Lyman
    The JuaniTa Brooks LecTure series presents The 27th Annual Lecture Southern Paiute Relations With Their Early Dixie Mormon Neighbors by Edward Leo Lyman St. George Tabernacle March 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. Co-sponsored by Val Browning Library, Dixie State College St. George, Utah and the Obert C. Tanner Foundation This page is intentionally blank Juanita Brooks was a professor at [then] Dixie College for many years and became a well-known author. She is recognized, by scholarly consent, to be one of Utah’s and Mormondom’s most eminent historians. Her total honesty, unwavering courage, and perceptive interpretation of fact set more stringent standards of scholarship for her fellow histori- ans to emulate. Dr. Obert C. and Grace Tanner had been life- long friends of Mrs. Brooks and it was their wish to perpetuate her name through this lecture series. Dixie State College and the Brooks family express their thanks to the Tanner family. Copyright 2010, Dixie State College of Utah St. George, Utah 84770 All rights reserved This page is intentionally blank Edward Leo Lyman received a Bachelor’s Degree in History from Brigham Young University in May 1966 and a Master of Science Degree in History from the university of Utah, June 1967. He began teaching history at North High School in Riverside, California that year and continued there until 1984, serving ten years as the department chair. In 1982 he began teaching part time at California Polytechnic University and then added a similar assignment at California State University, San Bernardino, both until 2003. At the same time, he was a full-time instructor at Victor Valley College from 1984 until 2005, also serving as department chairman.
    [Show full text]
  • Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act"
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Native American Water Rights Settlement Project Native American Water Rights Settlement Project (NAWRS) 1-18-2001 Shivwits Band of The aiutP e Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of UT et al Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nawrs Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Preferred Citation Shivwits Band of The aiutP e Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Agreement (Jan. 18, 2001) This Other is brought to you for free and open access by the Native American Water Rights Settlement Project (NAWRS) at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Native American Water Rights Settlement Project by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 SHIVWITS BAND OF THE PAIUTE INDIAN TRIBE OF UTAH 7 WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 SECTION PAGE 4 1.0 DEFINITIONS 4 5 2.0 STIPULATIONS AND AGREEMENTS 5 6 3.0 SIDVWITS WATER RIGHTS 5 7 4.0 SIDVWITS GROUNDWATER RIGHT 6 8 5.0 SIDVWITS REUSE WATER RIGHT 6 9 6.0 SIDVWITS SANTA CLARA WATER RIGHT 6 10 7.0 ON-RESERVATION SPRINGS AND RUN-OFF 6 11 8.0 ADDITIONAL PROJECTS 6 12 9.0 WAIYERS AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS 7 13 10.0 RIGHTS OF MEMBERS 12 14 11.0 CAPACITIES IN WHICH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED 12 15 12.0 CONTINGENT UPON APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS 12 16 13.0 COUNTERPARTS 13 17 14.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 13 18 15.0 EVIDENTIARY EFFECTS OF NEGOTIATIONS 13 19 16.0 GOVERNING LAW AND RIGHTS AND REMEDIES 13 20 17.0 MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT 14 21 18.0 NECESSARY ACTS AND COOPERATION 14 22 19.0 NOWAIYER 15 23 20.0 NOTICES 16 24 21.0 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT 17 25 22.0 PERSONS BOUND BY AGREEMENT 17 26 23.0 SIGNATURE AUTHORITY 18 27 28 2 1 2 EXlllBITS 3 4 EXlllBIT A- SHIVWITS BAND OF THE PAIUTE INDIAN TRIBE 5 OF UTAll WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT ACT 6 EXlllBIT B- SANTA CLARA PROJECT AGREEMENT 7 EXHIBIT C- ST.
    [Show full text]