WSPC05190 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OuG873 Federal Register I Vol. 46. No. 128 I Monday, July 6. 1981 I Notices 35068 r.ble a.-Suspended Sediment Loa<Js--2OOO IT_,.._, Moreover. the aggregated depletions lot Colorado in the Yamps River. White River. Upper Colorado Main Stem. and San JUliO River development areas approximate Colorado', entitlement under conservative hydrologiC B!I5umpliona. C Other Institutional Consideration6 The institutional faclors expected most 10 conslrain water availability lot synfuels developmenlln the Region are the Endangered Species Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers AcL Habitat of the Colorado River SquawtlSh and the Humpback Chub. two endangered spedes. occur in the Lower Yampa River. the White River, the Gnen River from its confluence wilh the Yampa to the Colorado Rivera.. and the main stem of the Colorado River from it.s confluence with Plateau Creek to Lake Powell. Studics under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Acl ha\'c been laken in headwater areas oC the Piedra IInd Los Pinos Ri';erll in the San Juan River development area, the Ruby Canyon reach of the Upper Colorado main slem near the Colorado-Utah Slate line, and on the Vampa River within Dinollaur National Monumenl The specific effects of any oC these considerations on water supply availability or development cannot be appraised lit this time. The "fintln tima. fUlt in right" principles and procedures wm probably put synCuels development in a "junior" status Cor water supplics, However, this can be oven:ome if sufficient reservoir slorage Is constructed to regulate nowS. VII. Water Rnourar Impacts A. Upper Colorado River Basin 1. Water Quonlity. The impacts oC s)'nfuels developmentlaccelerated ease) on surface water quantity in the Upper Basin are presented on Table 7. The impacts were measured as a pen:ent depletion of averqe annual outflows under natural and projected surface water conditions. Much higher percenhlges may be anticipated during the seasonal and dry-yelll' low flow.. although reservoir storage could be managed 10 maintain minimum instream nOWI. The grealelt impact would be 00 the White River development area. Table 7.-lmpacts of S)'n/lN/s DewIopmsn/ on $utface a...ttlo>t8 --. -.- - -- --, ~""'.I_'."- --- '-- -- .. ,. .... Table 7.-lmpacts of Synfuels OewJ/opm8nt on Surlacs Outf/ow$:-Gontinued 1~e:a..-20001 ~"'.~,_l_ -.- - -- --' ~~__sw.._ ~GrMo>""'__ ...- ~~_lIuin_ " .. u 'U '.-....t_a. .-..........-..-.........-.p. -- . e..a.... ~ llnl_111' 2. Water Quality. The potential magnitude of increased sediment loadings was examined by cOIUltructing annual suspended lediment budgets. In the examination. it was usumed that 3.6 aetes of land would be disturbed per 1 million barrels of oil extracted from Ihale each year, Z5 acres per 1 million Ions of surface-mined coal, and 5 acres per 1 million tons of coal from underground mines. Table 6 presents the results oC the suspended sediment analysis. The largest impacta are projected for the White River at Ouray, willi an increase of more than 10 pen:ent for the accelerated cose. -- - - - ... ".'$1 -- - ... - - - - - - -, ... - " " .. .. -- _.- ,.".,~.- 1<fO,_ ..... ... s,,_ Y_A-._ -- ..... """ """ ..... --- o...,_'.'7U.IlOO .,.. .... ..... ~- -~- ~Sc.-.._ ~._._ .,.- fl._ "''''' -- -.- _, ~_ UOO.OOO '," ... ""'" s......._. ~_ "-.coG ,... "... .... Projected changes in dissolved solids concentrations from svnfuels development were in';estigated through a mass-balance approach based on 1915 data. Zero return flows from synfuel Cacillties were 8lJsumed in line with the findings on wastewater management Table 9 preasnl. the results or this analysis. Total loadings show decreascs, equalling almost 30 percent for the accelerated cue on the White River near Ouray, as synfuels water use Increatel. The projections reflect deplelions with and without synfuels development, r I ! T.bIe 9--DissoIved Solids Conc-entrll/ion$ and L08ding$-2OOO .-- -- --' - '-- .'... (1,000 """ -. - -. - "'" - .. .. .. ~",-_.co...n_.,*"",- ... y, ". on ", ... y---~ "'" '" '" ,,, _...-_o..r.., .~ ... ~ - .. "" ec.o-_ __ C...cuu '____ - .... - 3.e's - "" ~Go-..........~_.,-""" - ,,- ~ "., ~ .." ........-.'-" ~ '" ... ... ... '" " " "" Projecled downstream profiles of carbonaceous biochemical oxnen demand (COOD) for the baseline and accelerated cases in the year 2000 were compared to CBOD profiles wilhout snyfuels development for 1975 aod 2000. The comparisons were bued on 7.day, low-flow values with a 1o-)'ear recunence interval. Since the enalysis did not include the effects of new upstream reser\'oir.J, it reflects worst case conditions. Potenlial increases In CHOD loading from municipal waslewater treatment plants are most apparent in the White River Basin. The concentration of CBOD in the While Rh...er near Meeker, Colorado. renects an increase of approxim<llely 20 percent for the base- line case and about 80 pefttn! for the accelerated case by the year 2000. E\'en larger increuses--100 and 300 percent, respectively-were estimated for the "''bite River near Ral1gely, Colorado. where lorge population inOl!ases would likely occur. Small CBOD changes were projected Cor the Colorado Rh;er maln stem and the Yampa River development areas. B. u)lver Colorado River Bosin lmpoctA 1. Water Quantity. The impacts of synfuel de\'elopment under the acceler..ted case on nows in the Colorado River in the Lower Basin are shown on Table 10- As 8 result of synfuels dc\'elopmenl water supplies would be reduced on all points oC the