WSP01857 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ ~ ~ rural communities would undoubtedly undergo significant transformations, some of 'which could be viewed as positive changes and others of which would be thought by many to represent adverse impacts. The'main point for the purposes of this assessment, however, is simply to not'e that EET developments, even if they required no water development activities at all, would still prompt pervasive changes in the social conditions of the Upper Basin. Impacts of Developing Surface 'Water Supplies. Surface water supplies will be available for an EET industry only if reservoir and pipeline facil- ities are constructed. A very small work force is all that ,would be required to operate and maintain such facilities (on'the order of 1 to 10 people for the water supply system of each unit-sized EET plant). In contrast, the operational work force of a unit-sized EET plant itself would probably number around 1,000 people. Thus, the economic and social impacts of sur- face water developments would be insignificant in contrast to massive impacts that EET developments would have. The major impacts of developing surface water for EETs would stem from the depletion and re-regulation of stream flows. Fishery habitat conditions and recreational opportunities (e.g., rafting and kayaking) could be affected. Such effects could either increase or decrease habi- tat availability and recreatioaalopportunities depending upon the cir- cumstances at hand. While it is difficult to generalize about instream impacts, this assessment's analyses clearly indicate that the White River would be more adversely affected by large-scale EET development than any other river in the Upper Basin. The second most impacted river would likely be the Colorado Main Stem River from about Rifle to Cameo, Colorado. In both instances, the probable concentration of oil shale development in north- western Colorado and northeastern Utah would be the cause of such impacts. Both of these rivers are inhabited by federally designated rare and endangered species (i.e., the Colorado River squawfish and the hump- back chub). Thus, availability of surface water for EETs in these two basins is a matter which must be considered in the context ,of the laws and programs pertaining to the preservation and enhancement of such species. Impacts of Transferring Water from Irrigated Agriculture. While it is not anticipated that there need be transfers of significant amounts of water from irrigated agriculture to EETs, such transfers are none- theless possible under each Upper Basin State's water rights system. The impacts that would be assoicated with such transfers are discussed below. 1-12