WSP06798 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

',. .. ~. ...-- _......~.... ~- Federal 'Register I VoL 46. No. 128 / Monday. 'uly 6. 1981 I Notices 35069 river. However. no downstream user would receive less than his actual legal. entitlement. The Central Arizona Project would hinle the greatest reduction in supply because it holds significant but junior lights. Th.e annual reduction is estimated at 88,000 acre-feet. Tabl. 10.-co.trado River Average Annual FIowJ-2000 . (I.OOO'.---.u '"" ~..~- F.-.y 0.... 0.... :t:;1oInico w_ ~_10.030 '.630 1.100 S.IIIO l.lI05 -- ea..__ 1,$20 "410 uno 5.190 1.-..0 lW<lh~_IIing..-b'CRSP__ 2. Water Quality. Reduced flows to the Lower Basin would reduce the dilulion effect and salinity concentrations would increase. Analysis of water quality impacts for the Lower Basin was limited to projecled changes In salinity at Imperial Dam. For this determination. It was 88sumed that: (I) the fint and second slages of the Las Vegas Wash Salinity Control Project would be In operation. removing 124.000 tons of salt annually; (2) the Grand Valley Project would be in operation with salt removal increasing from 34.000 tons in 1982 to 410.000 tons by 1990: and (3) the Paradox Project would be completed with salt removal of 180,000 tons annually. Increased salinity of 14.9 milllgrams per Iiler would occur at lmperial Dam under the accelerated casc. VIII. Other Potential Impacts From S)-.nfuels Development A. Social And Economic Impacts Population without synfuelg in the Upper Colorado Region Is projected to grow from ~38,OOO in 1975 to 1.1 million in 2000. Under the accelerated case. population would Increase to about 3 million people. Most of the growth would be concentrated in 12 communities within six counties. Growth of this magnitude woul,d ha\-e numerous Impacts. including need fcr expanded municipal water 8uppl) and wastewater management systems. both with high capltalln",'estmenl requirements. Deple.tions by synfuels de\.elopmenl would decrease the water available for hydroelectric power generation at nservoirs in both the Upper and Lower Basins. For the accelerated case. reduced annual generation of 435 gigawatt hours can be anticipated. This reduction would mean a $13 million 1088 in aMual revenues. These losses would be 8bouh~venly distributed between the Upper and Lower Basin. The burden of reduced deliveries to the Central Arizona Project 188.-000 acre. feet annually under the accelerated case} wiU probably fall on agricultural water useI'$. However. agricultural production could be maintained through Increased groundwater pumping, but with a net income 1081 ofSl.1 million annually due to pumping cost8. The total incomaloss Is estimated at SZ.5 million annually. Economic impacts from Increased salinity in the Lower Basin were assumed to be proportional to changes in salinity levels. An estimate $4.3 million 11916 dollars) of annual damages to agricultural. municipal. and tndWltrial users were linked to the salinity increasea. B. Environmental Impacts Projected effects on Upper Basin fish habitats from synfuels water depletions would be minimal ell:cept wheN'! Impoundments conver1 stream fisheriel to lake habitat, and for potentially serious adverse impacts on the Colorado Squowfish in the Ulah reaches of the While River. Recreational effects from synfuels surface water depletions in the Upper Basin were analyzed for the summer months only. The recreational qualities of most stream reaches would be unaffected by projected changesln Dow. Howe\'er, recreational opportunities in the Colorado River from Rifle. Colorado. to the Gunnison River: and the White River from Meeker. Colorado. to Ouray. Utah. would be reduced. but not eliminated. No environmentallmpacts were Identified in the Lower Basin as a result of projectt'd chsnges In streamflows or salinity levels_ lncreased groundwater pumping in the service area of the Cen!!'hl Arizona Project would cause minQr additional drawdown of the p~oundwater aquifer. Conclusion The production of synthetic fuels in the Upper Colorado River Basin by the extraction and proc.essing of oil shale and/or coal. will ~qui~ significant quantities of water. A synfuels production level of 3 million barrels per day (oil equivalent) would consume aboul-lSO.OOO acre-feet of waler annually (ISO.roo acre-feet per year per million barTels of daily capacity). The overall supply of ground and surface water resoun::es in the Region Is sufficient to accommodate a synfuell production le'iel of nearly 3 miUion barrels oil equi...alent per day. This conclusion is reached after consideration of presenl and projected levels of com.entional water uses (e.g., irrigation. water exports) and the several institutional arrangements that sovern use and management of the Region's water supplies. While the gross water lupplies in the Region are sufficient for the accelerated synfuel development case. water supply problems are apparent In some I)'nfuels development areas. Of particular concern is the White River development area in Colorado and Utah. This area contains the richest oil shale reserves in the Region. But because oflack of reservoir storage. surface water supplies in this area are subject to seasonal low flows and periodic droughts. In order to provide dependable water supplies in this area. the development of major reservoirs and other water supply facilities will be required. Additionally. water uses by synfuels de,,'elopment in Colorado and !";ew Mexico. in combination with projected conventional uses, wiU raise the annual depletions in these States to amounts close to their compact entitlement!. Because each Stale 10 well aware of this situation. the States can be expected to manage water use as needed and in cooperation with the Upper Basin Compact Commission. Connict with other water uses is possible. Instream uses. Including water quality management. recreational boating. and fisbery habitats. could be adversely affected by surface water .. depletions for synfuels development. Conflict over waler rights and the respective priorities for use during dry periods is also possible. However. through continuing planning for water management and the timely implementation of planning recommendations. many of these conflicts can be avoided. Since the analysis of impacts presumed that water supplies would be taken for synfuels production after projected conventional offstream uses In the Upper Basin were accommodated. no significant advel1le impacts on these usee were found. Howe\'er. depletions by synfuels will (1) reduce hydroelectric power production. (2l reduce deUveries 10 the Central Arizona Project. and (3) Increase salinity in the main stem of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin. The economic value of these impaCIa are estimated at about S20 million oMually. While the aisessment provides very positive findings on water supply availability and minimal adverse Impacts. several factors must be viewed with caution. The Colorado River is presently utilized fully. Depletionsln the Upper Basin are already over 27 pe~nl , ! I 0377