I
 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN 

111111111111111111111111111111 

SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT 

JIII11111111 111111111111 1II 

Paradox lIalley Vnit
 

'11111111 1111111111111111 

DEFINITE PLAN REPORT 

II 11/1111111111 11111 

September 1978 

I II IIII 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

R. Keith Higginson, Commissioner 
COLORADO RllIER BASIN 

SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT 

Paradox "alley I1n;t
 

DEFINITE PLAN REPORT 

September 1978 

BU REAU OF RECLAMATION 

R.Keith Higginson,Commissioner 

UPPER COLORADO REGION 

N.W. Plummer I Regional Director 
SUMMARY SHEETS 

Paradox Valley Unit
 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
 

LOCATION 

The Paradox Valley Unit would be located in Montrose and San Miguel 

Counties of southwestern Colorado in the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

PLAN 

The unit would be designed to reduce the salinity of the Dolores and 

Colorado Rivers by pumping brine ground water from a well field located 

along the Dolores River in Paradox Valley and thus preventing it from 

surfacing in the riverbed. A test well field has already been installed 

as part of a design data collection program, and other facilities reqUired for brine treatment and disposal would be added during unit 

construction. 

The brine would be piped from the well field to a nearby hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, where potentially toxic and corrosive gas would be 

converted into sulfur. An operational headquarters would be constructed 

at the site of the stripping plant. The treated brine and sulfur would 

be piped from the stripping plant to the proposed Radium Evaporation 

Pond for disposal. The pond would be located in Dry Creek Basin to the 

southeast of the well field, and eight pumping plants would be installed 

on the pipeline to lift the brine over the divide between Paradox Valley 

and the basin. 

To reduce adverse impacts on wildlife, a wildlife area would be developed near the evaporation pond and other areas temporarily disturbed by 

construction would be seeded \..ith plant species valuable as wildlife 

habitat. Since the \vildlife area was not included in the unit plan 

when it was authorized, the approval of the appropriate congressional 

committees would be required. Also included as part of the unit would 

be a cultural resource program to collect and preserve archaeological 

information from two sites located within the proposed evaporation pond. 

EFFECTS ON COLORADO RIVER (average annual) 

Stream depletion (acre-feet) . 

Decrease in salt load (tons) . 

Effects on salt concentration a t Imperial Dam (mg/l) 

Increase from concentrating effect of stream depletion 

Decrease from reduction of salt load 

Net decrease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3,950 

180,000 

0.4 

18.6 

18.2 
SUMMARY SHEETS (Continued) 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Salinity control
 

Brine well field. . . . . ....
 

Hydrogen sulfide stripping plant.
 

Brine pipeline. . . . . . ....
 

Brine pipeline pumping plants . .
 

Radium Dam, Dike, and Evaporation Pond.
 

Transmission lines and substations.
 

Permanent operating facilities..
 

Operation and maintenance housing
 

Capitalized movable equipment
 

Service facilities .....
 

Depreciation and salvage ..
 

Investigations (Reclamation fund)
 

Wildlife mitigation . .
 

Subtotal . . . . .
 

Cultural resource program.
 

Total . 

Annual equivalent cost of construction. 

Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement 

costs (1974-76 prices) .
 

Total annual costs . . . . . . . . .
 

Annual equivalent cost per mgll of net salinity
 

decrease at Imperial Dam. . . . . . . . . . .
 

COST ALLOCATIONS (lOO-year period at 5 5/8 percent interest) 

Construction 

costs 

Reimbursable costs 

Salinity control facilities $12,595,000 

Nonreimbursable costs 

Salinity control facilities 37,786,000 

Cultural resource program 9,000 

Subtotal 37,795,000
 

Total 50,390,000
 

2 

$1,900,000 

2,300,000 

5,900,000 

4,800,000 

33,000,000 

590,000 

175,000 

390,000 

1,010,000 

820,000 

-1,570,000 

456,000 

610,000 

50,381,000 

9,000 

50,390,000 

3,175,000 

332,300
 

3,507,300
 

192,700 

Annual 

operation, 

maintenance, 

and replacement costs 

$84,600 

247,700 

247,700 

332,300 
SUMMARY SHEETS (Continued) 

REPAYMENT OF REIMBURSABLE COSTS (50-year repayment period) 

Lower Colorado River Basin Development 

Fund 

Upper Colorado River Basin Fund 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Total 

PROJECT FEATURES 

Number 

Wells 

Brine production wells 18 

Ground water monitoring wells 68 

Brine pipeline 

Brine pipeline pumping plants 8 

Dams (feet) 

Height above streambed 

Crest length 

Evaporation Pond 

Capacity (acre-feet) 

Flood control 

Inactive 

Dead 

Total 

Surcharge 

!"laximum water surface area (acres) 

3 

Construction 

costs 

$10,706,000 

1,889,000 

12,595,000 

Depth 

(feet) 

48-155 

20-300 

Length 

(miles) 

20.5 

Radium 

Dam 

87 

8,300 

18,700 

62,060 

6,040 

86,800 

6,540 

3,750 

Annual 

operation, 

maintenance, 

and replacement costs 

$70,200 

12,400 

2,000 

84,600 

Capacity 

(ds) 

0.1-1.1 

5 

5.26 

Radium 

Dike 

56 

7,500 
• • • • 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction
 

Chapter I
 

Chapter II
 

Chapter III
 

Chapter IV
 

• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
 

Unit setting. • • • • • • • • • • • • 2
 

Location and present development • 2
 

Topography and geology 3
 

Water Resources. 5
 

Streams • • • • 5
 

Ground water. 6
 

Climate. • • . • • • 6
 

Vegetation • • . • 7
 

Fish and wildlife. • 7
 

Fish. • • • • • 7
 

Wildlife. . . . . . . . . 0 • • • 8
 

Cultural Resources • • • • • • • • • • 9
 

Paradox Valley hydrology. • ••• 10
 

Water resources•• 10
 

Streams • • • • 10
 

Ground water. 11
 

Water Quality •• 12
 

Streams • • •• 12
 

Ground wa ter. • 13
 

Design data collection program • 14
 

Problems and needs•• 18
 

Plan of development • 20
 

General. • . • • 20
 

Project features • 20
 

Introduction. • 20
 

Brine well field. • 21
 

Brine production wells •• • • • • 21
 

Ground water monitoring wells. • • • • 23
 

Dolores River Monitoring System. • 23
 

Hydrogen sulfide stripping plant••• 24
 

Brine pipeline. • • • • • • • • • 27
 

Brine pipeline pumping plants • • • 28
 

Radium Dam, Dike, and Evaporation Pond. • 28
 

Design data. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28
 

Operations • • • • • • • • • 32
 

Transmission lines, substations, and
 

power requirements••••••• 33
 

Permanent operating facilities. 35
 

Temporary construction camp • 35
 

Cultural resource program • • 35
 

Wildlife program. • • • • • • 35
 

Land acquisition • • • • 36
 

Project water rights 37
 

Protection of unit works from flood hazards. 38
 

Sources of construction materials•••••• 38
 
CONTENTS (Continued) 

Chapter V
 

Chapter VI
 

Chapter IV Plan of development (continued) 

Operation and maintenance. • 39
 

General • • • • • • • 39
 

Personnel. equipment. and supplies•• 39
 

Power • . • . . . . . 40
 

Unit costs • • • • • • • 40
 

Construction costs. • •• • • • 40
 

Annual operation. maintenance. and re­


placement costs • • • • • • • 40
 

Financial and economic analyses••••• 44
 

Benefits•••••• 44
 

Cost allocation and repayment • 44
 

Cost per mg/l of salinity reduction 45
 

Development program. • • 47
 

Environmental analysis••• 49
 

Introduction • • • • • • ••• 49
 

Environmental impacts. 49
 

Unit setting. • • • • • •••• 49
 

Economic and social conditions. 49
 

Air quality and noise levels•• 50
 

Mineral development 50
 

Water resources 51
 

Water quality • 51
 

Fish. • • • • 52
 

Wildlife. '.' 52
 

Threatened or endangered species•• 53
 

Cultural resources. • • • • • •••• 54
 

Land ownership of use • • • • • 54
 

Unavoidable adverse effects. • • • • • • • • • 54
 

Short- and long-term environmental uses•• 55
 

ITreversible and irretrievable commitment of
 

resources. • • • • • 56
 

Alternatives. • • ••••• 57
 

Introduction ••••••• 57
 

Alternatives to the proposed plan. • 59
 

Sinbad Valley Evaporation Pond. •••• 59
 

Dolores River bypass channel. • • • • • 62
 

Smaller scales of development. • • • • • • • • 65
 

Modified Radium Evaporation Pond •• 65
 

Modified Sinbad Valley Evaporation Pond • • 66
 

East Paradox Valley Evaporation Pond •• 67
 

West Paradox Valley Evaporat~on Pond. 68
 

Deep well injection •••••• 69
 

ii 
CONTENTS (Continued)
 

Reports of Cooperating Agencies
 

Fish and Wildlife Service
 

Page
 

Memorandum dated January 21, 1977 • 71
 

Mamorandum dated December 6, 1977 • 76
 

Memorandum dated October 18, 1977 • 77
 

Bureau of Mines 

Summary. 79


Introduction 79
 

Location and project description 80
 

General geology. 83
 

Mineral resources. 87
 

Metals. 87
 

Uranium. 87
 

Other metals 88
 

Nonmetallic minerals. 90
 

Salt 90
 

Other nonmetallic minerals 90
 

Mineral fuels 90
 

Oil and gas. 90
 

Coal 91
 

Conclusions. 91
 

iii 
INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the result.s of definite plan studies on the 

Paradox Valley Unit of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project. Located in southwestern Colorado in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin, the unit would be designed to reduce the introduction of sal t 

into the Colorado River through one of its major tributaries, the 

Dolores River. The unit was authorized for construction by the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320) as part of 

a basinwide program to control salinity levels in the Colorado River 

while the Colorado River Basin States and the Republic of Mexico continue to develop and use their apportioned shares of water from the 

river and its tributaries. Title I of the Act, which was directed 

toward controlling the salinity of river water below Imperial Dam for 

use in the United Stat.es and Mexico, authorized the construction of a 

desalting complex and other measures to ensure acceptable salinity 

levels. Title II, which was directed toward salinity control in the 

United States above Imperial Dam, authorized the construction of the 

Paradox Valley Unit and three other units. It also directed that 

planning reports be expedited on 12 additional units. A thirteenth unit 

has been added for study since the passage of the act. Preliminary information and cumulative impacts for the 16 original units in Title II 

have been presented in a final environmental statement on the Colorado 

River Water Quality Improvement Program (FES 77-15). The statement was 

prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation in the Department of the Interior 

and the Soil Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture. 
CHAPTER I 

UNIT SETTING 

Location and Present Development 

The Paradox Valley Unit would be located in Montrose and San Miguel 

Counties of southwestern Colorado, just east of the Colorado-Utah State 

line. The unit area would consist of Paradox Valley on the Dolores 

River and the northwestern part of Dry Creek Basin to the southeast in 

the San Miguel River drainage. The San Miguel is a tributary of the 

Dolores, which in turn is a tributary of the Colorado River. The 

Dolores River picks up 205,000 tons of salts annually in Paradox Valley, 

primarily from surfacing brine ground water. 

The only communities in Paradox Valley are the very small fanning 

towns of Paradox (population 200) and Bedrock (population 80). Other 

communities in the vicinity are Nucla (population 1,000), Uravan (population 650), and Naturita (population 1,000), all located on or near the 

San Miguel River to the east of the valley. There is no permanent population in the northwestern part of Dry Creek Basin. The nearest commercial centers are Moab, Utah, 60 miles to the northwest of Bedrock; 

Montrose, Colo., 70 miles to the northeast; Grand Junction, Colo., 100 

miles to the north; and Cortez, Colo., 100 miles to the south. 

Although relatively isolated, the unit area is served by a network 

of Federal and Sta te highways and county and local roads. Colorado 

State Highway 90, Utah State High\\lay 46, U.S. Highways 163 and 6, and 

Interstates 15 and 70 pro\7ide access to Moab and to Salt Lake City, 

Utah, about 300 miles northwest. Colorado State Highways 90 and 141, 

U. S. Highways 6 and 50, and Interstate 70 provide access to Montrose) 

Grand Junction, and Denver (about 260 miles east of Grand Junction). 

The nearest standard gage rail service is located in Grand Junction 

and Montrose. Commercia 1 ai r and bus servi ce is available in Grand 

Junction, Montrose, Moab, and Cortez. 

Agriculture is the main economic activity of the unit area. About 

2,500 acres are under irrigation in the western half of Paradox Valle, 

with a water supply provided by local wells and by West Paradox Creek 

and Buckeye Reservoir in the La Sal Mountains tc the northwest. Livestock and livestock feeds provide the principal source of income, although some malting barley is grown as a cash crop. The eastern half of 

the valley provides a limited amount of range in the winter and spring, 

and Dry Creek Basin also provides some sparse grazing. 

2 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING 

Two sawmills located near the town of Paradox process timber from 

the La Sal Mountains to the northwest and the Uncompahgre Platea\l to the 

east, but these operations provide little employment. ~1ining also 

contributes to the local economy. Carnotite, a mineral containing 

vanadium and the radioactive elements uranium and radium, is mined on 

the mesas surrounding Paradox Valley. This activity has increased 

considerably in recent years. Most of the ore is shipped to a processing plant in Uravan, which uses brine from a well in Paradox Valley in 

the production of uranium and vanadium. Brine from a second well is 

sold for use in drilling operations in the area. Inactive mines and 

claims are located in Dry Creek Basin and other nearby areas, and 

exploratory drilling is occurring in the basin. 

Topography and Geology 

Paradox Valley is about 24 miles long on a northwest-southeast axis 

and from 3 to 5 miles wide and has a relatively flat floor enclosed by 

steep walls of sandstone and shale. The Dolores River crosses the 

valley near its midpoint in a level and broad flood plain but flows 

through deep and narrow canyons both upstream and downstream from the 

valley. Dry Creek Basin, southeast of the valley, is a relatively 

shallow and gently sloping basin about 15 miles long and 5 miles wide. 

Elevations vary from under 5,000 feet in the valley to about 6,300 feet 

in the basin and 7,000 feet on the divide between the two. The most 

prominent features in the vicinity are the La Sal Mountains in the 

Manti-La Sal National Forest, which rise to an elevation of about 12,000 

feet and border Paradox Valley on the northwest. 

Formed from a collapsed salt anticline, or elongated swell, the 

valley lies above a residual gypsum cap that covers a formation of salt 

and salt-rich shale beginning at a depth of about 600 to 1,000 feet and 

extending downward for about 14,000 feet. The drawing on the following 

page illustrates the formation of the valley. Briefly stated, the emergence of mountainous uplifts on each side of the area placed intense 

lateral pressures on the intervening sedimentary formations, causing 

faulting and fracturing along weak zones. Upon the easing of the 

lateral pressures, the weight of the sedimentary strata caused a deeply 

buried layer of salt-rich material to move upward by plastic flow into 

the faulted and weak areas to create an anticline. As the pressures 

eased, the crest of the anticline gradually dropped dO\vnward in fault 

blocks. While these activities occurred, the Dolores River remained in 

its flood plain across the anticline and, in ,~ombination with other 

erosional forces, removed the collapsing materials to form the valley. 

The sides of the valley are now characterized by numerous faults, 

slides, and collapsed structures. 

3 
EARLY STAGE
 

PRESENT STAGE
 

PARADOX ANTICLINE 

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT 

Colorado River B(J$;n Salinity Control Projsct 

Paradox Valley Unit 

4
 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING 

Aerial view of Paradox Valley with La Sal Mountains in background. 

The Dolores River flows across the valley from left to right. 

The river has deposited considerable amounts of alluvium in the 

flood plain to replace soluble salts that ground water has carried into 

the stream from the underlying salt formation. Measured at a depth of 

up to 129 feet in places, this material consists of silty sands on the 

surface and poorly graded sands with clay-filled gravels and cobbles 

appearing at increasing depths. Discontinuous clay lenses occur at 

random intervals throughout the deposits. 

Water Resources 

Streams 

The Dolores River originates in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado 

to the southeast of the unit area and flows generally to the northwest 

for about 165 mites to Paradox Valley and for another 70 miles to its 

confluence with the Colorado River northeast of Moab, Utah. Small 

tributaries in the unit area include La Sal Creek, which enters from the 

northwest about 5 miles upstream from Paradox Valley, and West and East 

Paradox Creeks, which enter from the northwest and southeast within the 

5 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING 

valley. East Paradox Creek is intermittent, however, and has essentially no effect on the riverflow. A small amount of the flows of the 

river and most of the flows of West Paradox Creek are diverted and used 

for irrigation in the western half of the valley. 

Portions of the Dolores River have heen recommended for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic River System, based upon stud"es made by 

the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior and the Colorado 

Department of Natural Resources pursuant to a 1975 amendment to the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968. Paradox Valley was specifically excluded from the studies. The agencies recommended that a ]05­

mile reach of the river immediately above Paradox Valley be included in 

the system and that the reach from just bela'.'} the va] ley to the Utah 

State line not be included until further studies were completed. 

The San Miguel River, which originates in the San Juan Hount-ains 

and flows to the northwest, joins the Dolores River about 4 miles downstream from Paradox Valley. The on] y significant tributary of the San 

Miguel River in the unit area is Dry Creek, an intermit.tent stream 

draining Dry Creek Basin. 

The streams in the area generally exhibit the large fluctuations 

characteristic of streams in southwestern Colorado, with very high runoff during the spring because of melting snow in the mountains and very 

low base flows or no flows a fter midsummer. Occasional high flows al so 

occur in the summer and fall from afternoon thunderstorms but. are of 

very short durat.ion" 

Ground \..,>a te r 

Brine ground Hater is believed to underlie the entire length of 

Paradox Valley at varying depths and rises t.o the surface at. two general 

areas in and adjacent to the bed of the Dolores River. In addition to 

its high salinity, the brine cont.ains hydrogen sulfide gas (H S), which 2 is released when the water surfaces and has an objectionable rotten egg 

odor. A significant layer of relatively fresh ground water overlies t.he 

brine in western Paradox Valley and diminishes in thickness toward the 

river, where it surfaces. 

Climate 

The climate of the unit area is chal-acterisLlc of semiar"d southwestern Colorado, with low precipi tation and humidity, abundant sunshine, moderately high evaporation rates, and wide ranges between daily 

high and low t.emperatures. The prevailing winds are from tie southwest 

and are fairly strong in the spring. 

6 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING 

The Bureau of Reclamation has maintained weather stations at Bedrock and in Dry Creek Basin since 1975. During this time, the average 

annual precipitation has been about 8 inches at both locations. June is 

normally the driest part of the year, and July through October is the 

wettest, primarily because of afternoon thunderstorms. Temperatur-es 

vary from daytime highs of over 1000 F at Bedrock and over 90 0 F at Dry 

Creek Basin during July to nighttime lows of below -20 0 F during 

January. 

Vegetation 

Vegetation in the project area varies according to elevation, 

precipitation, soil, land use, and other factors. The Dolores River 

supports riparian vegetation characterized by cottonwood and forestiera 

upstream from the brine seeps and tamarisk dOl'lOstream, with forbs and 

grasses found in both sections. Rushes are found in marshy areas along 

the stream. Much of western Paradox Valley contains irrigated pasture 

and crops, primarily alfalfa and small grains. In both Paradox Valley 

and Dry Creek Basin, extensive semiarid areas with saline soils are 

characterized by grease\-Jood, seablite, winterfat, snakeweed, and other 

salt-tolerant plants. Sagebrush is found on the higher slopes throughout the area and is associated with a large variety of grasses wherever 

overgrazing has not occurred. Pinyon-juniper woodlands characterize the 

mesas and high slopes. No endangered or threatened plants have been 

identified in the unit area. 

fish and Wildlife 

Fish 

In the vicinity of Paradox Valley the Dolores River and West Paradox Creek support primarily nongame fishes, including the speckled dace, 

flannelmouth sucker, roundtail chub, mottled sculpin, red shiner, bluehead sucker, fathead minnow, black bullhead, and channel catfish. 

Because of the influx of saline ground water in the valley, fish inhabit 

the reach of the river immediately downstream only when the streamflow 

is high enough to dilute the salt aod move into other reaches or tributaries whenever low flows result in high salinity. 

Fish habitat in the Dolores River below Paradox Valley is at times 

significantly altered by the San ~ligllel River, which augments t.he flow 

and greatly improves the water quality of the river in the summer and 

fall. Fishes occurring below the confluence include the flannelmouth 

and bluehead suckers, black bullhead, roundtail chub, cutthroat and 

rainbow trout, channel. catfish, sand shiner, green sunfish, carp, and 

7 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING
 

largemouth bass. There are no fisheries in Dry Creek Basin. No endangered or threatened fishes or aquatic invertebrates are known to inhabit 

the streams in the unit area. 

Wildlife 

Big game mammals in the project area include the mule deer, elk, 

pronghorn, black bear, and mountain lion. The mule deer is a year-round 

resident, but the elk is present in significant numbers only in the 

winter and spends the summer in the La Sal Mountains and in mountains to 

the south of Dry Creek Basin. The pronghorn is found in small numbers 

in Dry Creek Basin and other open basins in the area, and the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife plans to increase the population by trapping and 

transplanting from other parts of Colorado. Both the black bear and 

mountain lion also have very small populations and are only occasionally 

seen in the unit area, with the former found primarily at the higher 

elevations in the La Sal ~10untains and the latter primari ly in the 

canyons and mesas southwest of Paradox Valley. Small game mammals, 

furbearers, varmints, and nongame mammals are found throughout the area. 

Over a hundred species of birds, including both resident and 

migrant populations, have been identified in the area. Large concentrations of passerine birds are found in riparian vegetation along the 

Dolores River and West Paradox Creek during the spring and summer, and 

waterfowl and shorebirds are particularly numerous on the river and 

adjacent marshy areas in winter and during spring and fall migrations. 

Gamebirds such as the ringneck pheasant and mourning dove are common on 

the agricultural land of western Paradox Valley, and small populations 

of sage grouse inhabit Dry Creek Basin. The canyons of the Dolores 

River above and below the valley are important nesting areas for certain 

raptors, such as the red-tailed hawk, golden eagle, and prairie falcon. 

These and other species, including the marsh hawk and rough-legged hawk, 

use the croplands of western Paradox Valley, the desert shrublands of 

eastern Paradox Valley and Dry Creek Basin, and other relatively open 

habitat for hunting. 

Amphibians are present along the Dolores River, West Paradox Creek, 

and Dry Creek and at stock watering ponds in eastern Paradox Valley and 

Dry Creek Basin. Among the common species are the western spadefoot 

toad, red-spotted toad, Woodhouse's toad, and leopard frog. Reptiles, 

including several species of lizards and snakes, are common in the area. 

The peregrine falcon and bald eagle are Ute only threatened or 

endangered species known to inhabit the unit area. A mating couple of 

peregrines nested and produced one offspring during the spring of 1977. 

The bald eagle inhabits the area in the winter and is an infrequent 

visitor in the summer. It is not known to nest in the project area. 

8 
CHAPTER I UNIT SETTING
 

Cultural Resources 

Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo., working under a contract with 

the Bureau of Reclamation, has surveyed the area of possible project influence and identified 22 prehistoric and historic sites, none of which 

is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Seventeen of 

these sites consist of lithic scatter on the surface, \.vith little 

evidence that the material extends to any appreciable depth. The sites 

probably remain from temporary encampments or hunting stations used by 

the Ute Indians before the late 1880' s, when the tribes were moved to 

reservations outside the area. The five other sites date from the early 

settlement of the area. North of the Dolores River in Paradox Valley is 

a three-walled stone structure that remains from a cabin, with associated 

trash. To the southwest of the river is a grave with a headstone dated 

1891, enclosed by a wire fence. The remaining three sites were found in 

Dry Creek Basin and consist of homestead buildings and corrals settled 

between 1910 and 1920. 

9
 
CHAPTER II 

PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY 

Water Resources 

Streams 

Surface water measurements for the Paradox Valley Unit were begun 

late in 1971 with the establishment of three stream gaging stations: on 

the Dolores River at Bedrock (where it enters the valley), on the river 

near Bedrock (where it leaves the valley), and on West Paradox Creek 2.6 

miles above the creek's confluence with the river. Continuous flow measurements have been taken at the two stations on the river, and the following discussion is based upon data for the full water years of 1972 

through 1976. Measurements on West Paradox Creek were discontinued in 

1973 because of difficulties maintaining the station, and records are 

available only for the full water years 1972 and 1973. No data have 

been obtained for East Paradox Creek, which is intermittent and has very 

little effect on the river. 

The recorded flow of the Dolores River at Bedrock averaged 299,400 

acre-feet annually during the S-year study period, varying from a high 

of 715,800 acre-feet in water year 1973 to a low of 89,200 acre-feet in 

water year 1974. About 83 percent of the average anqual runoff occurred 

from spring snowmelt in April, May, and June. Daily flows also varied 

considerably, from a maximum of 9,280 cubic feet per second (cfs) on 

April 30, 1973, to a minimum of 0 on September 13, 1974. 

At the station near Bedrock the river had an average annual flow of 

313,500 acre-feet during the 5-year study period, with a maximum of 

748,400 acre-feet in water year 1973 and a minimum of 89,200 acr.e-feet 

in water year 1974. The increase of 14,100 acre-feet in average annual 

flow as the river crosses the valley can be attributed to inflows from 

West Paradox Creek, East Paradox Creek, and fresh and brine ground water 

surfacing in the valley. Daily riverflows were recorded at a maximum 

rate of 9,500 cfs on April 30, 1973, and a minimum rate of 0.5 cfs on 

August 1, 1972. 

The annual flows of West Paradox Creek were recorded at 3,700 acrefeet in water year 1972 and 9,400 acre-feet in water year 1973 for an 

average of 6,600 acre-feet. Daily flow rates varied from a high of 82 

cfs in May to a low of 2.5 cfs in July and August. This stream does not 

generally have the same drastic variations in flow as the Dolores River 

because the runoff is partially regulated by Buckeye Reservoir, a 1,600­

acre-foot structure loca.ted northwest of Paradox Valley in the upper 

10 
CHAPTER II PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY
 

part of the drainage area (see the Frontispiece Map). Water is stored 

in the reservoir during high spring runoff and released for irrigation 

in western Paradox Valley during the summer. 

The average monthly and annual flows for the three stream gaging 

stations are shown in the following table. 

Average runoff in Paradox Valley 

(acre-feet) 

Dolores Dolores West 

River at River near Paradox 

Bedrock Bedrock Creek 

(1972-76) (1972-76) (1972-73) 

5,500 6,500 500 

3,000 3,300 400 

3,800 4,000 400 

3,900 4,100 400 

4,500 4,900 400 

11 ,000 12,200 400 

58,600 62,700 ] ,100 

120,600 124,700 1,400 

70,700 72,100 900 

15,700 16,600 300 

1,000 1,200 200 

1,100 1,200 200 

October 

November 

December 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

Total 299,400 313 ,500 6,600 

Ground water 

Ground water observations in Paradox Valley were begun in 1971, 

with measurements of water table levels and piezometric heads in deep 

aquifers in private wells. To obtain additional information on subsurface geology and ground water conditions, subsequent studies included 

drilling exploratory holes in 1972, drilling and pumping from test wells 

in 1973, 1975, and 1976, and installing a network of observation wells 

and piezometers to monitor water table levels and piezometric heads. In 

the swnmer of 1977, 18 additional test wells were drilled and pumped as 

part of a design data collection program that is scheduled for completion in 1980. This program, which will include extensive pump tests, is 

described later ill this chapter. 

As stated in Chapter I, brine ground water, which apparently underlies all of Paradox Valley, surfaces in and ;lear the Dolores River 

channel in two general areas extending from the middle of the valley 

do\0,7nstream to the river's exit from the valley. The depth to brine 

appears to increase upstream and west of the river, as indicated by 

measurements of brine at about 100 feet in an existing well located 

about a mile to the west. To the east of the river along the valley 

11 
CHAPTER II PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY 

floor, the top of the brine layer is at about the same level as the 

river, as measured in the Bureau's observation wells. Although it IS 

impractical to directly measure the brine inflow to the river, since it 

occurs as many small springs and seeps, the Bureau estimates that it 

varies from about 0.2 to 2.] cfs and averages 0.8 cfs, based upon 

measurements of salt loading in the river. The flow exhibits a certain 

degree of seasonal fluctuation, generally being at its highest sometime 

during the spring or summer and at its lowest during the fall and 

winter. 

A significant layer of comparatively fresh water which overlies the 

brine in western Paradox Valley va ries from 10 to 40 feet below the 

ground surface, depending upon location, and is pumped from wells for 

irrigation. Estimated to be at least 100 feet thick about a mile west 

of the river, the lens gradually tl1ins out closer to the river in the 

area of the surfacing brine. This water also surfaces as seeps and 

springs in the river and, combined with the brine, results in a total 

contribution to the river of between 1.5 and 4 cfs. 

The brine and freshwater aquifers have a variety of potential recharge sources, including runoff from the La Sal Mountains, irrigation 

return flows from western Paradox Valley, seepage from West Paradox 

Creek, precipitation, and surface and subsurface runoff from the valley 

walls. Because brine evidently circulates through the salt. core at 

depths of 650 feet or more before surfacing, it probably originates from 

the farthest recharge sources, while the fresh water originates from 

nearer sources. 

Water Quality 

Streams 

Analyses of water quality conditions in the valley were based on 

sampling conducted at the three stream gaging stations from 1972 to 

1976. Water quality samples collected weekly from the Dolores River at 

Bedrock (1.5 miles above the brine surfacing areas) during the 5-year 

study period had an average flow-weighted salinity of 264 milligrams per 

liter (mg/l). Individual samples varied from 140 to 3,700 mg/l, the 

lower readings normally occurring during high spring runoff and the 

higher ones during the very low flows of late summer and early fall. 

The annual salt load at this location averaged about 107,000 tons. The 

total dissolved solids consisted primarily of scdium, chloride, bicarbonate, calcium, and sulfate. 

Samples from the river near Bedrock (1.5 miles below the brine surfacing areas) for the same study period had a flO\-J-weighted average 

salinity of 729 mg/l, with individual readings varying from 170 to 

12 
CHAPTER II Pfu~ADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY 

166,000 mg/l. The high value occurred during a time of very low flow 

when the only water in the river channel was surfacing ground water. 

The annual salt load of the river averaged about 312,000 tons, or 

205,000 tons more than at Bedrock. Bureau investigations indicate that 

this large increase is contributed by ground water (about 198,000 tons) 

and \'lest Paradox Creek (about 7,000 tons), as discussed below. The 

total dissolved solids included predominantly sodium and chloride. 

West Paradox Creek had an average flow-weighted salinity of about 

800 mg/l according to samples collected during the 5-year study period. 

Individual analyses ranged from a minimum of 260 mg/l during high runoff 

to a maximum of 1,970 mg/l during low runoff. The creek contributed an 

estimated 7,000 tons of salt annually to the Dolores River, consisting 

primarily of calcium and sulfate. 

The following table shows the average concentrations of samples at 

the three water quality stations, including major constituents and total 

dissolved solids. 

Chemical analysis of water samples--1972-1976 

(mg/l) 

Dolores River Dolores River West Paradox 

at Bedrock near Bedrock Creek 

---:T=D::-::S=------::-27'64-;----- 729 Flow-weighted average 800 

Calcium 80 165 137 

Magnesium 25 109 81 

Sodium 117 4,309 44 

Potassium 6 225 5 

Chloride 148 6,911 45 

Sulfate 204 618 476 

Carbona te 1 1 1 

Bicarbonate 176 189 260 

Average TDS 697 12,282 1,005 

Ground water 

Samples of brine ground water analyzed by the Bureau of Reclamation 

have varied from 117,500 mg/l in an open pit a half mile east of the 

river to 250,000 mg/l at brine seeps in the river channel and to about 

260,000 mg/l ill \"ells drilled near the river. The variations probably 

result from different degrees of mixing with fresher ground water in the 

2.rea. About 93 percent of the total dissolved solids are sodium and 

chloride, and other salts and heavy metals are p~esent in comparatively 

small quantities. The brine also contains dissolved hydrogen sulfide 

gas at concentrations of more than 100 mg/l, which is released as the 

brine surfaces and causes an obj ectionable odor at seepage areas and 

open wells near the r-iver. The Bureau's studies indicate that this 

brine accounts for essentially all of the 198,000 tons contributed 

13 
CHAPTER II PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY 

annually by surfacing ground water. An analysis of brine pumped by the 

Bureau from test well #1 (shown in the map on page 17) is shown on the 

following page. 

Salt deposits coat brine storage tank 1 mile west of well field. 

Well at left center produces brine for commercial purposes. 

The layer of relatively fresh ground water overlying the brine to 

the west of the river has a salinity of from 1,400 to 4,000 mg/l, 

depending upon location and time of year. Water from irrigation wells 

has varied in quality from 1,400 to 3,500 mg/l, and seeps along the 

river have varied from 1,500 to 4,000 mg/l. The predominant salts are 

calcium, magnesium, and sulfate, but large amounts of sodium and 

chloride are also found in water samples collected near the river 

because of mixing with the brine. 

Design Data Collection Program 

The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a design data collection 

program scheduled for completion in 1980. The purpose of the program is 

to design and test a brine well field that will effectively lower the 

brine-freshwater interface near the Dolores River and thus eliminate 

most of the brine inflow to the river. 

14 
CHAPTER II PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY
 

Chemical analysis of brine ground water 

(mg/l ) 

Total dissolved solids (at 105°C) 267,100 

Ca lciunl 1,400 

Magnesium 1,708 

Sodium 98,440 

Potassium 5,161 

Chloride 164,000 

Sulfate 5,880 

Carbonate o 

Bicarbonate 274 

Cadmium 0.470 

Chromium .260 

Copper .220 

Iron 2.400 

Lead 2.900 

~langanese .370 

Nickel .230 

Lithium .130 

Zinc .620 

Oil .100 

Radioactive strontium 2.300 

15 
CHAPTER II PARADOX VALLEY HYDROLOGY 

As part of the program, 18 brine wells were dri] led and individually pumped in short tests during the summer of 1977, as previously 

stated. Located along both sides of the river near the brine surfacing 

areas, the wells extend into the brine aquifer to depths ranging from 48 

to 155 feet. Beginning in 1978 and continuing for about 1 to 1 1/2 

years, the wells will be pumped in various combinations to determine the 

most effective pumping rate for individual wells and the entire well 

field. During these tests, the brine will be collected in a pipeline 

and discharged into a temporary detention pond located about 3/4 mile to 

the north and evaporated. The network of monitoring wells previously 

drilled in the river flood plain will provide data on any changes in the 

brine and fresh ground water at various depths, and pumping rates can 

consequently be varied to achieve the most desirable overall scheme for 

lowering the brine level. Changes in the flow and salinity of the river 

as it crosses the valley will be monitored by means of the two stream 

gaging and water quality stations previously mentioned as well as by 

five continuously recording electrical conductivity meters installed 

along the river in 1975 and 1976: at Bedrock, just upstream from t.he 

well field, within the well field, just downstream from the well field, 

and at the river's exit from the valley. 

The map on the following page shows the general layout of the pump 

test wells, the monitoring wells, and the three salinity monitoring stations near the well field. It is anticipated that all of the test 

facilities except the brine detention pond and a short section of 

temporary pipeline to the pond would also be used during the permanent 

operations of the unit, with only slight modifications required in some 

cases and none in others. Detailed descriptions of the well field may 

be found in Chapter IV, "Plan of Development." 

16
 
1000 0 1000 \ 

1\ I" I I I II I I I I 

SCALE OF FEET J/

EXPUI,NATION 

o Moniler We!ls 

.. 

• o 

f I 

i 

1\ ,I 

o 

o 

) 

( 

J 

/

",'

'" " 

(~ ! 

j 

o 

o 

(,1

'/ 

1/ 

Ii 

!JI 

11 

oil 

;/1

~I

~I

ill 

2' 1/ 0' -II 

U)~I

",1/

• II 

oli 

ill

1, I, 

fl 

I 

2000 

I 

~~ / 

So!:nlly Monitorina 

o ~.'! \\ \~ o 

\ 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SAliN:TY CONTROL PR00[CT 

PARADOX VALLEY JNIT - COLORADO 

BRINE WEU_ FIELD 

GENERAL l_.tlYOUT 

17 
CHAPTER III 

PROBLEMS A1~ NEEDS 

Paradox Valley, with its total salt contribution of 205,000 tons 

annually, is a major source of salt to the Dolores River in the Colorado 

River Basin and increases the salinity of the river by about 21 mg/l at 

Imperial Dam. As a result of this and many other major sources, the 

river has historically had a high salt content, and t~ salinity has 

been gradually increasing as the riverflo\-Js have been developed for 

man's beneficial use. 

The Colorado River at its headwaters in the mountains of central 

Colorado has a salt concentration of only about 50 mg!l. The salinity 

progressively increases downstream as a result of water diversions and 

salt contributions from a variety of sources and in 1977 averaged 820 

mg/l at Imperial Dam, the last major diversion point in the United 

States. Unless control measures are undertaken, the concentration will 

continue to increase, reaching levels estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation at 1,150 to 1,210 mg/l at Imperial Dam by the year 2000. Water 

of 1,000 mg/l ur less is generally considered to be satisfactory for 

irrigating most crops, although concentrations of 500 mg/l can have 

detrimental effects on salt-sensitive crops. On land with good drainage, water exceeding 1,000 mg/l can be used for crops \-lith high salt 

tolerances. The U. S. Public Health Service recommends that public 

drinking water supplies should be less than 500 mg/l whenever water of 

this quality or better is available. 

The salinity of the river results from two general causes--salt 

loading and salt concentration. Salt loading is the addition of salt 

to the river from such sources as erosion of saline geologic formations, 

irrigation return flows, and saline springs and seeps. The annual salt 

load of the river under present conditions is estimated at about 10 

million tons just below Hoover Dam, 260 miles upstream from Imperial 

Dam. The salt concentrating effect occurs from consumptive use, which 

reduces the volume of water in the river \-lithout reducing the total 

amount of salt it carries. Examples include irrigation, municipal and 

industrial use, transpiration from na tive vegetation, and evaporation. 

As the water is used and reused several times along the length of the 

river, both of these effects contribute to the increasing salinity. The 

process is likely to continue, since the potential demands on the river 

exceed its dependable supply. 

The high salt concentrations in the Lower Colorado River Basin adversely affect more than 14 million people and about 1 million acres of 

irrigated farm land in the United States. Affected the most severely 

18 
CHAPTER III PROBLEMS AND NEEDS 

are municipal and industrial water users in the Los Angeles-San Diego 

area and irrigators in southern California, particularly Imperial 

Valley, an1/Arizona. According to a recent study by the Bureau of 

Reclamation-, these users experience annual economic losses of $230,000 

for each increase of 1 mg/l at Imperial Dam, consisting of $188,000 in 

direct impacts and $42,000 in indirect impacts. The losses associated 

with municipal and industrial use occur primarily from increased water 

treatment costs, accelerated pipe corrosion and appliance wear, increased soap and detergent needs, and decreased drinking water palatability. For irrigators, the higher concentrations cause decreased crop 

yields, altered crop patterns, increased leaching and drainage requirements, and increased management costs. Overall, the damages attributble to salinity were estimated at $53 million in 1973 and may reach an 

annuaL level of $124 million by the year 2000 with conli.nued development 

of water resources and no measures for salinity control.-' 

Salini y not only affect.s water users in the Southwestern United 

States but is also an important factor in international relations with 

Mexico, which is guaranteed an annual water supply of 1.5 million acrefeel of Colorado River water by a 1944 treaty. In 1973 the United 

States and Mexico agreed that the water delivered to Mexico at Morelos 

Dam would have a salinity of no more than 115+30 mg/l gre~ter than the 

average sal-;nity of Colorado River "/uters which arrive at Imperial Dam. 

!/ Kleinman, Allan, et, al. 1974. Economi: Impacts of Changes in 

Salini ty Levels of the Colorado River. Bureau of RecL1mation--;-Denver, 

2/ Bureau of Reclamation and Soil Conservation Service, 1977. 

Final-Environmental Statement: Colorado River Water Quality Improvement 

p'rogram. EES 77-15. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, 

p. 1-12. 

19 
CHAPTER IV 

PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

General 

The Paradox Valley Unit would be designed to control salinity by 

pumping brine ground water from a well field located along both sides of 

the Dolores River in Paradox Valley and thus prevent it from surfacing 

in the riverbed. The brine from the wells would be pumped to a hydrogen 

sulfide stripping plant to the east of the river, "'Ihere the toxic gas 

would be removed, and would then be pumped to Radium Evaporation Pond in 

Dry Creek Basin, where the salt deposits remaining after evapor-ation 

would be permanently retained. To reduce adverse impacts on I<Iildlife, 

a wildlife area would be developed near the evaporation pond, and other 

areas temporarily disturbed by construction would be seeded with plant 

species valuable as wildlife habitat. Since the wildlife area I<'as not 

included in the unit plan when it was authorized, the approval of the 

appropriate congressional committees would be refjuired. Also included 

as part of the unit would be a program to collect and preserve archaeological information from sites located within the proposed evaporation 

pond. An operational headquarters would be constructed at the site of 

the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant. 

The Bureau of Reclamation's Western Colorado Projects Office would 

administer the facilities for salinity control and be responsible for 

their annual operation, maintenance, and replacement. It is anticipated 

that the Colorado Division of Wildlife would administer the \,,>ildlife 

area. 

The Bureau estimates that the unit would effectively remove up to 

180, 000 tons of sa It annua lly, or about 90 percent of the sa 1t nOl, 

entering the river in Paradox Valley. The overall effect of the unit 

would be to decrease the salinity of the Colorado River at Imperial Dam 

by 18.2 mg/l, or about 2.2 percent of the 1977 salinity level. The 

reduction attributable to salt removal would actually be 18.6 mg/l hut 

would be slightly offset by an increase of 0.4 mg/l caused by an average 

annual stream depletior: of about 3,950 acre-feet. 

Project Features 

Introduction 

Designs and estimates discussed in this report are of feasibility 

grade and are based on the extreme condition that 5 cfs of brine with a 

20 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

salinity of up to 260,000 mg/l would be pumped constantly during a 100­

year project life. Final design capacities cannot be determined, however, until the design data collection program now unden"ay is completed, which is scheduled for 1980. The program is expected to indicate that a pumping rate of less than 5 cfs \"auld suffice as a long-term 

average and that the salinity of the water pumped \"ould average less 

than 260,000 mg/l. A long-term operational rate of 5 cfs for all of the 

facilities is unlikely since it is estimated that an average brine 

inflow of 0.8 ds at 260,000 mg/l no\\' produces essentially all of the 

198,000 tons of salt entering the river each year from ground water, as 

discussed in Chapter II. 

If the design data collection program shows that a pumping rate of 

about 2 cfs or less would effectively control the brine inflo\", the 

Bureau would reanalyze alternative means of brine disposal, including 

deep well injection and other evaporation pond sites. These alternatives are discussed in Chapter VI of this report. 

Brine well field 

Brine Production Wells 

To reduce the salt inflow by 180,000 tons, an estimated 18 production wells would be required; 10 along the west side of the river and 8 

along the east side. These wells have been drilled as part of the 

design data collection program for the unit. Unit cost estimates include provisions for installing 5 additional wells to cover the possibility that more than 18 wells could be required for long-term 

operations. 

Seventeen of the wells have been drilled into the alluvial aquifer 

of sand and gravel to depths of between 48 and 77 feet, and the other 

well extends into cavities in the residual gypsum cap to a total depth 

of about 155 feet. The wells have a working diameter of 12 inches, and 

the lower 15 to 40 feet consist of well screens to allo\\1 the brine 

ground water to enter. Gravel packing has been placed around each well 

for its entire depth, both for stabilization and to prevent fine sand 

from entering the screens. Water table observation tubes 1 1/4 inches 

in diameter are located on the outside of each well screen, perforated 

for at least the lower 25 feet to observe the drawdo\"n caused by 

pumping. 

Electric pumps varying in capacity from 0.1 to 1.1 cfs would he installed at the wells. The discharge line for each pump would include 

control valves, a connection for a flow meter, and a tap to periodically 

collect brine to be chemically analyzed. 

21 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

The wellheads, which would extend about 4 feet above the ground, 

would be housed in cinderblock structures 8 feet high and about 9 feet 

long on each side, with a concrete pad as a base. The roofs of the 

structures would be removable to facilitate maintenance and replacement. 

Electric control panels would be installed in the buildings so that each 

well could be operated individually at the site and to monitor power use 

to determine efficiency. 

Artist's concept of brine well field. 

A system of reinforced plastic mortar pipe or some other pipe 

resistant to salt corrosion, buried with a minimum cover of 3 feet, 

would be installed to collect the brine from the pump discharge lines at 

the wells and convey it to the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant. The 

~ystem would consist of pipelines on both sides of the river and would 

have a total length of 3.1 miles, consisting of 830 feet of 4-inch pipe, 

1,200 feet of 6-inch pipe, 1,700 feet of 8-inch pipe, 7,350 feet of 10­

inch pipe, 400 feet of 12-inch pipe, and 4,700 feet of 14-inch pipe. 

About 7 miles of existing roads would be improved to provide access 

to the well field. The roads would be about 12 feet wide and surfaced 

with gravel. 

22 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

Ground Water Monitoring Wells 

A total of 68 ground water monitoring wells have been drilled near 

the brine production wells on both sides of the river and would be regularly used to determine the effects of the pumping on the water table, 

the fresh water-brine interface, and the brine movement in the aquifer. 

The information would be used to establish the most effective pumping 

rates and patterns for the production viells. In addition to these 

wells, other wells drilled during previous investigations would be 

monitored as required to evaluate the effect of pumping. Additi.onal 

wells would be drilled during the design da ta collection program as 

needed. 

The monitoring system contains two types of wells. The first 

consists of 39 shallow observation wells, generally ahout 25 feet deep 

and 1.5 inches in diameter with 10-foot well screens placed he tween 10 

and 25 feet deep to allow ground water to entet'. The wells would be 

used to observe the water table. In addition, electrical conductivity 

meters could be lowered into the wells to measure changes in conductivity with depth, which would indicate the approximate location of 

the freshwater-brine interface. 

The second type of well contained in the monitoring system consists 

of 29 deep wells which generally contain three pipes, Each pipe extends 

to a different depth and has a section of well screen at the bottom. A 

shallow pipe, screened from the 5- to 25-foot zone, would be used to 

observe the water table and the brine-freshwater interface; a second 

pipe is screened near the base of the alluvial aquifer, between 56 and 

]20 feet deep, and would be used to measure the brine piezometric head 

in that zone; a third, screened in the gypsum bedrock between 215 al!d 

300 feet deep, would also be used to measure the brine piezometric head. 

A grout seal has been placed between the pipes to prevent the water in 

these three zones from intermixing in the well. Electrical conductivity 

meters and occasional samples would be used to monitor water quality in 

the various zones, 

The wellheads, which have a maximum height of about 4 feet above 

ground, have steel caps to prevent debris from entering and to discourage vandalism. Water levels in the water wells and pipes would be 

checked periodically during project operation. Some of the piezometer 

pipes would be equipped with automatic recorders for continuous 

measurements. 

Dolores River Monitoring System 

As previously discussed in Chapter II, a river monitoring system 

has been installed to assess the changes in streamflow and water quality 

that would occur as a result of pumping the brine ground water. The 

23 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

system includes five electrical conductivity meters which have been installed along the east side of the river within the well field, immediately upstream and downstream from the well field, and adjacent to the 

stream gaging stations located at the entrance and exit of the valley. 

These meters operate automatically to provide a continous record of any 

changes in conductivity as the river flows through the valley. Samples 

are collected at the two gaging stations when they are serviced and are 

used to analyze the chemical composition of the water entering and 

leaving the valley and to periodically calibrate the meters. 

Hydrogen sulfide stripping plant 

The hydrogen sulfide (H S) stripping plant would be located adja­ 2

cent to a county road on the east side of the river, about 1 mile south 

of the brine well field. The plant building, in addition to housing the 

treatment facilities, would contain areas for storage, operation and 

maintenance, and receiving equipment and supplies. The building would 

be constructed of precast concrete tee panels and would be 184 feet 

long, 60 feet wide, and 21 feet high. The plant would be located 

adjacent to other unit facilities discussed later in this chapter, 

including permanent operation facilities, a substation, and the first 

pumping plant for the brine pipeline to Radium Evaporation Pond. About 

0.4 mile of an existing county road would be paved to provide access. 

The entire site is shown in the feasibility layout on the following 

page. 

The toxic H S gas would be removed from the brine to prevent it 2 from being released into the atmosphere at the evaporation pond aod also 

to protect the brine pipeline and pumping plants from its very corrosive 

effects. The gas would be oxidized by means of an aeration process, 

producing water and sulfur in solid form, which would be piped to the 

evaporation pond with the brine. A solution of nickel sulfate would be 

added to the brine to act as a catalyst in the oxidation process. Based 

upon a maximum brine flow of 5 cfs, the plant would produce about 760 

pounds of sulfur each day, while reducing the H S concentration from 2

more than 100 mg/l to levels as low as 0.02 mg/l. 

As the feasibility design on page 26 shows, the brine would be 

treated in four aeration tanks. Brine entering the plant \.,Jould be 

conveyed to the tanks under a minimum pressure of 20 pounds per square 

inch through a system of IO-inch-diameter pipes constructed of 

corrosion-resistant aluminum bronze. Turnouts with motor-operated 

valves would allow the brine to be fed at different rates into the 

individual tanks and would ensure the continued operation of three tanks 

if one were shut down for maintenance or repairs. The pipe system would 

also collect treated brine from the tanks and could completely bypass 

them if necessary for emergencies. The treated brine would be discharged into the forebay reservoir of the first pumping plant on the 

piveliIle Lo t.he evapora Lion pond. 

24 
_J ~> ::J

.--- ()~ - \ 

/' . WJ=- -.'­ " " I

/ 

/ \ 

, / 

/

" 

/ \

'I ! '\ 

, /-- .-- "-'­

" /'/'-" 

..... /'

" --_/./ 

, 

\
 

\
 

/ 

/ 0' -;1 

/ 

.I 

/ 

/ 

/ 

, \ 

I 

( 

I

, 

\ 

I 

/ 

I 

\ ".
 

"

,
 

, 

\ r, 

! .Jill Ill\) ! >t 

'(II< ..... .. lL:J , ". \ -:Ill' " 

I

\ '\ "- \ V
 

\
 I \ 

\ 

'\ \ 

" <"A 

\ 

\

\ 

\ 

c::>

\ \ "­ \ I \ \ \ I 1 \

I \
 J \ / \ / \ "­

J 

\ 

I

I 

Q& ( ~i> r '\ \ \

"
 \ \ '\ , I \ ""
 \ \ " I
 " I

I I 

/ "' ...... \ // I " '\ I
 J \ \ \

, 

/ 

\ 

\ \ I '\ "­ \ \ III 

Iil " '- ...... \ \ "\ 

\ '\ \ "­ , , I 

1 I "­ \ \ I " \ I "- " ...... "\ 

\ 

\ ...... \ -" \ \ \ \ \ , " \ 

I "­ , " \ , 

'\ " '\ " ..... 
--

.. ..::r..::.:..- .. . - -_.......:..__. -' , 

j 

I' 

I 

! 

i 

.l 

, 

:J 

... 

4 

\ 

() 

\J 

\l 

I 

\ ;: 

... iii 

\l 

III 

1II .1 

f 

t 

t ( . .. I 

0 

, iii 

1 

i. t 

I 

t! 

'" (' 

I •• 

o 

II 

LI 

-=-::'-=--=j--::"-:'::'::" 

! 

I 

;;. ,.---_. 

LJi . 

\1,
 

II. 

o 

o III

.J 

« 

\.l 

" 

I 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

The nickel sulfate solution would be injected into the brine piping 

system upstream from the aeration tanks. A storage hopper and transition hopper, containing the chemical in dry form, would have a combined 

capacity of about 373 cubic feet, which would suffice for about 1 year 

of operation at the maximum brine flow of 5 cfs. Automatically released 

from the hoppers, the chemical would be mixed with fresh water in a 50­

gallon solution tank, then pumped into the brine pipe. The wa ter waul d 

be obtained from wells drilled near the rimrock southeast of the site to 

supply operational houses for the unit, which are described in a later 

section of this chapter. 

The four cylindrical aeration tanks, each about 17 feet in length, 

10 feet in diameter, and 10,000 gallons in capacity, would be lined with 

coal-tar epoxy for protection against salt corrosion. Each tank would 

contain 92 porous domes at the bottom for diffusing air through the 

brine and a pressure relief valve on top for releasj ng high pressure 

air. A 30-inch-diameter manhole located at one end \vould provide access 

for maintenance. 

Compressed, dried, and filtered air would be supplied to the porous 

domes in the tanks at 20 pounds per square inch by two rotary-screw air 

compressors and two air purification systems, connected to the tanks by 

standard 3-inch-diameter steel pipelines. Aluminum bronze check valves 

at the connections would prevent the corrosive brine from entering these 

lines. Air would be carried from the relief valve on the tanks to an 

outside vent by a 6-inch-diameter galvanized steel pipe. 

A fully automatic control system would be installed in the stripping plant building and would consist of a remote terminal unit with a 

microprocessor located in the treatment room of the plant and two microcomputers (one as a backup) located in an office and control room. With 

the computer, the plant could be operated either automatically or 

manually. Provisions would be made for continuous monitoring to prevent 

H S gas from reaching toxic levels in enclosed work areas. 2

Brine pipeline 

A pipeline 20.5 miles in length would convey the brine from the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant to Radium Evaporation Pond. The pipe, 

which would be buried wi th a minimum cover of 3 feet, \vould be reinforced plastic mortar or some other suitable pipe resistant to salt 

corrosion. For the first 14.3 miles to the top of the divide between 

Paradox Valley and Dry Creek Basin the brine would be pumped through 15­

inch-diameter pipe, and for the remaining 6.2 miles it \"ould flow by 

gravity through 18-inch-diameter pipe. The brine would discharge 

through a baffled outlet of reinforced thermosetting resin into an open 

channel extending about 1,000 feet into the evaporation pond area. This 

channel, which would be earthlined and protected with riprap, would 

27 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

convey the brine away from the pipe, thus preventing salt deposits from 

forming around the outlet and causing unnecessary maintenance problems. 

Brine pipeline pumping plants 

Eight pumping plants along the pipeline would lift the brine 

through a total elevation of about 2,040 feet between the stripping 

plant and the divide between Paradox Valley and Dry Creek Basin. Each 

of the plants would be fully automatic and would operate with two horizontal centrifugal pumps, with the exception that two vertical turbine 

pumps would be installed at Pumping Plant No.1. Each pump ~:ould have a 

rated capacity of 2.63 cfs, with a dynamic head of 366 feet at Pumping 

Plant No.1 and 275 feet at each of the other pumping plants. The pumps 

would be housed in one-story concrete structures that would also contain 

movable overhead cranes for maint.enance and replacement. The pI ant 

sites would be fenced and would also contain forebay reservoirs or 

tanks, air chambers, and substations. Gravel would be placed on surface 

areas not occupied by structures. 

Pumping Plant No. I would be located adjacent to the stripping 

plant and would include a forebay reservoir with a diameter of 71 feet 

and a capacity of 2 acre-feet. The reservoir would be lined with 10-mil 

polyvinyl chloride to prevent leakage and would have float levels to 

govern the operation of the pumps. Pumping Plants Nos. 2 through 8 

would have forebay regulating tanks \dth float levels to govern pumping 

operations. Constructed of reinforced fiberglass, each tank \oJould he 

about 26 feet high and 31 feet in diameter, with a capacity of about 0.5 

acre-foot. 

An air chamber, or surge tank, at each plant siLe wOllld absorb the 

pressure fluctuations caused by changes in flow through the brine pipeline. These structures would vary from about 4 to 9 feet in diameter 

and 7 to 15 feet in height. 

Radium Dam, Dike, and Evaporation Pond 

Desigl1 Data 

Radium Evaporation Pond, which would be formed by the construction 

of Radium Dam on an intermittent tributary of the West Fork of Dry Creek 

and Radium Dike on an intermittent tributary of the main stem of Dry 

Creek, would cover an area of up to 3,630 acres in the two drainages and 

across a very low saddle between the two. The p0nd, at a water surface 

elevation of 6,338 feet, would have a capacity of 86,800 acre-feet, 

consisting of 65,700 acre-feet for the disposal of brine and deposited 

salts, 2,400 acre-feet for sediments from storm runoff, and 18,700 acrefeet. for flood storage. The flood st.orage would be sufficient. for t.he 

design maximum annual inflow of 22,200 acre-feet., assuming that a 

28 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

minimwn of 3,500 acre-feet would be evaporated during the same year. 

The flood storage would be large enough to retain and evaporate all 

runoff entering the pond from the surrounding drainage area, since no 

water must be allowed to spill and possibly contaminate local ground or 

surface water. As a standard Reclamation safety factor, however, a 

surcharge capacity of 6,540 acre-feet would be provided on top of the 

flood control pool to temporarily store flood flows. The surcharge, 

combined with a spillway capacity of 50 cfs, ,",wuld protect against an 

inflow design flooo with a peak flow of 39,300 cfs and a 3-day volume of 

6,600 acre-feet. At the top of the surcharge, the pond would have a 

capacity of 93,340 acre-feet and a maximum surface area of 3,750 acres. 

Most of the pond site is underlain by impermeable Mancos Shale, up 

to 600 feet or more deep in some places, which would prevent any seepage 

of brine. Early reconnaissance studies indicated that two areas 

totaling 640 acres on the northeastern side have only thin remnants of 

Mancos Shale and eolian soils underlain by generally fractured Dakota 

Sandstone and were considered to require lining with a blanket of clay 

derived from Mancos Shale or some similar impervious material. Further 

investigations by Bureau geologists found that much of the areas had 

5 feet or more of in-place weathered shale and soils probably not 

requiring a blanket. An area of less than 100 acres adjacent to the dam 

and dike may need a partial blanket to achieve the required thickness of 

5 feet. The present feasibility designs and cost estimates, however, 

are based on a blanket covering the entire 640 acres. The blanket would 

have a thickness of 5 feet and a total volume of about 5,200,000 cubic 

yards. 

Radium Dam \.;ould be a rolled earth, sand, gravel, and rockfill 

structure with a volume of about 1,480,000 cubic yards of material. The 

crest, at an elevation of 6,345 feet, would be about 87 feet high above 

the drainage channel, 30 feet wide, and 8,300 feet long. A 3-foot layer 

of riprap on the upstream face and a I-foot layer of sand and gravel on 

the downstream face would protect the structure against erosion. A 

combined spillway and outlet works would be located in the left abutment. The spillway would have a maximum discharge of 50 cfs and, like 

the surcharge capacity, has been included as a standard Reclamation 

safety factor even though all inflows to the pond would be retained and 

evaporated. The inlet structure would be at elevation 6,338 feet on the 

face of the dam, and would connect with a vertical concrete conduit 

extending about 66 feet downward from the inlet. The bottom of this 

conduit would connect with a 6-foot-diameter, flat-bottomed concrete 

conduit extending through the base of the dam a~d ending in a stilling 

basin. The outlet works, with a capacity of 810 cfs, would include an 

intake structure at the toe of the dam at elevation 6,274 feet and a 6­

foot-diameter concrete conduit extending under the dam to connect with 

the flat-bottomed spillway and would be operated by means of manual 

hoists on the crest of the dam. The outlet works would be designed to 

29 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

provide temporary flood drainage during construction. Also included as 

a safety measure would be piezometers and settlement instruments in the 

dam. These facilities would be used to monitor any changes in the dam 

as the pond filled. 

Artist's concept of Radium Evaporation Pond 

Radium Dike would be a rolled earth, sand, gravel, and rockfill 

structure with a total volume of about 1,004,000 cubic yards of material. The crest, at elevation 6,345 feet, would be 56 feet above the 

drainage channel, 30 feet wide, and 7,500 feet long. To protect the 

structure, a 3-foot layer of riprap would be placed on the upstream face 

and a I-foot layer of sand and gravel would be placed on the downstream 

face. Data pertaining to the dam and dike are shown in the design 

drawing on the following page. 

Eight ground water monitoring wells would be drilled adj acent to 

the pond to measure the water table, hydraulic pressure, and water 

quality, thus indicating whether brine was seeping into local ground 

water. Two wells would be located immediately downstream from the dam 

on each side of the tributary of the West Fork of Dry Creek, and two 

would be located just downstream from the dike on each side of the 

tributary of the East Fork. Three wells would be drilled between the 

dam and dike on the north side of the pond, and another would be located 

30 
. 

o 

"00 

PROFILE ON 1£ CREST OF QIKE 

-SClll I:': OF !'"t.e., 

I 

- - - +on~I""' ,,"0'10,1 surfoe. 

-,~ --­ - /~----------.- ~,- .==-C.l.­

8at~cr.'Df cutoff I frtmc!l ---"~,

_ VA!!!!}, FOR~n~

(j,·(I,rt hales 6 10 Cf'S. I 

I 

/ 

~~~tz 

o 

'!...~!-~004.~

~I

l"'\~'

~l !-~'"

-IJo~

'" 

\I 

9Ion/i~tilUJ

J-o Riprop on /-6 btdding 

Mot/mum water surface £1.6J39.8) 

Top of ar:ti~e conser~CJtiOI1 capacity. [I 6318, ---L. TOIJof diiod capacity, ~-=---~ EI.6JI6(Eost8asUlJ~ --- -

ToP of d,ad capacity, .~

£f. 6275 (VJtst BaSlnJ.+ 

IItIIlXIMUM SECT/Oft-DAM AND 01/(£ 

IlIO 0 IIQ I0IO 1 , I I ' 

'CALE 0,: f 

.c Rlprop lWU fO b~ddj"9--

St'v. ,." ;-0 DIfJ. conduit 

PROFILE ALONG" COMB/NED SPILLWIl\- AND OUTLET WOR 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
 

on the south side. Each well would contain one pipe 25 feet deep and 

another about 60 feet deep. The shallow pipe would have a screen from 5 

feet to 25 feet to permit observation of the water table, and the deep 

pipe would have a 5-foot screen OIl the bottom to measure the piezomptric 

head below the water table in the aquifer. Readings and sampling would 

be conducted monthly, but the frequency would be altered in the future 

depending upon operational needs. If any leakage occurred through the 

dam or abutments, it would be collected and recycled back into the pond. 

About 3.5 miles of a gravel-surfaced county road in the pond site 

would be relocated. The replacement, 4.2 miles of improved gravel road, 

would follow the right-of-way line around the south, southwest, and west 

sides of the pond. Clearing of vegetation, primarily sagebrush, vJOuld 

be required in the areas of the dam, dike, impervious blanket, and 

roads. 

The pond area would be accessible by way of two gravel roads constructed from the relocated county road. One road, about 2.6 miles in 

length, would extend from the west side and cross the crest of the dam. 

The other road would be 1.5 miles in length and would extend from the 

south and cross the dike. 

Q1~_erations

The evaporation pond would fill gradually during the 100-year 

useful life of the unit. In the early years of operation, the vo].ume of 

brine in the pond would grow fairly rapidly, because the surface a rea 

would not be large enough for annual evaporation to exceed annual inflow. After about 25 years, over 50 percent of the total volume would 

be occupied by brine and deposited salts. As the pond filled, however, 

the expanding surface area would cause a gradual increase in evaporation, and the rate of filling would consequently decline. Th pond 

would grow to about 70 percent of the total capacity after 50 years and 

75 percent after 75 years. The inundated area would consist largely of 

brine in the early years, with few deposited salts. In later years, 

however, the pond vJOuld consist primarily of salt deposits covered 

occasionally by a thin layer of brine. 

The average annual inflow is estimated at about 6,200 acre-feet 

over the 100-year period and would consist of brine, precipitation on 

the pond surface, and runoff from the drainage area around the pond. 

The brine inflow, assuming the maximum pumping rate of 5 cfs, would he 

essentially constant at about 3,600 acre-feet anllually. Contributions 

to the pond from precipitation and runoff would fluctuate cons lderahly 

both seasonally and annually but are estimated at an average of 2,600 

acre-feet annually over a lOO-year period. About 350 acre-feet of this 

water \"ould othen"ise enter the San Miguel River, with the rest lost 

through evapotranspiration in the Dry Creek drainage. Generally, this 

32 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

inflow to the pond would increase as the size of the pond increased, 

since the pond would capture all of the direct precipitation on the 

water surface but only part of the runoff from the surrounding area, 

with the rest lost through evapotranspiration. After the pond reacheci 

its maximum surface area, it '..;ould receive an average of about 3,300 

acre-feet of precipitation and natural runoff annually, all of '''hich 

would be evaporated. 

The evaporation rate at the pond would average about 29 inches annually, based upon 37 years of records at a weather station in Montrose. 

Although this station is about 500 feet lower in elevation than the pond 

site, the effect on evaporation would be offset by the windier conditions found in Dry Creek Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation has maintained a weather station at the site since 1975, but the two full years 

of data obtained so far are insufficient for long-term predictions. 

They do indicate, however, that evaporation was higher than at Montrose 

for the same period. 

The total amount of water evaporated each year would gradually increase as the surface area of the pond increased and is estimated at 

about 2,750 acre-feet in the 6th year of operations and 6,190 acre-feet 

in the 25th year. After about 30 years the annual evaporation \..;auld 

exceed the annual inflow, and the brine accumulated in earlier years 

would be slowly evaporated until it disappeared in about the 75th year. 

After this time, essentially all of the ,..;ater reachi ng the pond each 

year would be evaporated, although there would be some carryover from 

year to yea r because the evaporation ,..;ould be at its lowes t in the 

winter. During the summers, a higher rate of evaporation would result 

in the exposure of a salt flat over much of the area. When full after 

100 years the pond would have an average evaporation potentia] of about 

8,000 acre-feet annually to dispose of storm runoff. 

Evaporation would increase the salinity of the brine from 260,000 

mg/l initially to saturation at about 350,000 mg/l. This concentration 

would be reached after about 6 years and would be maintained for the 

rest of the unit life, with only minor short-term changes from high 

storm runoff and seasonal differences in precipitation and evaporation 

rates. The precipitation of salts would begin when the brine reached 

saturation, and the volume of the salts in the flooded area ,..;ould 

gradually increase with respect to the volume of brine. 

Transmission lines, substations, and power requirements 

Electric power for the unit facilities would be obtained from the 

Colorado River Storage Proj ect by means of the proj ect' s Shiprock-toCurecanti, 230-kilovolt transmission line. The power would be "'heeled 

to the unit area by the Colorado Ute Electric Associabon and conveyed 

to the facilities by existing powerlines of the San Miguel Power 

Association. 

33 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

The pumps at the brine production wells would use power tapped from 

an existing line about 250 feet east of the well field and distributed 

to the pumps by about 1.6 miles of new lines. The transmission poles, 

made of wood, would be about 30 feet high and would have single or 

double crossarms about 8 feet long. Generally, each well would have a 

separate transformer, although in some ins tances t\1I0 adj acent wells 

would sha re one. 

The hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, operation and maintenance facilities, and brine pipeline pumping plants would use power from a 

transmission line that parallels the pipeline alignment. The stripping 

plant and Pumping Plant No.1, located adjacent to each other, would be 

served by a single tap and an underground transmission line about one 

quarter mile in length connected to a substation at the stripping plant 

site. Each of the other seven pumping plants woulJ have an individual 

tap, an underground line no more than one quarter mile long, and a 

substation. The operation and maintenance facilities ",'ould share the 

tap and underground lines to the hydrogen sulfide plant, with a transformer located at each house. 

The operation of the unit would require a total of ahout 15,200,000 

kilowatt-hours of electric energy each year, based upon a maximum yearround capacity of 5 cfs for the brine well field, hydrogen sulfide 

stripping plant, and brine pipeline pumping plants. The pOl,'er demand 

for the unit would total about 1,745 kilowatts. The power needs of the 

stripping plant would be incidental since the bri.ne would enter the 

plant already under pressure from the well field pumps. Power for the 

operation and maintenance facilities would also be incidental. The 

table below shows the requirements for each of the facilities. 

Un i t Powe r re qu_i__r_e_m_e_n_t_s _ 

Average 

Power annual energy 

demand requirements 

::::---:-F_a_c_i_l__:;i-ct-"y~:__::_:_-----_(,..:.k_i-l__:;o_:w:_;a-t-t-s-')'------------'-(.::c.k..:.i) owa t t - hours ) 

Brine well field 124 1,081,000 

Brine pipeline 

pumping plants 

No.1 260 2,270,000 

No.2 200 1,720,000 

No.3 200 1,750,000 

No.4 200 1,720,000 

No.5 200 1,720, 000 

No.6 200 1,720, 000 

No. 7 190 1,700,000 

No.8 190 1,670,000 

Total 1,764 15,351,000 

34
 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
 

Permanent operating facilities 

The operating headquarters for the unit would be located adjacent 

to the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant and would include a parking area 

and a building containing a shop, equipment, and a storage area (see the 

design layout on page 25). The site would be fenced and landscaped. 

Four three-bedroom houses for permanent operating personnel would be 

constructed just south of the site. 

Temporary construction camp 

A temporary camp would be established to serve as the construction 

headquarters of the unit and to provide temporary housing for: the 

government construction force, which would vary from a minimum of 4 

employees in the first year of work to a maximum of about 50 j n the 

fifth year. The camp would be located near the proposed sites of the 

hydrogen sulfide stripping plant and the permanent operation and 

maintenance housing. An estimated 17 all-electric trailers \.Jould be 

required during the peak year. Power would be obtained from an existing 

transmission line adjacent to the site. A 2,000-foot telephone line, 

wells for domestic water, and a septic system would be installed for use 

in both the temporary camp and the permanent operation and housing 

facilities. 

Cultural resource program 

As stated in Chapter I, 22 archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of the unit. Twenty of the sites have been avoided 

through planning and design considerations. The two remaining sites lie 

vlithin the proposed evaporation pond and a program of data collection 

and evaluation would be undertaken at each of the sites. At one site, 

an area of lithic scatter, the program would consist of collecting 

materials from the surface, testing for the depth of cultural materials, 

and determining cultural affiliation if possible. The program for the 

second site, the remains of a homestead ranch, would consist of gathering his torical information, surface mapping, collecting materia Is, and 

photographing the site. If the results were to indicate that either 

site would yield significant information, a mitigation plan would be 

developed in accordance with "Procedures for the Protection of Historic 

and Cultural Properties," (36 CFR 800). If needed, this plan would be 

implemented prior to construction. 

Wildlife program 

To compensate for anticipated losses in wildlife populations caused 

by the inundation of habitat during a lOa-year period of operations, 

about 3,660 acres of public and private land around the evaporation pond 

would be developed and managed for wildlife. The development would he 

35 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

similar to that recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a memorandum of January 21, 1977 (a copy of which is attached to this report). 

This measure would compensate for losses of many species, such as deer, 

pronghorn, and sage grouse, but it \"ould not be effective for all 

species no\" found at the site. Consisting of 1,320 acres within the 

evaporation pond right-of-way and 2,340 acres acquired specifically for 

wildlife, this area \"ould be improved by construction of five sma 11 

water retention structures of about 2 acres each to collect runoff and 

by planting and fertilizing species that are desirable for forage, such 

as whea tgrass, Indian ricegrass, \"ild rye, smooth brome, and foun,'i ng 

saltbush. Fences would be installed to exclude unmanaged livestock. In 

addition to these measures, borrow areas and other areas disturbed 

during construction would be shaped to fit the surrounding topography, 

seeded, and fertilized to promote the growth of ne'.,' vegetation. As 

previously stated, congressional approval would be required for the 

wildlife program since the original authorization of the unit did not 

include wildlife mitigation. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service in a memorandum of December 6, 1977 

(a copy of which is attached), recommended that responsibility for 

public lands acquired for the wildlife area be retained by the Bureau of 

Land Management in cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

It is anticipated that the area would be operated by the State agency, 

however, since it has informally expressed a desire to manage the area, 

which has consequently been designed to adjoin nearby land already under 

the Division's jurisdiction and thus facilitate an integrated management 

program. 

In a memorandum of October 18, 1977 (also attached to this report), 

the Fish and I,.lildlife Service recommended that the unit plan include the 

development of marshy areas to increase the prey base for peregrine 

falcons. In order for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in such 

a plan to enhance the existing habitat, the development would have to be 

consistent with the salinity control program authorized by Congress. If 

future consultation bet\\'een the Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Bureau of 

Land t-lanagement indicates that the development should be proposed, 

detailed planning studies and appropriate justification should be completed before seeking Congressional approval. 

Land Acquisition 

The construction and operation of the unit would require the 

acquisition of 5,381 acres of privately owned land and the withdrawal of 

2,510 acres of public land now administered by the Bureau of Land Management. In accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act 

(Public La \0.7 91-646) an addj tional 830 acres of private land may be 

36 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

acquired to avoid leaving the present owner with an uneconomical operating unit. Nearly all of the private land would be purchased in fee 

title, although 

and along the 

amount of land re

easements would be obtained for part 

brine pipeline. The following 

quired for the construction of project 

of the 

table 

features. 

well fipld 

shows the 

Project land acquisition 

Land ownership (acres) 

Bureau of 

Land 

Feature Management Private Total 

Brine well field 

Withdrawn 60 60 

Fee title 285 285 

Easements 20 20 

Hydrogen sulfide plant 6 6 

Brine pipeline 

Withdrawn 125 125 

Easements 74 74 

Brine pipeline pumping plants 5 2 7 

Radium Dam, Dike, and Evaporation Pond 1,250 3,700 4,950 

Operating facilities 4 4 

Wildlife area 1,050 1,290 2,340 

Material source areas 20 20 

To ta 1 2-L,_5_l_0 S-L,_:i 81: _.._ -----7 L 891 

Project Water Rights 

The operation of the unit would deplete the Dolores River at a rate 

of up to 5 cfs. During periods of normal or high riverflow, this depletion would not affect diversions downstream by holders of senior water 

rights, since the flows would still be sufficient to fulfill thei r 

rights. The Bureau would apply with the State of Colorado for a water 

right to deplete these surplus flows. In periods of lov" flow, hOh'ever, 

the unit depletion would prevent the fulfillment of senior water rights 

and consequently could not be operated on the basis of the Bureau's 

junior right. As a result, arrangements would be made to compensate the 

affected users for reducing their diversion, to obtain senior rights 

necessary for the unit operation, or to augment the stream by exchange 

or some other means. The selection of a method would be made io coordination with the State of Colorado and could depend to a degree on the 

determination of the brine pumping rate during the design data collection program. 

The Bureau t"lould also file h'ith the State for storage rights at 

Radium Evaporation Pond. The San Miguel Water Conservancy District 

already holds a conditional storage right at the site, since the Bureau 

37 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
 

had proposed in a 1966 report to build Radium Reservoir for irrigati~?

and fish and wildlife enhancement as part of the San Miguel Project.­

Although the project was subsequently authorized by the Colorado River 

Basin Act of September 30, 1968 (Public Law 90-537) and is now under 

advance planning, the Bureau no longer proposes any developments in Dry 

Creek Basin as pa rt of the proj eet plan. 

Protection of Unit Works from Flood Hazards 

All project works have been designed for selected levels of flood 

protection. At the brine well field the pumps, with their associated 

electrical and mechanical equipment, would be located above the level of 

the 100-year flood. This flood would have no effect on the collection 

system, which would be buried, and the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, 

which would be located outside the flood plain. At Radium Evaporation 

Pond, the surcharge capacity would provide protect ion agai ns t flood 

damage. 

Sources of Construction Materials 

Construction materials for the unit would include impervious and 

pervious fill, rip rap , concrete aggrega te, and ready-mi x cone rete. The 

following table shows the amount of impervious and pervious materials 

and riprap requi red for the dam, dike, and imperv lous blanket in the 

evaporation pond. The required quantities of concrete aggregate and 

ready-mix concrete have not been determined. 

BorrOl,J materials 

_________Q'-u:....,a".:n:c..t-=-l=-·t-:-y,,--~( -:-c-:-u-:-b.=i..:::c---,,-yc: rd s ) 

Pervious 

Impervious sand and 

Feature fill gravel Ripra) Tota 1 

Radium Dam 1,300,000 104,000 76,000 1,480,000 

Radium Dike 900,000 60,000 44,000 1,004,000 

Impervious blanket 5,200,000 5,200,000 

Total 7,400,0_0_0 1_6_4-"-.,_0_0_0__ 120,000 _ ---i~684 ,_~~Q

The impervious material for the dam, dike, and blanket would be 

obtained from within the high water line of the evaporation pond. 

Pervious material, concrete aggregate, and riprap would be obtained from 

a site located about 13 miles southeast of the evaporation pond. The 

pervious material and concrete aggregate would consist of grave] 

deposits, and the riprap would consist of a hard, dense, crystalline 

limestone occurring in massive but moderately broken beds. An existing 

]) Bureau of Reclamation. San Miguel Project, Colorado: Feasibility Report, February 1966. 

38 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

road would provide access. Ready-mix concrete for the unit facilities 

would be purchased from commercial sources. 

Operation and Maintenance 

General 

The salinity control facilities of the unit would be operated and 

maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is anticipated that the 

wildlife area at the evaporation pond would be maintained by the Col.orado Division of Wildlife. 

The unit facilities, including the brine production wells, monitoring system, hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, and pipeline pumping 

plants, would be operated automatically from the office and control room 

at the stripping plant. Information on the operating conditions of 

these facilities and malfunction \"arnings would be telemetered to the 

control room so that adjustments and maintenance could be made promptly. 

In addition to periodic checks and maintenance of this equipment, the 

normal operations would include readings at the monitoring wells, stream 

gaging stations, and water quality stations in Paradox Valley and also 

at the piezometers and settlement instruments installed in Radium Dam 

and Dike. 

Most replacements for the unit would be part of normal maintenance, 

but some maj or replacements, including the H S stripping plant \.!Orks, 2 transmission lines and substations, and supervisory control and 

associated communications equipment, would be separate items. Since the 

unit would operate continuously year-round, standby pumps would be used 

to replace malfunctioning units during repairs, thus ensuring that the 

pipeline would be shut down for only a short time. At the well field 

and stripping plant, individual units could be shut down for repairs or 

normal maintenance without seriously affecting the continued operation 

of the remaining units. 

Operation and maintenance at the evaporation pond would be minimal. 

In addition to the reading of the instruments in the dam, dike, and 

nearby observation \"ells, the \"ork would consist of erosion and \"eed 

control and road maintenance. 

The wildlife area would require minimal maintenance. The required 

work would consist of upkeep on fences, water retention structures, and 

grass plots. 

Personnel, equipment, and supplies 

The opera ti on and maintenance of the sa lini ty cant ro1 facilities 

would require four permanent employees: a superintendent, two plant 

39 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

mechanics/operators) and an electrical equipment repairman. Seasonal or 

part-time laborers may also be needed to maintain the buildings and 

grounds and to assist :Ln large-scale maintenance and replacement. As 

discussed earlier, four houses for the permanent staff would he provided 

just south of the stripping plant. 

Equipment required for the unit would include three pickup trucks, 

a flatbed truck, a dump truck, a grader, an industrial tractor, a crane, 

and small miscellaneous items. Special equipment used only occasionally 

would be rented. Supplies would include nickel sulfate and miscellaneous items. 

Power 

The power requirements for the unit would be ahout 15,351,000 

kilowatt-hours annually, as previously stated, with a demand requirement of 1,764 kilowatts. The estimated costs of power for the unit are 

based upon present CRSP rates of 3.4 mills per kilowatt-hour and $1.34 

per kilowatt-month, with a wheeling rate of 1.5 mills per kilowatt-hour. 

Unit Costs 

Construction costs 

The estimated construction costs of the Paradox Valley Uni tare 

$50,390,000 on the basis of January 1977 prices and feasibility designs 

which would provide a useful unit life of at least 100 years. The costs 

consist of $50,381,000 for salinity control (including $610,000 for the 

wildlife area) and $9,000 for the cultural resource program. The 

estimated costs of the individual facilities and programs are shown on 

pages 41 through 43. 

Annual operation, maintenance, and r placement costs 

The annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs of the 

unit are estimated at $332,300 annually, based upon 1974-76 prices. The 

costs include $330,300 for the salinity control facilities and $2,000 

for the wildlife area at Radium Evaporation Pond. The tahle on page 

44 contains a summary of the costs. 

40
 
OFFICE PREPARED BY: Date of Estimate October 27, 1977 Estimate 

PROJECT COST ESTIMA IE ~vestern Colorado Projects Office Prices as of Januarv 1977 Prices as 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS FORM Feasibility Estimate Durango, Colorado of ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 6, PART 152 Sheet 1 of 3 Oct. 1976 OF rHF: o,·~,

0>­ LABOR AND LABOR AND , 

>­ MATERIALS FIEl.D TOTAL OTHER TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL BY MATERIALS BY t-V) ~~ ~z CONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT COST FIELD COST COSTS COST COST COST !XV) ~!X Z::l CCE SHEET w< -w <co DESCRIPTION 

ll...J t-ll. NUMBERS ..JU Ou Zo ll.U 

I 

Cost Cost Plont Identified Identified Identified Property Identified 

!X W!X Account Property Prbperty Property Class Property ll. 90. <C ._---­ -----_. 1--. 

1 2 3 4 _. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

------­ ------­ - - - - - -­ ._­ --­

i PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY - _. -_.- --_. -_.­ -­--­ --­ --­ CONTROL PROJECT ----­ - --­ - - 1------f----. 

TOTAL PROJECT COST - .-. _._---f----.­.-........­ ----­ - _.- ..._-_. ---­ I 50 390 000 48 001 000 ---1--­f----­

----------.. _~ ----­ __0.____.­-.­ '--f-----,----­.­ l2 SPECIAL PLANTS -._-­ 47,900,000 - ------"._--­ ---------­ - 1-.__._--_.._­

----~- ---------­ ._- -_. --_.­ "'---­ ----.... - .-.f---------.---.--f---.-­ ----­~-

01 BRINE WELL FIELD ._-----_._-­ - -_.__ .... _._-­ __5JJ.~.:?00 _lJ_?.8~~~290,000_-'" 1 850.000 

100 Land and Rights 1 _b.~_ ~,QO Q__ 155 000 f--- .--.-­ - _ .. _..._..1._._ 

130 Structures and Improvements 1 __J1.~LQQ_O ._-­ .____l?~OO f-----.­ .­

140 Roads and Road Structures 2 __~Jlil_O_ 20 000 _.-­ ------­ ---­ - I----_.._~- --.­ ------_.­f-.---L..

152 Waterways 2 170 2 000 170,000 f--------­ ----. 

160 Pumps and Prime :,overs 2 __ }3,000 - 33,000 

170 Accessorv E1ectric?1 Equipment -' 3 .__1 5.-000_ -----­ 1-._.J._~_~..? 9.~ . .. -_. __. _.----­

_. ~.- --­ -­ --_._-~---- ._­ ... ----=-=-=­ 02 HYDROGEN SULFIDE STRIPPING PLANT -.L.7 13_~J 00 5?6,900 .b 300, 000 2,300,000 

100 Land and Rights 4 3~)Q_0_ _. _.___.. _:L.J.QQ _ - _.'--­ ----------­

130 Structures and IfIlID::9vements 4 _ 48Q.,90Q. - _. ~., ----I-­__4.§'Q-,--0.11.0_ -------­

152 Waterways 6 23Q....Q_QQ_ --~_._--

230 _2_.090__ 

180 Installed SupervisQrY Control and 7 ___1 2OO~OOO__ 1--,.Q9_0-,OQQ.. -_. -----_.- -_.--­+-----­ ._ .._--­

- f--­ Communications Equipment ------­--_.__. 

- -----­.-..- -. -_.­ -------­_._----­ -

03 BRINE PIPELINE ------­ 4.J.~)J2_'__Q..Q.9 1,370L Q.QO 5 900,000 5,700,000 

100 Land and Rights 8 ___.30 ,000 -­ ;32!_22,9_. I

152 Watenvavs 8 3_~200,ODD_ -­ -­ -­ ..42D_O~O..o _ --­ --­ - - ._­ -_!_-­

153 Waterway Structures 9 ---l.JD.D....Q.O.Q e-.l...3QQ , OOiL I 

---­ -­ ~-----!_-

.­ -­ --­ - ----­ -­ - - - .~ -­ 04 BRINE PIPELINE PUMPING PLANTS ---­ ---~ --_.­ '-­ _..1._6..20....5-20_ -LJ2.9...~Q_. _!±....800 000 4 700.000 --. 100 Land and Rights 11 __1..._.o5..Q.. -_. __ l ....0.5.0_ - ._­ ._--1----­

130 Structures and Improvements 11 -l...-9.0J4000 -h9..QD......Q.OJL --_.._-­ _._--_._­ 152 Waterwavs 16 ~311~.illllL ----­ _.­ _ .8.l0 000 -­ --­ 16O '--'-­ - Pumps and Prime Movers 21 - - 620+0.0.0_ 620_, 000_ - - - .­ -_. -~- -I-­

170 Accessory Electrical Equipment __ --2..3.___ _ ..22.0~_QO_ - _22.0....00.0_ .- .. _.­ - ---­ -­ lqq ~fiRrpll In~~-"ll Prl F~iR.ment 24 qq soo _..9..9.,.5JlD.... - 1--,-­ .­ -

os RADIUM, DAM. __D.lKE, AND EVAPORATION POND -­ -­-­ - .----­---.,_.­

I---­ - --_.-.-­ -­ ----­ 27 2.85 ...OOD._ 1--_ 5....7.15_JlO.Q_ _33 ...000.000 31 000 000 

100 Land and Riohts 27 W..o.ih.QQO - _1...LOO QOO _ - . __. - - - -­ 110 Relocation of ProDertv of Others 27 180..... QQ_O 180 000 

120 r.lpar;no­ 1 and 27 260,OillL 

~~t~lt:~ ---­ f­-­ -­ ----­ 1-­ 140 Roads and Road Structures 28 35 000 ---­ 1 'i 1 DAms ?R ..25.....6.J.J2...JlQ 0 I I (1) Dam and Dike Structure -----­ -­ '------­ ----­ 28 ill, 000.000) (2) Combined Spillway and Outlet Works 29 _{610....CLQQ.2 _ (§.l_O.QOO) _ _ __ . __,__ 1---. 

I ---­ - - ,----=-:--=-'" - -­
7~1 FI:.U \.O~II:;'}

Bureau of Reclamation Formerly Basic Estimate DC-1 Summary 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS FORM 

ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 6, PART 152 nF ' ...... O' ,r-' . 

Q)­ >­

I- VI ~~ ~% IX VI ~a: %:;) II.I~ -w

~Il. ~o DESCRIPTION

OU 

~-' %0 -'u

wa: Il.U IX 91l. 

PROJECT PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, CO, CRBSCP Previous 

OFFICE PREPO\REO BY: Dote of Estimate ...clc..tsihpr ? 7 1077 Estimate

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Western Colorado Projects Office Prices as of January 1977 Prices as 

Feasibility Estimate Durango, Colorado of 

She.t 2 of 3 Oct. 1976 

Lo\BOR AND UBOR AND FIELD TOTAL °1HER TOtAL TOTAL TOTAL MATERIALS BY MATERIALS BY 

CONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT COST FIELD COST COSTS COST COST COST 

CCE SHEET -- NUMBERS Plont Identified Identified Identified Property Identified Cost Cost Account Property Property Property Class Property 

3 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

SUBSTATIONS 590.000 

456,000 134,000 590 000 580.000 

31 430,000 430,000 

31 26 000 26 000 

565,000 

135,000 40.000 175.000 170,000 

32 135 000 135 000 

303,100 86~ 390.000 390.000 

33 2 100 2 100 

33 230 000 230,000 

33 71 000 71 000 

1.010.000 

I 

325 000 95.000 420 000 420,000 

34. 72 000 72 000 

34 13 000 13 ono 

34 240 000 ?40 000 

.. 540.000 5Q 000 590 000 590,000 

36 200 000 200 000 

36 340.000 140 000 --

820,000 

f-.350 000 70,000 420 000 410.000 

37 - ._- 350,000 350,OClO 

?OO 000 40 000 240 000 240 000 

38 200,000 200,000 

135 000 25.000 160 000 155.000 

39 135,000 135,000 

j-;:g:ggg 39 -780.000 -780 000 .7Q.n nnn _no -7Rn nnn -771 nno 39 -790 000 -790 000 .7on nnn 0.=- 790.000 785.J)00 - .. 

1 2

13 TRANSMISSION LINES, SWITCHYARDS, AND

01 TRANSMISSION LINES 

175 

184 UnderQ:l"ound 

_., 

l5 GENERAL PROPERTY 

01 PERMANENT 

130 

02 O&M HOUSING 

100 Land and 

130 

140 Roads 

1.1 CAPITALIZED MOVABLE 

01 PERMANENT 

220 

240 Tools 

260 

02 SERVICE FACILITIES 

210 

250 

IS SERVICE 

01 TEMPORARY 

130 

02 CONSTRUCTION OFFICE 

130 

03 

130 

DEPRECIATION 

SALVAGE 

AND SUBSTATIONS
 

Station Equipment
 

Conductors and Devices
 

OPERATING FACILITiES
 

Structures and Improvements
 

Rights
 

Structures and Improvements
 

and Road Structures
 

EOUIPHENT 

OPERATING FACILITIES EQUIPMENT
 

Transportation Equipment
 

Shop and GaraQ:e EQuipment
 

Power Operated EQuipment
 

EOUIPMENT
 

Office EQuipment
 

Laboratorv EQuipment
 

FACILITIES 

CAUP
 

Structures and Improvements
 

Structures and Improvements 

RADIUM FIELD STATION
 

Structures and Improvements
 

-
1 

I
 7-1720 (5-72) 

Bureau of Reclamation Formerly Basic Estimate DC-l Summary PROJECT ,PARADOX 

OFFICE PREPARED BY: Date of Estimate October 

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Western Colorado Projects Office Prices as of ,.Tanuar7 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS FORM Feasibility Estimate Durango, Colorado ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 6, PART 152 

of THE RECLAMATION INSTR 

>­

t-V'l et:V'l 

W< 

o.....J 

~U

0.. 

I0>­

~tu..et: 

-w 

t-o.. 

Zo 

Wet:

eo.. 

t- LABOR AND I LABOR AND FIELD TOTAL OTHER MATERIALS BY MATERIALS BY I I-Z COST I FIELD COST I OOSTS Z::l ICONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT CCE SHEET <0 DESCRIPTION NUMBERS ...JU Plont Identified Ident ified o..U Cost I Cost I < Account Property Property

2 3 -r 4 I 5 1 6 7 8

I 1 1 

VALLEY UNIT 

27 1977 

1977 

Sheet 3 

TOTAL
 

COST
 

Identified
 

Property
 

9 

CO, CRBSCP I Previous 

Estimate 

Prices as 

of 

of 3 Oct. 1976

TOTAL TOTAL 

COST COST 

Property Identified 

Closs Property 

10 11 

---~------~ ~-- I 11,075, 000 I I __:;_-=,-~-==-v_-I __ -_=t-------- 1---455 ,'600__.1 _400 t=456,000~ 456,000 

I ----- --I--------f I I I 

I I I I CULTURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM I~ 39 I ~100_ 900 9,000 ~OOO 8.000

--l --I I I' 506,000 I 104.000-I 610.000 -I 610.000 

100 

130 

I I I I I I ------ I I I I I II 

I I I I ' I I -4-- I -+ I I I II 

I 

1 EE E n______ --_.. - - £--3=-- J-- -~E t -=1-~-j- =1 IE·­

I I I I I -1-----------+-----1---- I I I II 

I I I I I ---!-- I I I I I II 

I I I I I I -f-------+-- --~- I 1 II 

I I I I _n II I I I I I I ---jl-I----­

I I I I --+-- I 1 I I I I II 

--J- - --1---- .-----+-----: I I II 

I I I I I -1--- -I- I +-- ---+ If-----­

I 1 I I --- I I I- ------1 I -l---- --1--~

+-------+-1-------+ I I -jl-I----­

t- I 1 I -------t".----1= t---------f-· I -.---' I -jl 

:: : - --~-- - 1------------- I =T-=--: I ~I--~--- -'------ --·-----~t=-..---- I I I I I I ----"-- ----~---t-=-=-----=l=-'-=l =:j -II 

t=1=1 I ==t---=~,----J," ~--------~~~=-_- ---_L-...· .. ~.~-E:~- jj It~=-- _ 
CHAPTER. IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

Annual operation, maintenance, 

and replacement costs 

Salinity control facilities 

Personnel $94,900 

Equipment J9,700 

Supplies 27,800 

POIver ]07,900 

Major replacements 45,700 

Pumping plant operation and 

maintenance costs 14,300 

Subtotal 330,300 

Wildlife area 2,000 

Total 332,300 

Financial and Economic Analyses 

Benefits 

Benefits from construction of the Paradox Valley Unit would accrue 

to users of Colorado River water both within and outside of the Colorado 

River Basin. As rliscussed in Chapter II, a Bureau of Reclamation study 

has estimated that water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin experience costs of about $230,000 annually for each mg/l of salinity in the 

range of 800 to 1, 000 mg/1. Consequently, the sa I ini ty reduction of 

18.2 mg/l attributable to the Paradox Valley Unit woulrt result in tangible monetary benefits of about $4,186,000 annually for such users. 

Other Colorado River I,Tater users, both l,;rithin and outside the 

basin, I,'ould also benefit fr.om the salinity reductions of the Paradox 

Valley and other units of the basinwide salinity control program. 

Because of the widespread and diffuse nature of these benefits, however, 

they cannot be fully quantified in monetary terms. Some of the benefits 

would occur directly, such as those that would be realized hy users of 

water for cuI inary purposes and for irrigation. Addibonal benefits 

would occur indirectly, while others would he difficult to identify, 

particularly those accruing to users of fossil or other fuels processed 

with Colorado River water. 

Cost allocation and repayment 

In accordance with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, 

75 percent of the total costs of construction, eperation, maintenance, 

and rE'placement for each of the four authorized units of the salinity 

control program I,Jould be nonreimbursable. The remaining 25 percent 

would be reimbursable and would he allo~ated between the Lower Colorado 

River Basin Development Fund and Lhe Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, 

with no more than 15 percent of the reimbursable costs allocated to Lhe 

44 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT 

upper basin fund. The authorizing legislation also directs that the 

Secretary of the Interior, after consulting with representatives of the 

basin states who form the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory 

Council, make the final allocation of reimbursable costs on the basis of 

the benefits to be derived in each basin, the causes of salinity, and 

the avaLlability of revenues in the two basin funds. The reimbursable 

costs would be repaid without interest within a 50-year period after the 

unit became operational. The nonreimbursable costs and the reimbursable 

costs to be repaid from each basin fund are shO\"D in the table on the 

following page based upon an allocation of 15 percent of the reimbursable costs to the upper basin fund and 85 percent to the lower basin 

fund. The costs of the cultural resource program would he nonreimbursable under Public Law 93-291. The annual operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs of the wildlife program vmuld be repaid by the administering agency, which is expected to be the Colorado Div is:ion of 

Wildli fe. 

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by the Salinity Control 

Act to increase the rates charged for electricity generated by the Colorado River Storage Project to provide revenues for repayment of the 

Upper Colorado River Basin I s share of the reimbursable costs of the 

Paradox Valley Unit and other units authorized by the Act. Rates 

chargeable to cover such costs were included in a rate schedule (UC-F2) 

announced by the Assistant Secretary of the Interior on March 14, J977. 

The nonreimbursable portion of the annual operation, !TIa 1ntenance, and 

replacements costs would be funded by annual congressional 

appropriations. 

Cost per mg/1 of salinity reduction 

The annual cost for each mg/1 of salinity reduction in the Colorado 

River at Imperial Dam is estimated at $192,700 annually, based upon an 

annual equivalent cost of $3,507,300 and an annual reduction of about 

18.2 mg/l. The annual equivalent cost consists of the sum of the annual 

value of the capital investment amortized over the estimated IOO-year 

useful life of the unit at an interest rate of 5 5/8 percent and the 

operati.on, maintenance, and replacement costs less costs of investigations made prior to authorization of the unit. The costs of investigations made prior to authorization have already heen incurred and would 

have no bearing on the decision of undertaking construction. The 

capital investment includes construction costs and interest during 

construction at 5 5/8 percent interest over a 6-year construction 

period. The 5 5/8 percent interest rate was used as it was the rate in 

effect at the time of authorization in FY 1974. The annual cost for 

each mg/l of salinity reduction of the unit is shown on page 47. 

45 
CHAPTER IV PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT
 

Cost allocation and repayment summary 

(Unit--$l,OOO) ----:--'--_.­

Interest Annual 

during con- operation, 

struction maintenance 

Construction (5 5/8 percent and replacpItem cos_t_s for 6 years) ment costs 

Cost allocation 

Salinity control $50,381 $6,269 $332.3 

Cultural resource program 9 .'-- ---:-;-:::--------,:-::-c:---,..--­ Total 50,390 6,269 332.3 

Repayment II 

Reimbursable costs-21 Lower Basin Fund21 10,706 70.2 

Upper Basin Fund­ 1,889 12.4 

Colorado D~yision of 

Wildlife­


Subtotal 12,595
 

Nonreimbursable costs 

Salinity control 37,786 6,269 247.7 

Cultural r source 

program 9 

Subtotal 37,795 6,269 247.7 

Total 50,390 6,269 332.3 ---;--;---:;:---­ II In accordance with the authorizing legislation, 25 percent of 

the t~tal construction and operation, maintenance, and replacement costs 

would be reimbursable. The costs of the cultural resource program, 

however, would be nonreimbursable in accordance with Public Law g3-291. 

Congressional approval would be required for including expenditures 

for wildlife mitigation. 

~I In accordance with the authorizing legislation, not less 

than 85 percent of the reimbursable costs would he repaid by the Lower 

Colorado River Basin Development Fund, and not more than 15 perc 'nt 

would be repaid by the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. 

31 It is assumed that all of the operation, maintenance, and 

repla~ement costs for the wildlife area would be repaid by the 

administering agency, which is expected to be th2 Colorado Division of 

Wildlife. 

46 
I --t 

11 CONSTRUCTION PROGRMI 

2 

3 

Brine Well Field 

Hydrogen Sulfide Stripping Plant 

'I 23 Hells 

5 Cfs 2,300,000 

576.960 

5,900,000 

Radium Dam, Dike and Evaporation Pond 86.800 AF 33.000.000

Brine Pipeline 

5 

221 I I i'TTTTTriTTT1~ I T I I , I I I f I i 1-"-"--'1I I I I I I r I I I ! I , '---.--rT"l-n--., I j I 22 

231 I I I I I I I I I 123 

flli- I I I F:I:;:;:1~::::::::~:::;'::1:;,:~:::;:~::::;::+::;::::1

ESTIMATED TOTAL	 FISCAL YEARS PROGRAM ITEM QUANTITY TOTAl. TO 1978 1979 1980 1981
 

w SEP,. 30, 1977
 z
 

::i 1 -2- 3 I 4 5 6 7 8
 

Brine Pipeline Pumping	 Plants 5 Cfs 4.800,000 i 721.253 h-TTTn.-' 

6
 600.000 1.750,000 L,. 510.000 8,000.000

7
 40.000 Transmission Lines and	 Substations 590,000 -rt I
 

8
 10,000 20.000 50,000 100.000 Permanent Operating Facilities 595,000 j 25,423
 

9
 50,000 100.000 11
 OE,M Housing	 390,000 I 1 I I 1,--",,1 n 

10
 40.000 250,000 130.000 Temporary Camp	 420,000 h-r-r,­

11
 h,. ~_20,000 85,000 430,000 260,000 Service Facilities, Depreciation and Salvage	 ~580,000 21,408 " 

J~~~3T2,920 2,,358,000 6,J40,000 11,491,000 121 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST	 49.315.000 1,910,679 --,.- n--r---rT-rT rri 

I
 

13 360,000 109,000 Other Project Costs 1/	 1,075,000 455,600 -,-r-r;-.n!---rrn·,r 

14
 1,372,920 I 2,358,000 6,700,000 11,600,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST	 50,390,000 2,366,279 --,

15
 Consolidated Expenditures and Creclits	 -479,000 I -468,154 h','niT1TTT,f,-rr--rrr,r 

I
 1,372,920 '----1 2,358,000 6,700,000 11,600,000 16'TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,911,000 I 1,898,125 h-rWrTTTTTr', it I I I I I~rnTTTTrnTtnTrTr
 

171 Undelivered Orders 37 ,---,	 511 I, ' -37,511 I
 I


,18 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS V	 ,.49,911 000 1,935,636 1,335,409 2,358,00? 6,700'1~9~._~~_00.oOO

'1 19 Funds Available	 1,335,f,09 

20 Funds ReQuired I
 ",' , • 2,358,OOO,~6,700,000 ,...,:r-~_OO 000 

21 ' , 

In ,	 I' I
 

NOTES: 1. Definite Plan Report scheduled for submission December 19]7. 

2. Repayment Contract	 RECOMMENDED, - none required. (Operating Office Head; (Do,e) 3. Land Certification	 - none required. RECOMMENDED, Lf. Draft Environmental	 Statement - scheduled for filing with (Regional Director)	 (Dote) Council on Environmental Quality }Iarch 1978. 

RECOMMENDED, 5. Salinity Reduction	 - 180,000 tons/year. (Cni~f, Div. of P C & F) (Date) 

APPROVED, 1./ Total to September	 30, 1977, includes $1,280,133 advance planning Ir __ .._·

• l'T'rf ,-rr-r-rro-l-.-. 

.(.OO.OQQ 200.000 200.000 500.000 58,110 

300.gg9. I 1,150,000 334,282 f-r-r-rr -rT1

30o,_qgo : 1. 000. 000 

;'F'-2 (3,76\ UNITED STATES
 

. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Reclamation 

CONTROL SCHEDULE
 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT
 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT 

_.D_U!Hngo ,,,s:.;;~~<;..t::.~(t0..-	 -Upc, b-,~9V uc 

1982
 

9
 

L-., 

700.000 

2,350,000 

1. 700.000 

12.000.000 

300.000 

200.000 

240.000 

-270,000 

17,450,000 

150,000 

17.600.000 

17,600.000 

I
 

17 600 000
 

_
 

17,600 000
 

BALANCE 0 1983 TO z 

COMPLETE _ 

10 oJ 11
 

I I I 1 

441.890 

1.765,718	 4
 

1.078.747	 5
 

~'InitiaI

5.563.040" Storage	 6
 

250.000 7
 

189,577 8
 

9
 

10
 

1,126,408 III
 

8.392.401 12 i
 

400
 13
 

8.392.801 '14 

-10,846 15
 

8.381.955 16) 

I' •. p 1
 iI

8.381	 9)5 J~
 

191
 

8.381 955	 20
 

,-~1211
 

25 
CHAPTER T 

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

Introduction 

This chapter contains a summary of the anticipated environmental 

impacts of the Paradox Valley Unit. More detailed information is 

available in a draft environmental statement (INT DES 78-19) which was 

filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 11, 1978. A 

final environmental statement accommodating comments on the· draft and 

including additional information where necessary would have to be on 

file with the EPA for 30 days before a decision could be made on whether 

or not to proceed with construction. 

Environmental Impacts 

Unit setting 

The Paradox Valley Unit would have both short- and long-term 

impacts on the local setting. Construction vJOrk wou] d temporarily 

detract from the natural landscape. Although revegetation would be 

accomplished by reseeding along the alignments of the buried pipelines 

and cleared areas surrounding surface structures, recovery would occur 

slowly because of the arid climate, particularly where pinyon-juniper 

woodland would be removed along the pipeline. 

The surface facilities of the unit would a]ter the landscape over a 

longer period of time. Only the hydrogen sulfide stripping plant and 

brine pipeline pumping plants would be visible from highways and communities in the valley. The pipeline would create a long-term scar on 

the divide between the valley and Dry Creek Basin. The evaporation 

pond, although located in the more isolated Dry Creek Basin, would have 

the largest adverse effect, gradually creating a salt flat of about 

3,630 surface acres at the end of the 100-year period of unit operation. 

Economic and social conditions 

The improved water quality resulting from the unit would have total 

economi c benefits of about $4,186,000 annually in the Lower Colorado 

Basin, based upon an estimated reduction in salinity of 18.2 mg/l and a 

benefit value of $230,000 per mg/l of reduction. This improvement would 

have a major beneficial impact on more than 14 million municipal and 

industrial water users, particularly in the Los Angeles-San Diego area, 

and on about one million acres of irrigated farmland in southern 

Cali tornia and Arizona. The aVlngs associated ",i.t.h munici.pal and 

49 
CHAPTER V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

industrial use would occur primarily from decreased costs for ,vater 

treatment, reduced pipe corrosion and appliance wear, decreased use of 

soaps and detergents, and improved palatability of drinking water. For 

irrigators, the salinity reduction would result in increased crop 

yields, more uniform crop patterns, decreased leaching and drainage 

requirements, and decreased management costs. 

The influx of construction workers would increase the popillation of 

the unit area by an average of about 9 percent (252 people) during the 

6-year construction period, with a maximum increase of 18 percent (540 

people) in the fifth year. In the long term the unit would have 

essentially no effect on population. 

The expendi ture of llni t cons lruction funds ,,,auld s t imula te the 

economy of the unit area and of nearby commercial centers such as Moab, 

t"lontros Grand Jllllction, and Cortez. Salaries would total abollt $15 

million, with a peak of $5 million in the fifth year for construction 

for 340 workers, and a good portion of this money ,,,ould be spent for 

goods and services within or near the area. In addition, about 79 jobs 

annually would he created indirectly to provide these goods oud 

services. Reclamation exper'ience ,,,ith similar projects indicates that 

most of the direct employment ,,'auld be filled by workers [rom outside 

the unit area. ~Iost of the indirect employment would occur in nearby 

commercial cent rs and would be filled by residents of those areas. 

Nearly all of the construction force would residp in mobile homes, 

since housing vilcancies are extremely scarce in the area. Temporary 

strains would be placed on utilitles, educational and health facilities, 

police and firt' jHotectioll, and other community servjces. As a result> 

levels of servi ee ,-,'ould tempora ri 1y decrease. 

Air quality and noise levels 

The unit would not hav adverse long-term effects on air quaJity or 

noise levels, al though the use of heavy machinery and blast_ing during 

construction \.,Tould temporarily caus increases in dust and noise. The 

hydrogen sulf' de stripping plant would have a localized beneficial 

effect on air quality by essentially eliminating the offensive odor of 

the gas near the Dolores River. 

Mineral development 

Radium Evaporation Pood and the surrounding wildlife area ,,'ould 

have possible adverse eff cts on future mineral development for uranium 

deposits that apparently underlie the site at depths of 900 to 1,500 

feet, Because of this possibility, the Bureau of Mines has recommended 

in an attached report that another' site be sough.t for the evaporation 

pond. The Bureau of Reclamation has not been able to identify another 

desirable s~Le iu Dry Cret:~k Basin, bu\"ever, 3nJ al any raL Lhe entire 

50 
CHAPTER V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

basin appears to be underlain by the same uranium-bearing formation. 

The only alternative site capable of handling 5 cfs of brine would be in 

Sinbad Valley, a collapsed salt anticline located north of Paradox 

Valley. This site would be considerably more expensive than the proposed one and poses serious geological problems of its own, as discussed 

ln more detail in Chapter VI. 

Union Carbide Corporation holds mineral rights at the pond site and 

has been conducting exploratory drilling to determine \.;hether or not 

there are any large enough deposits to warrant commercial extrartion. 

The Bureau has maint.ained contact with the corporation concerning the 

Paradox Valley Unit and submitted a copy of the draft environmental statement for its review. Although the evaporation pond would not physically 

preclude uranium development, it would restrict the possible locations 

of surface mining structures and, consequently, increase the costs of 

extraction. The amount of the increase and whether or not it \vould 

effectively prohibit development would depend upon the presence, magnitude, and location of any significant ore bodies. Since this information is not available, the extent of the pond's impact, or whether there 

would in fact be any significant impact, cannot he ascertained. 

Water resources 

The unit would deplete the lower Dolores and Colorado Rivers by a 

maximum of 3,950 acre-feet annually consisting of 3,600 acre-feet of 

brine and 350 acre-feet of precipitation and natural runoff at the 

evaporation pond site. Although an average of about 2,600 acre-feet of 

precipitation and runoff would actually be evaporated each year, as 

discussed in Chapter IV, the Bureau estimates that only about 350 acrefeet would have othen"lse entered the Dolores River through the San 

Miguel River. The remaining 2,250 acre-feet would be lost through 

evapotranspiration in the Dry Creek drainage area under natural conditions. 

Water qual ity 

By removing 180,000 tons of salt annuaUy, the unit would reduce 

the salinity of the lower Colorado River by about 18.2 mg/l, based on 

1976 modified conditions of development in the river basin. These 

conditions use available hydrologic records on the period 1941-74 and 

assume that alL projects constructed or under construction as of 1976 

had been under full scale operations for the entire period of record. 

The reduction in salinity would be more notice<:.ble upstream, with an 

estimated redtiction of 30 mg/l just below the confluence of the Colorado 

and Dolores Rivers. The unit \.;ould have a dramatic effect. on salt. 

concentrations in the Dolores River, with average reductions of 474 mg/l 

just belo\.J the brine \.Jell field and 304 rngjl just below the mouth of the 

San Miguel River. 

51 
CHAPTER V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The unit would have no effect on nutrients, coliform bacteria, or 

heavy metals. It would also have no effect on turbidity in the long 

term, although construction work may temporarily increase turbidity 

levels in Paradox Valley. 

Fish 

The unit would have a major beneficial impact on the 7 miles of the 

Dolores River from Paradox Valley to the mouth of the San Miguel River 

by reducing the average annual salinity level from 729 mg/l to about 255 

mg/l. Fishes such as the speckled dace, flannelmouth sucker, bluehead 

sucker, roundtail chub, red shiner, fathead minnow, and black bullhead 

could inhabit this reach whenever sufficient flows were available (estimated at about three out of every four years under future conditions). 

The unit would also slightly improve the year-round fishery that now 

exists in the 63 miles of the Dolores River between the confluence of 

the San Miguel River and the confluence of the Colorado River. 

Fisheries in the Colorado River would not be significantly affected, 

since the change in salinity would be relatively small. 

\.Ji Idlife 

Unit construction would temporarily disturb wildlife because of 

noise, dust, blasting, the movement of men and equipment, and the temporary removal of vegetation in work areas. The more mobile and 

adaptable species would move from the cons truction sit.es to adj acent 

habitat that is already at it.s carrying capacity, which would lead t.o 

losses of animals and a deteriorat.ion of the habit.at. Other species 

would incur direct losses at the work sites. 

The only big game species significantly affected in the long term 

by the unit would be the mule deer and the pronghorn. The evaporation 

pond would gradually inundate 3,630 acres of range now used by deer in 

the winter and pronghorn year-round, but this acreage is small compared 

to the t.otal range in the area. The pronghorn population is now limit.ed 

by predation and livestock competition, however, and not by a lack of 

available range. The development of the proposed wildlife area would 

potentially compensate for any big game losses at the site and \-,Iould 

also provide better pronghorn habitat than now exists. 

The only small game mammal identified in the area, the desert 

cottontail, would probably benefit slightly from the unit. Revegetation 

along the pipeline alignment and t.he development of the wildlife area 

would provide a habitat of better quality than is now found in the area. 

Furbearers such as the long-t.ailed weasel, gray fox, striped skunk, and 

badger would also benefit slightly from these changes in habitat. Among 

other furbearers the beaver and muskrat would benefit from additional 

riparian and submerged vegetation resulting from the reduced salinity in 

the river. The only varmint affected would be the raccoon, which \.Jould 

52 
CHAPTER·V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

also benefit from the increased vegetation along the river. Nongame 

mammals would not be significantly changed in terms of population 

density, but habitat modifications would alter the species composition 

by favoring certain species, such as the deer mouse and western harvest 

mouse, over others. 

The unit would have beneficial impacts on some raptors and advprse 

impacts on others but would cause a slight overall decrease in raptor 

use of the area. Hunting habitat h'ould generally be improved for most 

species. The only game bird significantly affected would be the sage 

grouse, which could increase in population as a result of the wildlife 

area around the evaporation pond. Waterfowl and shorebirds \.;ould be 

beneficially affected by improved habitat along the Dolores Riv t, but 

waterfowl could possibly suffer losses at the evaporation pond. Studies 

now being conducted indicate that prolonged exposure to the brine would 

he dangerous because of dehydration and hypothermia, but that the birds 

would not be likely to remain on the pond long enough to be harmed. 

Field studies are planned to determine the impacts of the pond, and the 

results will be available for review by any interested parties. 

The unit would generally have no significant impacts on nongame 

birds, since the improved riparian vegetation on the Dolores River and 

the wildlife area would largely compensate for habitat losses. Revegetation along the pipeline would alter species diversity but woulo not 

affect species density. 

Amphibians \"ould benefit from the unit. Brine pools and salt deposits along the river ...mulct be replaced by freshwater pools filled 

during spring floods, and the water retention structures in the wildlife 

area would also provide some habitat for amphibians. Reptiles would experience overall declines in populations, although a few species could 

benefit from the habitat modifications. Generally, revegetation along 

the pipeline and the development of the wildlife area would compensate 

for losses caused by clearing and inundation. In addition, the gradual 

improvement of riparian habitat along the Dolores River downstream of 

the well field would also benefit wildlife. 

Threatened or endangered species 

The peregrine falcon and the bald eagle are the only threatened or 

endangered species of fish or wi ldlife identified in the uni t area. 

Possible effects on an active peregrine falcon aerie in the unl t area 

have been investigated by the Fish and Wildlife Service, in accordance 

with requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 

Service reports that the improved riparian vegetation resulting from the 

unit could enhance hunting areas for the falcon. The unit in all likelihood would not jeupardize the falcon or adversely effect its critical 

habitat (see attached letter of October 18, 1977). The Bureau of Land 

Mahagemeut will iniLiaLe a monitoring program and close the nesting area 

53 
CHAPTER V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

seasonally (March I to August 1) to public use and development. Based 

on recommendations of the Fish and Wildlife Service the Bureau of 

Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wi ldlife Service, ano 

Colorado Division of Wildlife would cooperate to ensure adequate protection, determine the extent .of breeding area, and identify the exact 

aerie location. Habitat for the bald eagle would be slightly decreased, 

but the area is not considered to be essential for the species. No 

nesting areas have been observed. 

Cultural resources 

One prehistorical site and one historical site would be inundated 

by the evaporation pond. Neither site has been listed on nor formally 

evaluated for eligibility for the National Register of Historic-.E.lace~.

As discussed in Chapter IV, an evaluation and, if necessary, a mitigation program would be undertaken as part of the unit construction. 

Land ownership and use 

As discussed in Chapter IV, a total of about 7,891 acres, including 

5,381 acres of private land and 2,510 acres of public land now administered by the Bureau of Land Management, vwuld be acquired for unit 

features. Nearly all of the private land is in San Miguel County, and 

the acquisition for the unit would reduce county tax revenues by less 

than 1 percent. 

The acquisition of private land would adversely affect two landOI-mers who would lose a total of 4,990 acres in Dry Creek Basin. One 

owner has a small ranching operation and would lose over half of his 

land, with a resulting decrease in grazing permits on nearby public 

land. Consequently, the operation could become uneconomical if replacemen t land with adequa te grazing permits could not be found. The uneconomical unit, which would total about 830 acres, would be acquired as 

part of the project if the owner so desires. The second owner has an 

estensive operation and would be affected much less seriously, although 

his income would be slightly reduced. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects - . 

The unit structures, although located in a relatively isolated 

area, would alter the local setting and would be visually unattractive 

to some people. The greatest change 1,lould be a'.:. the evaporation pond 

site and would occur fairly slowly as the pond filled. 

The influx of construction workers over a 6-year period would 

adversely affect social conditions by placing temporary strains on 

utilities, educational and medical facilities, police and fire protection, and other cOlllmunity servi.ces. Long-lerrn economic illlpa Ls would 

54 
CHAPTER V ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

be potential improvements in habitat for pronghorns, furbearers, 

varmints, and for some species of small game and nongame mammals, 

raptors, and gamebirds. 

The gains of the unit would occur at the expense of some long-term 

environmental losses. The unit structures would permanently disrupt the 

existing scenery of the area. Radium Evaporation Pond could restcict 

future exploration and development of potential uranium deposits underlying the site. The unit would also result in long-term losses by removing 3,658 acres for use for livestock grazini and wildlife habitat. 

Although the resulting impacts on wi IdEfe populations \"ould be mi tigated, there would still be long-term reductions for certain species of 

nongame mammals, game and nongame birds, raptors, and reptiles. There 

could also be losses of waterfowl at the evaporation pond, but studies 

on this impact are not completed. Two archaeological sites would be 

permanently lost. 

To a certain degree the construction and operation of the unit 

would foreclose some options for future development of resources. The 

funds, fuels, pm"er, labor, materials, and land required for the unit 

would not be available for other uses. Water depleted from the river, 

although insignificant, \,'ould not be available for alternative llses. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

The operation of the unit as planned would require an irreversible 

commitment of up to 3,950 acre-feet of water annually and a total of 

7,891 acres of land now used primarily for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. The commitment of land would include 3,876 acres for 

salinity control facilities, 3,660 acres for a developed wildlife area, 

and 355 acres of additional right-of-way. About 15,200,000 kilO\"atthours of electricity annually would be committed to project operations 

and would be unavailable for other potential uses. Also committed \"ould 

be two archaeological sites and the existing scenery of the unit area, 

as well as the funds, fuel, power, labor, and materials required for 

construction and operation. 

56
 
CHAPTER VI 

ALTERNATIVES 

Introduction 

The Bureau of Reclamation has studied several methods of reducing 

the salt contributions in Paradox Valley, but has been generally unable 

to identify economically feasible alternatives to the proposed plan. 

Alternatives studied have questionable effectiveness and stability, and 

would be considerably more expensive than the proposed plan. In most 

cases the alternative would have to be constructed and operated for a 

long period of time to determine whether or not it would be effective. 

This chapter discusses two alternatives to the proposal. In one 

plan, Radium Evaporation Pond would be replaced by a pond in Sinbad 

Valley to the north of Paradox Valley, which is the only other site in 

or near the unit area that would be suitable for disposing of brine at a 

maximum rate of 5 cfs. The site has serious geological problems, however, and is of questionable feasibility. The other plan is based upon 

diverting the Dolores River into a lined bypass channel to be constructed across Paradox Valley. The brine ground water would continue 

to surface in the natural flood plain of the river and would form an 

evaporation pond in the middle of the valley. The feasibility of this 

plan is also questionable, as discussed in more detail belo'N. The 

estimated costs of the proposed plan and the two alternatives are shown 

in the following table. The cost per mg/l of salinity reduction is 

based on the assumption that each plan would reduce the salinity of the 

Colorado River at Imperial Dam by 18.2 mg/l. 

Cost summary of alternatives 

Cost per 

Construction Annual mg/l of 

costs 

1977 

(January 

prices) 

equiva1!nt 

costsalinity 

reduction 

Proposed plan $50,390,000 $3,498,000 $192,200 

Alternative plans 

Sinbad Valley Evaporation Pond 162,500,000 10,484,000 576,000 

Dolores River bypass 

channel 56,000,000 3,700,000 203,300 

1/ Includes the capital investment and interest during construction amortized over a 100-year period at 5 5/8 percent interest and 

annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. 

57 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

The Bureau also considered three alternative methods which were 

discarded because of doubtful practicality and which are therefore not 

included in this chapter. One of these would involve desalting the 

moderate and low flows of the Dolores River immediately downstream from 

the brine area, returning the desalted water to the river channel and 

piping the effluent to Radium Evaporation Pond for disposal. The 

surfacing brine itself could not be treated, since it is already saltier 

than the plant effluent from a desalting plant. This alternative would 

remove much less salt than the proposal, would have excessively high 

construction and operation costs, and would require large amounts of 

electric power. 

The second method would be to establish a freshwater lake over the 

zone of brine inflow to develop a positive head over the aquifer and 

thus reduce or prevent brine inflow into the river. This method would 

require the construction of a dam with outlet works and would inundate a 

large acreage of bottom and agricultural land and a number of farm homes 

in the Bedrock town area. Consequently, due to the high cost to investigate, the large adverse environmental impact to the area, and most 

of all the inability to determine the overall effectiveness for a nl~ber

of years, the method was rejected. 

The third method would be to identify the source or sources of 

ground water recharge, then drill wells and pump the fresh water before 

it comes in contact with the salt dome beneath Paradox Valley. The 

potential recharge area is very large, however, including West and East 

Paradox Valley, the valley walls, and the nearby La Sal Mountains; and 

the amount of recharge that must be specifically identified is quite 

small at about 1 cfs. Recharge may also be diffused over the entire 

area rather than restricted to within smaller localities. As a consequence, identifying and controlling the recharge would be very costly 

with only limited results. 

In addition to studying alternatives to the proposed plan, the 

Bureau has considered several measures that may be feasible if the 

design data collection program shows that a well field pumping rate of 

about 2 cfs rather than the proposed rate of 5 cfs would effectively 

remove most of the salt now entering the river. As pointed out in 

Chapter IV, the data collection program could demonstrate that a pumping 

rate of less than 5 cfs would be sufficient. If the well field proves 

to be highly efficient, a long-term rate in the range of 2 cfs would 

control the brine, since the brine inflow is estimated at an average of 

0.8 cfs and a maximum of 2.1 cfs. Consequently, the Bureau has estimated the effects of modifying the proposed plan by reducing the design 

capacities of the unit facilities and has also formulated several 

alternatives for brine disposal that may be possible at a reduced 

pumping rate. Three of these alternatives would replace Radium Evaporation Pond with alternative ponds, and another would involve the 

58 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

injection of brine into deep wells. In each case the brine well field, 

hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, and modified brine pipelines would be 

required. 

The estimated construction costs and the cost effectiveness of the 

small-scale plans are shown in the following table, based on the assumption that the reduction in salinity would be about 18.2 mg/l for each 

plan. Costs have not been estimated for deep well injection, however, 

since it is not possible to determine the number of disposal wells 

required for a 100-year period of unit operations. The alternative plan 

of constructing the Dolores River bypass channel is also shown, since 

its capacity, costs, and effectiveness are based upon the flow of the 

Dolores River rather than a brine pumping rate. 

Cost summary of small-scale plans 

(well field pumping rate of 2 cfs) 

Construc­ Cost per 

tion costs Annual mg/l of 

(January 

1977 prices) 

equiva17nt 

costsalinity reduction 

Modified Radium Evaporation Pond $34,800,000 $2,379,000 $130,700

Modified Sinbad Valley 

Evaporation Pond 108,400,000 6,754,000 371 ,100

East Paradox Valley 

Evaporation Pond 58,700,000 3,910,000 214,800

West Paradox Valley 

128,002/ 

Unknown2,330,290 

Unknown35,400,290 UnknownEvaporation Ponds 

Deep Well Injection 

Dolores River Bypass 

Channel 

!/ Includes the 

56,000,000 

capital investment and 

3,700,000 

interest during 

203,300 

construction 

amortized over a 100-year period at 5 5/8 percent interest and annual 

operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. 

2/ The Bureau estimates that each injection well would cost about 

$3.5 million, as discussed later in this chapter, but cannot determine 

the total number of wells required or the total cost of the plan. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Plan 

Sinbad Valley Evaporation Pond 

This alternative would involve pumping 5 cfs of brine from the 

existing well field to an evaporation pond in Sinbad Valley, a collapsed 

salt anticline located about 13 miles north of the well field. After 

being pumped from the wells, the brine would be collected and piped to 

59 
/ 

-/ ./ 

'1 

, S· bad Valley t\~
 In . Pond {t<
 

I EvaporatIon t"~
 

I \ o.,ll \S\ 1 \ ~~,/ I "'~""' 1 ' . }' _ Brine Pipeiine i 

i _ ,,~c' jI I M'" C<C ,,," I0250,000 -~ " ; MON"OO' Cf; "~__ I -l..-\;~~"IJr~-- Relift E=--=:i~Statut. M,I•• 

Pumpin 

Plant 

b 

\ f2 \ 

\ ~~

~'~~

I

l _T"'+' 

- CONTROL PROJEC :::':~,c,' --COLORADO R~~~AOOX R BASIN VALLEY SALlN~~~COLO'AOO U ORATION POND ,"j 'f 

SINBAD VALLEY EVAP \ 

60 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

an adjacent hydrogen sulfide stripping plant on the west side of the 

Dolores River for treatment. Because of very rugged terrain between the 

plant and the pond site, the brine would then be conveyed in a buried 

pipeline for about 26 miles downstream along the Dolores River and about 

3.7 miles up Salt Creek, an intermittent stream which drains Sinbad 

Valley and joins the river. A high-lift pumping plant would be required 

near the confluence of the two streams to lift the brine through a total 

vertical distance of about 1,060 feet into the pond, with power obtained 

from an existing transmission line along the river about 1 mile to the 

east. 

The evaporation pond would be formed by the construction of a large 

earthfill dam across Salt Creek on the downstream side of the valley. 

About 413 feet high and 1,440 feet long at the crest, the dam would contain an estimated 9,800,000 cubic yards of material (about four times as 

much as Radium Dam and Dike combined). The pond, which would have a 

useful life of 100 years at the maximum brine discharge rate of 5 cfs, 

would have a total capacity of about 245,000 acre-feet (over twice as 

large as the proposed Radium Evaporation Pond), but a surface area of 

only 2,280 acres (about one third smaller). The additional capacity 

would be required for two reasons. First, the pond would have to store 

and evaporate a larger volume of average annual precipitation and surface runoff than occurs in Dry Creek Basin. Second, because of the 

valley's steep topography a large capacity would be necessary to create 

an adequate surface area for evaporation. Even as now designed, the 

surface area would not be large enough for annual evaporation to equal 

the average annual inflow of brine, precipi ta tion, and surface runoff 

during the 100-year period of operations. Consequently, the pond would 

consist primarily of brine with a small amount of deposited salt at the 

end of the unit life, and only after a long period of time would all of 

the water evaporate and leave an exposed salt flat. 

Because of serious geologic problems, the construction of an evaporation pond in the valley would probably not be feasible. The dam would 

require a large amount of material, and there is no known quantity of 

suitable material in the area. Large scale seepage could also be a 

severe hazard, and an expensive lining would be required for the pond. 

The valley floor is the residual cap of a salt dome, composed of gypsum 

and soluble materials like those found beneath Paradox Valley, and would 

consequently be unacceptable for a pond basin. The valley walls would 

also be highly capable of transmitting water, since the strata dip away 

from the pond site, are highly fractured, and are characterized by 

collapsed fault blocks. The estimated costs cf the alternative are 

suwnarized in the tabulation on the following page. 

61
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Brine well field $1,600,000 

H S stripping plant 2,200,000 2Brine pipeline 7,000,000 

Pumping plant 1,700,000 

Evaporation pond 150,000,000 

Total construction costs 162,500,000 

Interest during construction 18,500,000 

Total investment 181,000,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 10,200,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 240,000 

Power 44,000 

Total 10,484,000 

Per mg/l of salinity reduction 576,000 

Dolores River bypass channel 

This alternative would involve diverting the Dolores River out of 

its natural channel, routing it across Paradox Valley in a channel constructed of impervious material, and allowing the brine and fresher 

ground water to evaporate in the natural flood plain where they now 

surface. Intermittent flows of East Paradox Creek would also be evaporated, but the flows of West Paradox Creek would be diverted into the 

bypass channel, which would be located to the west of the present 

riverbed. 

At the upstream side of the valley an earthfill diversion dam 80 

feet high and 1,000 feet long at the crest, combined with a cutoff wall, 

would force all of the surface and subsurface flows of the river into 

the bypass channel, which would have a total length of about 5 miles. 

The eastern bank of the channel, with a height of about 52 feet above 

the natural riverbed, \.iould prevent the maximum probable rive rflow of 

74,200 cfs from spilling into the brine evaporation area. The western 

bank would be lower, about 22 feet high, and would contain the estimated 

25-year flood of 11,600 cfs. Although larger flows would spillover the 

western bank away from the natural river channel and temporarily inundate up to 900 acres, the water would drain out as the flood receded. 

An impervious lining of compacted earth would be placed on the bottom 

and lower sides to handle flows of 3,000 cfs or less, which occur ahout 

95 percent of the time. With larger flows the water level would rise 

into the unlined portion of the banks, where some seepage would occur, 

but the infrequency and short duration of such occurrences would keep 

losses to a minimum. At the downstream side of the valley, the channel 

would end with a concrete drop structure that would discharge the flows 

into the natural riverbed. A second dam and cutoff wall would be 

62 
I 

\ 

i 

\ 

\ 

\ 

o Ou 

u..J 

ZW 

<t::::> 

::::>t:> 

-'i 

Z z 

~~

Seolo 1250,000 

MESA CO. 

MONTROSE CO, 

J~.

r--~--- - ---­ - ----

Nucla 

DOLORES RIVER BYPASS CHANNEl_ 

63
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

constructed across the riverbed just upstream from the drop structure. 

This dam would also be earthfill, with a height of 80 feet and a crest 

length of 850 feet. This structure would prevent the surfacing brine 

from leaving the valley and entering the river downstream from the 

bypass channel. Impounded behind the dam, the brine would form an 

evaporation pond in the natural flood plain of the river. The pond 

would be enclosed by the lower dam on the north, by the bank of the 

bypass channel on the west, and by natural terrain on the south and 

east. With a maximum volume of 58,200 acre-feet and surface area of 

2,630 acres, it would be large enough for a 100-year operational life. 

At its maximum size, the pond would extend across the entire width of 

the valley. 

The long-term effectiveness of this plan is highly questionable, 

since the formation of a large pond on top of the seeps and springs 

could alter the behavior of the ground water. As the pond grew larger, 

the increasing static head created by the water and the precipitated 

salts could gradually overcome the ground water pressure that now forces 

the brine to surface along the river. Consequently, part or all of the 

brine, or perhaps additional brine, could begin to surface at one or 

more locations outside the control area and again enter the river. 

Also, the chances of failure are much greater because of the subsiding 

nature of the ground as the underlying salts were removed and the 

instability of the river channel during floodflows. Another problem 

with this plan would be the availability of construction materials, 

since local sources in the valley are of questionable suitability. 

The plan could be modified by increasing the size of the upper darn 

to provide temporary storage space for floodflows of the Dolores River. 

The stored flows would then be gradually released at a controlled rate 

into the bypass channel, thus allowing the capacity of the channel to be 

decreased. Such a modification does not offer any economic advantage, 

however, since the increased cost of the darn would outweigh the decreased cost of the channel. The estimated costs of the plan are shown 

in the tabulation on the following page. 

64
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES
 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Upper dam and cutoff wall $6,000,000 

Bypass channel 23,000,000 

Lower dam and cutoff wall, evaporation pond 16,000,000 

Drop structure 11,000,000 

Total construction costs 56,000,000 

Interest during construction 6,000,000 

Total investment 62,000,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 3,520,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 180,0_00 

Total 3,700,000 

Per mgll of salinity reduction 203,300 

Smaller Scales of Development 

Modified Radium Evaporation Pond 

If pumping brine from the well field at 2 cfs would reduce the salt 

inflow by about 180,000 tons annually, all of the proposed unit facilities would be reduced in operating capacity. None of them could be 

eliminated, however. The hydrogen sulfide stripping plant, bri.ne pipeline, and pumping plants would all have the same locations as in the 

proposed plan. The most significant change would involve Radium Evaporation Pond, which would be reduced from 86,800 to 36,000 acre-feet in 

capacity and from 3,630 to 1,780 acres in surface area, located entirely 

in the drainage of the l.vest Fork of Dry Creek. Radium Dam would be 

reduced in size to a height of 89 feet and a crest length of 6,000 feet 

but would have the same location. The dike, also considerably smaller 

with a height of 22 feet and a crest length of 5,500 feet, would be 

located on the saddle between the East and West Forks. Because of the 

smaller pond, the wildlife area would also be reduced. A cost summary 

for the plan is shown on the following page. 

65
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Brine well field $1,600,000 

H S stripping plant 1,500,000 2Brine pipeline 3,700,000 

Pumping plants 3,000,000 

Evaporation pond 25,000,000 

Total construction costs 34,800,000 

Interest during construction 3,900,000 

Total investment 38,700,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 2,120,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 224,000 

Power 35,000 

Total 2,379,000 

Per mg/l of salinity reduction 130,700 

Modified Sinbad Valley Evaporation Pond 

This plan would involve pumping the brine to Sinbad Valley for disposal, as discussed earlier, but the H S stripping plant, 29.7-mile 2 brine pipeline, pumping plants, and evaporation pond would be reduced in 

capacity to handle only 2 cfs of brine. The evaporation pond would have 

a maximum capacity of 146,000 acre-feet and a corresponding surface area 

of 1,600 acres. The dam required to form the pond would be about 360 

feet high and 1,400 feet long at the crest. Because of the steep topography of the valley, the wa ter surface of the pond would not be large 

enough for annual evaporation to equal the average annual inflow of 

brine, precipi tation, and surface runoff during the 100-year period of 

operations. Only after a long period of time would all of the water 

evaporate and expose a salt flat. 

Like the larger evaporation pond in Sinbad Valley this pond would 

also have serious geologic problems and would probably not be feasible. 

The problems would include the lack of a known quantity of sui table 

material for construction and the high cost of lining to prevent potential large scale seepage through the valley floor and walls. 

The estimated costs of the plan are summarized in the table on the 

following page. 

66
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Brine well field $1,600,000 

H S stripping plant 1,500,000 2Brine pipeline 4,300,000 

Pumping plant 1,100,000 

Evaporation pond 100,000,000 

Total construction costs 108,500,000 

Interest during construction 11,500,000 

Total investment 115,000,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 6,500,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 224,000 

Power 30,000 

Total 6,754,000 

Per mgll of salinity reduction 371,100 

East Paradox Valley Evaporation Fond 

With a wellfield pumping rate of about 2 cfs, the brine could be 

evaporated at an alternative site about 11 miles southeast of the proposed hydrogen sulfide s tripping plant. A buried pipeline \,7i th three 

pumping plants would convey the brine to the evaporation pond, which 

would be located on a low and relatively flat saddle separating Paradox 

Valley from the northern tip of the Dry Creek drainage. A dike and a 

dam would be constructed to form the pond. The di.ke, located on the 

west side, would have a height of 88 feet and a crest length of 7,970 

feet and would extend across East Paradox Creek. The dam, on the east 

side, would have a height of 180 feet and a crest length of 2,140 feet 

and would be located on an intermittent tributary of Dry Creek. The 

pond would have a total capacity of 65,000 acre-feet and a maximum 

surface area of 1,030 acres. The large capacity would be required to 

produce an adequate area for evaporation of the brine, although evaporation would still occur more slowly than inflow, and few salts would be 

deposi ted during the 100-year period of operations. Eventually, however, an exposed salt flat would replace the brine. 

The loca tion of the dam in this plan presents geologic problems, 

since the foundation \,.,ould be situated on a number of faul t blocks. The 

site is an area of peripheral collapse dividing the main Paradox salt 

cell from a lesser salt cell which underlies this reach of the Dry Creek 

d.rainage. Consequently, an expensive lining would be reqUired for the 

pond. 

The costs for the plan are summarized on the following page. 

67 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Brine well field' $1,600,000 

H S stripping plant 1,500,000 2Brine pipeline 3,600,000 

Pumping plants 2,000,000 

Evaporation pond 50,000,000 

Total construction costs 58,700,000 

Interest during construction 6,300,000 

Total investment 65,000,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 3,670,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 210,000 

Power 30,000 

Total 3,910,000 

Per mg/l of salinity reduction 21 L.,800 

West Paradox Valley Evaporation Ponds 

At a pumping rate of 2 cfs or less, the brine could also be evaporated by a series of eight small ponds located adjacent to the well 

field and in an area extending to the northwest for about 2 miles. The 

hydrogen sulfide stripping plant would also be located on the northwestern side of the well field, and a buried pipeline would extend from 

the plant along the length of the ponds, \"ith a separate turnout and 

valve for each pond. A pumping plant would be installed at the beginning of the pipeline. The ponds would be formed by excavating eight 

basins and using the excavated material to construct surrounding dikes 

that would range in height from 25 to 80 feet. The resulting ponds 

would vary in capacity from 1,670 to 8,900 acre-feet and in surface area 

from 130 to 500 acres. The combined capacities would be about 29,600 

acre-feet. To prevent seepage, the ponds would be lined with impervious 

material, such as butyl rubber, vinyl, or treated clay derived from 

local shale formations such as the Mancos or Morrison. The ponds would 

be constructed one at a time as needed during the 100-year operational 

life of the unit, and the last one would not be completed until about 

the 70th year. As each one was filled with salt deposits, it would be 

covered with earth and seeded. Costs for this plan are shown on the 

following page. 

68
 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

Construction costs (January 1977 prices) 

Brine well field $1,600,000 

H S stripping plant 1,500,000 2Pumping plant 400,000 

Evaporation ponds .u 31,900,000 

Total construction costs 35,400,000 

Interest during construction 4,000,000 

Total investment 39,422,000 

Annual costs 

Amortized investment (100 years 

at 5 5/8 percent interest) 2,155,000 

Operation, maintenance, and 

replacement costs 170,000 

Power 5,000 

Total 2,330,000 

Per mg/l of salinity reduction 128,000 

l/ This value is the present worth of the construction 

costs required for staged construction of the ponds. 

Deep Well Injection 

This plan would involve pumping the brine at a rate of 2 cfs or 

less from the existing well field and injecting it into one or more deep 

wells as a means of disposal. As stated in Chapter IV, the Bureau's 

design data collection program at the brine well field may show that 

(Jumping rates of as low as 2 cfs would effectively control the salt 

influx. In this event, the alternative of deep well injection as a 

means of disposal would warrant further investigation to determine its 

feasibility. The deep wells, located in Paradox Valley near the river, 

would eliminate the need for the brine pipeline and evaporation pond. 

A study by a consulting geologist under contract with the Bureau 

has recommended that in order to evaluate deep well injection two abandoned oil exploration wells, located 1 mile west and 3 1/2 miles southwest of the brine well field, be rehapjlitated and tested to determine 

the feasibility of brine injection.- The closer of the two wells 

extends over L4,000 feet deep into the Mississippian Formation underlying the salt core of Paradox Valley, and the other well extends to a 

depth of 3,742 feet into the Cutler Formation. Because of its extensive 

size, thickness, and noted porosity, the Mississipian Formation could 

possibly provide a suitable subsurface reservoir for the brine. The 

depth to the formation is also a favorable factor, since it is deep 

enough to be unaffected by faults and other structures that could cause 

1/ Turner, Frank P., Feasibility Study of Brine Disposal by Deep 

Well Injection on the Paradox Valley Unit, Colorado River Salinity Control Project, 1975. The report is available at the Bureau of Reclamation in Durango, Colo. 

69 
CHAPTER VI ALTERNATIVES 

leakage to the surface and is also well below any freshwater circulation 

and confined by the thick layer of salt immediately above it. 

To dispose of brine, the oil well nearer the brine well field would 

be rehabilitated, tested, and drilled to a greater depth if the tests 

showed that this would open up more porous zones. A short, buried 

pipeline would convey the brine from the hydrogen sulfide stripping 

plant, and a pumping plant would be installed to compress the existing 

formation water and thus force the brine into the formation. If necessary, additional surface facilities would be constructed to pretreat the 

brine by filtration or by the addition of chemicals in order to prevent 

it from clogging the pore spaces of the formation. When necessary, the 

second oil well would also be rehabilitated for use. 

Deep well injection would involve several problems. Even if the 

formation could receive brine without significant problems, which has 

not been established, a large number of new wells would probably be required to provide an operational life of 100 years for the unit, although the number cannot be estimated. Some wells would probably encounter impervious aLeas of the formation and would have to be 

abandoned, and the successful wells would probably exhibit a great deal 

of variation in the rate of brine they could receive and the storage 

area available for brine. Another disadvantage is that a considerable 

amount of electric power would be required for inj ection, since the 

formation already contains ground water and a storage space for the 

pumped brine must therefore be created. Most previous cases of successful deep well injection have involved the injection of fluids into 

an underground reservoir to replace oil that has been pumped out. This 

situation does not exist in Paradox Valley, and the long-term effectiveness of forcing brine into an aquifer without also removing the existing 

formation water or the feasibility of preventing the brine from recirculating has not been demonstrated. 

The total construction cost of this plan would depend upon the 

number of wells ultimately required to inject brine for an operational 

period of 100 years. Turner estimates that the cost of rehabilitating 

the two wells and installing surface pretreatment facilities would be 

less than $1,000,000. The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that the cost 

of installing each new injection INell would be about $3.5 million. 

Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs would be very high, 

primarily because of the large power requirements and the probability 

that a large number of wells would be required for long-term control of 

the brine inflow. 

70 
REPORTS OF COOPERATI G AGENClES 
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

January 21, 1977 

Memorandum 

To:	 Regional Director 

Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

From:	 Area Manager 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Subject:	 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, 

Paradox Valley Unit, CO (BR) 

This advance planning aid memorandum on the subject project furnishes our 

analysis of project impacts on fish and wildlife resources and our recommendations to offset these impacts. It has been prepared under the authority of the Fish and \vildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 

16 U. S.C. 661 et. seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(P.L. 91-190; 83 Stat. 852-856), and with the cooperation of the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife. 

The most important adverse impact of the Paradox Valley Unit will result 

from the construction of Radium Dam and Reservoir. Ppproximately 3,000 

acres of wildlife habitat will be lost as a result of this project feature. 

The area within the reservoir basin is mule deer winter range and antelope range. In addition to loss of big game range, the area contains a 

good sage grouse	 population. The reservoir would inundate sage grouse 

breeding grounds	 and feeding areas. 

Radium Reservoir	 Basin offers a wide variety of vegetative and habitat 

types that are ideal hunting areas for raptors. Golden and bald eagles, 

kestrel, rough-legged hawk as well as other raptors are commonly seen 

within the project area. 

As required by the Water Resources Council, Principles and Standards, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has developed ecological planning and evaluation 

procedures. Briefly, the system provides for a quality and quantity evaluation of the various ecosystems within a planning area for several 

species of wildlife, both game and nongame. Randomly selected samples of 

71 
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

each ecosystem are rated for their value to support wildlife, The re-­

sults are expressed in habitat units per acre, 

On June 28, 1976, an evaluation team consisting of Don Smith, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Glenn Bessinger, Bureau of Reclamation and John 

Boaze, Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a field evaluation of the existing wildlife habitat within the proposed project area. The field 

forms and computer printouts developed for this evaluation are on file 

in our Salt Lake City Area Office for your inspection. Table 1 presents 

a summary of the team evaluation. 

To compensate for the habitat units loss caused by the project, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and our Service recommend that the adjoining 

lands within the takeline (shown on the attached map on page 74) be made 

available to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for wildlife management 

purposes. 

In addition, we recommend that the project fund specific development features so the maximum habitat unit values can be realized for the compensation lands. The estimated costs of the development of the wildlife management area are shown in Table 2 on page 75, 

A habitat evaluation of the aquatic environment (Dolores River and West 

Paradox Creek) was not carried out. However, based on studies conducted 

by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. the streams within the project area 

have a poor fishery. This is due largely to unstable banks, few spawning 

areas, little cover, few aquatic organisms, low flows and especially poor 

water quality. Probably the two most important water quality parameters 

are total dissolved solids and siltation. 

Based on the present project design, it appears that the only measurable 

adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem would be increased turbidity. 

The increase in turbidity can be expected to occur when ground cover is 

removed for construction of the various facilities. 

To reduce the increase in turbidity associated with the project we recommend that all disturbed areas be reseeded as soon as possible with a mixture conducive to wildlife use. This measure would not only reduce siltation, but accelerate the recovery rate for the vegetation and provide 

forage for wildlife. 

The construction of the Paradox Valley Unit will improve the water quality in the Dolores River by reducing the TDS levels. However, the effect 

of this improvement on the aquatic ecosystem is not known. Other things 

such as heavy metals may be a limiting factor in the aquatic ecosystem. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this study. 

/s/ Robert H. Shields 

72 
~I~ Q::Q:: I c~

losed 

'Jeline 

'Ie -~WT~

I
 I 

w 

0
 --r 0
 

, >--l>--l>--l	 Proposed Pipeline 

Proposed Ev apo rat ion Pond """-v I 

---- Proposed R.OW. Line
 

EZJ Private Lands


[SJ	 Public Lands
 

Existing Road
 

I ---- Road Relocat ion 

N. 

t

l 

II 

1000 0 2000 4000 I , --L I 

SC.ALE IN FEET 

(1"= 2;460) 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT
 

PARADOX VALLEY UNIT-COLORADO
 

RADIUM EVAPORATION POND
 

RIGHT-OF-WAY
 

0 

0 

I 0 

-. 

+540,000 N I 
-- -- --------------------

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Table 2 

Estimated development cost of lands 

around Radium Reservoir, 

Paradox Valley Unit, Colorado 

1.	 Fence the right-of-way to exclude unmanaged livestock 

15 miles @ $3,OOO/mile 

2. Construct small (± 2 acres) earthfill water retention	 structures
 

5 @ $4,000 each
 

3. Range (habitat) improvement 

A.	 Fertilizing 

1st application (1982) 

3,700 acres--lOO lbs/acre @ $125/ton 

2nd application (1985) 

3,700 acres--75 lbs/acre @ $125/ton 

B, Seeding 

2.000	 acres @ $lO.OO/acre 

Total estimated cost 

75 

$45,000.00 

20,000.00 

23,125.00 

17,344.00 

40,469.00 

20,000.00 

125,469.00 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Area Office Colorado-Utah 

1426 Federal Building 

125 South State Street 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 

December 6, 1977 

MEMORANDUM 

To:	 Regional Director 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

From:	 Area Manager 

Subject:	 Advance Copy of Draft Environmental Statement for the 

Paradox Valley Unit, CRBSCP, Colorado 

We have reviewed the mitigation proposal presented in the subject document. The acreages and development procedures outlined are similar to 

our recommendations of January 21, 1977. Although not specified, we assume the newly acquired lands will be contiguous with existing state 

lands and that your agency will fund the wildlife facilities discussed 

on page A-13. It should also be clarified who is to assume responsibility for management of the wildlife lands. We believe responsibility for 

the public lands should be retained by the Bureau of Land Management in 

cooperation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

It should also be stipulated that funds will be provided by your agency 

to construct required mitigating features if the continuing studies determine significant losses of waterfowl will result with construction of 

Radium Reservoir. 

Subsequent to our memorandum of January 21, 1977, our Regional Director 

provided formal consultation regarding the peregrine falcon and recommended that marshy areas be developed in the project area. This procedure would diversify the habitat, improve the prey-base, and therefore, 

aid the recovery of this endangered species. We therefore, continue to 

recommend that the project incorporate measures to develop marshy areas. 

Provided that the stipulations addressed in this memorandum are incorporated, we will concur with the mitigation plan. 

We appreciate the opportunity for this early review. 

/s/ Robert H. Shields 

76 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
 

Mailing Address	 Street Location 

Post Office Box 25486 10597 West Sixth Avenue 

Denver Federal Center Lakewood, Colorado 

Denver, Colorado 80225 Across from Federal Center 

October 18, 1977 

MEMORANDUM 

To:	 Regional Director, Upper Colorado Region 

Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah 

From:	 Regional Director, Region 6 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado 

Subject:	 Endangered Species Consultation--Paradox Valley Unit 

Colorado River Salinity Control Project 

In response to your request for formal consultation we have conducted a 

threshold examination. We conclude the Paradox Valley Unit, as now proposed, \"ill in no likelihood jeopardize the continued existence of the 

American peregrine falcon or destroy or adversely modify its critical 

habitat. 

By lowering the soil salinity, construction of the Paradox Valley Unit, 

as now proposed, could improve riparian vegetation and, as a consequence, 

benefit the prey-base for falcons. However, this is not true of some of 

the other alternatives developed for the Environmental Impact Statement. 

If one of these other alternatives is selected to replace the proposal 

now being considered and the new proposal may result in some adverse 

impact on riparian vegetation, the prey-base, or directly affect the falcons, then the new proposal should be re-examined under the Section 7 

formal consultation process. 

As you are a\"are, the eyrie(s) located in the general area of the project 

is either new or has not been observed prior to this summer. It is certainly a significant find and offers an opportunity to improve the status of the peregrine in that area by various techniques carried out in 

conjunction with the Western Breeding Project of the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife and the Peregrine Fund at Fort Collins, Colorado. 

The State Director of the Bureau of Land Management has indicated, since 

the nesting location is almost entirely on public lands, they will initiate a monitoring program for any adverse action and will take the 

necessary legal steps to close the area seasonally (March l--August 1) 

to public use and development. 

77 
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

We recommend the four agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service) cooperate to assure adequate protection, determination of the total 

feeding area and exact eyrie(s) location. In addition, we recommend 

including some project features to further improve the riparian vegetation by developing marshy areas in the project area. Finally, we wish 

to commend you on the conservation actions taken to protect these birds 

and their habitat. The awareness of this need by your people will add 

considerably to the recovery effect for American peregrine falcon. 

/s/ Harvey Willoughby 

78 
MINERAL RESOURCES AT PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, DOLORES RIVER, 

MONTROSE AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLO. 

By Albert E. Ward, Intermountain Field Operations Center, Denver, Colo. 

United States Department cf the Interior 

Bureau of Mines 
MINERAL RESOURCES AT PARADOX VALLEY UNIT, DOLORES RIVER, 

MONTROSE AND SAN MIGUEL COUNTIES, COLO. 

by 

Albert E. Ward.!.! 

SUMMARY 

Major components of the proposed Paradox Valley Vnit are a brinewell field, a brine pipeline, and the Radium reservoir site (an evaporation pond). 

Development of the brine-well field and construction of the brine 

pipeline would not have any adverse impact upon mineral production or 

potential mineral production in the project area. Rrine currently is produced at the proposed brine-well field site in the Paradox Valley and 

piped northward through the Dolores River canyon to Uravan, Colo., for 

use in processing uranium ore. No other minerals are produced at the 

brine-well field site or along the proposed 20.S-mile brine pipeline to 

Radium reservoir site in Dry Creek Basin, and no potential for the development of other minerals is apparent. 

Impoundment of Radium reservoir, however, might result in a major 

conflict with the future development of uranium resources. Radium reservoir would be a S.27-square-mile evaporation pond centrally located in 

Dry Creek Basin, about 19 miles southeast of the brine-well field. Substantial and extensive uranium mineralization apparently underlies the 

site and nearby areas. The reservoir site is blanketed by lode claims 

held by Union Carbide Corp., Metals Division, Grand Junction, Colo. 

Because of the indicated uranium involvement at the Radium reservoir site, it is reC011li11ended that the Bureau of Reclamation seek an alternate site for the proposed evaporation pond. 

INTRODUCTION 

At the request of the Bureau of Reclamation's Upper Colorado Regional 

Office in Salt Lake City, the Bureau of Mines investigated mineral 

11 tUning en "neer, Intermounta'"n i'ld Op rations Center, Pour flU 

of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colo. 

79 
BUREAU OF MINES 

resources within and in the vicinity of project facility sites of the 

Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose and San Miguel Counties, Colo. The project 

would be a part of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. 

The objective of the project is to reduce sharply the flow of brine into 

the Dolores River. An estimated 180,000 tOIlS of salt annually enters 

the Dolores in Paradox Valley. Major components of the proposed project 

are a brine-well field, a brine pipeline, and the Radium reservoir site 

(an evaporation pond). 

The investigation consisted of a study of geologic literature, D 

review of Bureau of Mines file data pertinent to the area, and a field 

reconnaissance completed during October 1976. Results of the investigation are described in this report. 

LOCATION !~D PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Paradox Valley is located in the western part of Montr-ose County in 

southwestern Colorado. The brine-well field would be in the west-central 

part of Paradox Valley, about 2 miles northeast of Bedrock and 18 miles 

northwest of Naturita. The southeast-·trending, 20.5-mile pipeline vlOuld 

deliver brine to Radium reservoir in the central part of Dry Creek Basin 

in San Miguel County (fig. 1). 

Deteriorating ""ater quality poses definite economic problems for 

water users in the lower reaches of the Colorado River Easin. Bureau of 

Reclamation studies indicate an average annual loss of about $230,000 

for ,=ach increase of 1 milligram per liter (mg/l) of salt at Imperial 

Dam near Yuma, Ariz. Total damage attributable to salinity amounted to 

$53 million (from 850 mg/l of salt) in 1973 and could reach $124 million 

(from 1,160 mg/l to 1,340 mg/l of salt) by 2000 if corrective measures 

are not implemented. Salinity reduction is the objective of the proposed 

project; an estimated 180,000 tons of salt annually enters the Dolores 

River in the Paradox Valley (fig. 2). The confluence of the San Miguel 

River with the briny Dolores, about 4 miles northeast of the proposed 

brine-well field, presents a striking view of contrasts in river water 

quality (fig. 3). Removal of this salt inflow would lower the salinity 

of the Colorado River by approximately 16 mg/l at Imperial Dam. 

Paradox Valley is 3 to 5 miles wide and 24 miles long (along its 

northvlest axis) and is traversed just west of its midpoint by the Dolores 

River. A l4,OOO-foot-thick salt and gypsum anticline underlies the 

valley--at a very shallow depth where the Dolores enters the canyon south 

of Martin Mesa. Salt inflow could be reduced by drilling wells into the 

brine layer on both sides of the river and pumping brine from such wells 

to lower the interface between relatively fresh near-surface ground water 

and the unci lying brine. 

80 
I
 

I
 

I
 

I
 

I
 

I
 

o 5 MILES
 

I I
 

COLORADO 

;/ ( i ) 

.---l.. N 

Relift Pump 

Plants -----II... 

MESA CO. 

MONTRO~~C~O';""_"....,. ----------"'1---

SAN MIGUEL CO. 

I 

I 

,

, 

5 

I 

FIGURE 1. - Map sllOwing PI'oposed brine"well field, brine [Jipeline, ami Radium reservoir 

site, Montrose and San Miguel Counties: Colo. 

81
 
FIGURE 2. - Dolores River in the canyon northeast of the proposed brine-well field site. 

Froth and sait-film on boulders are indicators of the salinity problem, 

FIGU R.E 3. - Confluence of the San Miguel River (right) with the Dolores River. The Dolores. 

is pea-green in color, the San Miguel is blue. 

82 
BUREAU OF MINES 

Hydrogen sulfide would be removed from the brine in a scrubbing 

plant near the brine-well field. The brine then would be pumped through 

a 20.5-mile pipeline, paralleling State Highway 90 for about 10 miles, 

turning south for 4 miles to cross over Nonogram 1'-[esa, and finally continuing southward for 6 miles of gravity flow into Radium reservoir. 

Eight pumping plants would be required to move the solution from 

the brine-well field to the evaporation pond. Pumping plants ,vould 

consume approximately 18.8 million kilowatt-hours of electrical energy 

yearly and would have a power demand of about 2,230 kilowatts. 

Radium reservoir would have a maximum surface area of approxjmately 

5.27 square miles. With an annual inflow of ]80,000 tons of salt, it 

would have a life expectancy of about one century. 

GENERAL GEOLOGyl/llll 

Paradox Valley is underlain by one of five major nortl~est-trending

salt anticlines in the Colorado Plateau region. The anticlines, 25 to 

70 miles long, h&ve structurally complex central parts 2 to 6 miles wide, 

and cores about 4,000 to 14,000 feet thick. The cores of these anticlines consist of plastic salt and gypsum. Frosion has rCTaoved much of 

the axial crests of the anticlines, leaving exposed or near-surface lar?e 

plastic intrusive masses of salt-bearing formations. 

Rocks exposed in the project area range from Pennsylvanian to Quaternary in age. The general geologic sequence in the area is listed on 

the following page. 

J) Cater, f. W. Jr. Geology of the Davis Nesa Quadrangle, Coloraelo. 

U.S.	 Geol. Survey Geal. Quad. Map GQ 77, 1955. 

21 Elston, D.P., and E.R. Landis. PreCutler Unconformities and 

Early-Growth of the Paradox Valley and Gypsum Valley Salt Anticlines, 

Colorado. U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 400-B, 1960, pp. H26l-265. 

31 Intermountain Association of Petl.:"oleuTll Geologists. Guidebook to 

the Geology of the Parado:x Basin. Ninth Annual Field Conference, 1958) 

308 pp. 

83 
BUREAU OF MINES 

Period Series Unit 

Quaternary Pleistocene and Holocene Alluvium 

Quaternary Pleistocene and Holocene Terrace gravel, landslide deposits, and 

fanglomerate 

Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous lIesaverde Formation 

Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous Hancos Shnle 

Cretaceous Lower and Upper Cretaceous Dakota S~ndstone

Cretaceous Lower Cretaceous Burro Canyon Formation 

Jurassic Upper Jurassic ~orrison Formation 

Jurassic Upper Jurassic Summerville Formatior: 

Jurassic tiiddle and Upper Jurassic Entrada Sandstone ond 

Carrr:.el Formati.on 

Jurassic(?) Lower and Middle Jurassic(?) Navajc Sandstone 

Triassic(?) Upper Triassic(?) Kayenta Formation 

Triassic Upper Triassic Wingate Sandstone 

Triassic Upper Triassic Chinle Forrr,at ion 

Permian(?) Cutler all(~ Rico 

Formations 

Pennsylvanian Hermosa Form~tion

The brine-well field would be developed on both sides of the Dolores 

River on the veneer of Quaternary alluvium that overlies the salt- and 

gypsum-bearing Hermosa Formation. In years past, salt was harvested from 

a solar evaporation pond at the proposed brine-well field site (fig. 4). 

Several isolated outcrops of Hermosa Formation appear along East Paradox 

Creek, southeast of ~he proposed well field. 

The proposed pipeline would initiate in Quaternary alluvium alon~

State High"7ay 90. Turning south from the highway, about 10 miles SOut:least of the brine-well field, the pipeline 'vould traverse r~orrison and 

Burro Canyon outcrops to a highpoint on Monogram 'Iesa (fig. 5). In the 

final 6-mile gravity-flow segment, the pipeline would bF in Dakota Sanrlstone and Quaternary alluvium (mostly eroded Dakota and windblowL material). 

Most of the surface rock at Radium reservoir site is dark-oray, 

homogeneous, soft, fissile Hancos Shale. This sh2le '''ould serve as an 

impervious bed for the evaporation pond. Some Quaternary windblown alluvium is found ae the eastern end of the proposed pond. Dakota Sandstone crops out along the northern edge of the pom1 site cUlL' dips gently 

(about 2° to 5°) to the south-southwest. Immediately south"Yest of the 

site, the Dakota dips northeast 5° to 10°. 

Dry Creek Basin, in which the Radium reservoir would be centrally 

located, is a northwest-trending, 4- to 8-mile-wide syncline parallel to 

and south'vest of the ParCldm· Valley anticline (fig. 6). Four miles 

sout~iest and outside the project area, Big Gypsum Valley, the next anticline in the anticline-syncline sequence, parallels Dry Creek Basin. 

84 
FIGURE 4. - Brine-well field site along the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley. Old solar 

evaporation beds in the foreground and the La Sal Mountains, about 25 miles 

northwest in Utah, on the hori zan. 

FIGURE 5, - View into the Paradox Valley from near the top of Monogram 

Mesa. Brine pipeline would cross the mesa in this area. 

85 
FIGURE 6. - View northwest in Dry Creek Basin. La Sal Mountains on the horizon are about 

50 miles distant. 

FIGURE 7. -- Weathered Dakota Sandstone outcrop in northeastern part of proposed Radium 

reservoir. Note mining claim cornerpost, right-center, and discovery pit, 

left-center. 

86 
BUREAU OF MINES 

Elevation at the brine-well field is approximately 4,940 feet. 

Maximum elevation of the proposed pipeline crossing of Honogram ilesa is 

about 7,000 feet. Low point in the pond site is approximately 6,275 

feet, and maximum pond level would be about 6,330 feet. 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

Hetals 

Uranium 

The proposed Paradox Valley Unit project uould be developed in the 

heart of the lTravan Hineral Belt, the source of most of Colorado's uranium output and associated vanadium and radium. ~1ontrose and San ~':ibue]

Counties have been t~o of the three leading uranium-producing counties 

in Colorado for decades. Available reserve data and ongoing exploration 

activity suggest this leading position in the State \vill be maintained in 

the foreseeable future. 

Uranium mineralization in commercial quantities is limited largely 

to occurrences in upper layers of the Salt Fash (lo~Ter) Hemher of the 

Horrison Formatien. The older Chinle and Henr.osa Formations also have 

uranium potential i.n the Colorado Plateau region but apparently nct in 

the immediate project area. Numerous mines and prospects dot the mesa 

tops and Salt Wash outcrops throughout much of the project area. Substantially increased regional uranium output in the next tvTO decades cr 

so will be required to help satisfy gro~,ing national nuclear fuel needs. 

No indication of uraniem mineralization occurs in the vicinity of 

the proposed brine-~vell field, ,,'hich '\o7ould be developed OTl alluviun:. The 

Horrison is completely eroded aHay and the Chinle crops out high on the 

unnamed mesa to the east of the brine field site and on '1artin 1-lesa, about 

1 mile to the north. Uranium mineralization in the liermosa usually is 

found in the upper fossiliferous limestone member, ~hich vould be nort) 

of the site because the Imilermost shale, gypsum, aud saIt members appear 

in Hermosa outcrops alont~ the anticlinal axis to the southeast. ThErefore, there is neither a l:nown nor probable uranium-related conflict at 

the brine-well field site. 

The 20.5-mile brine pipeline \\'Quld cross Morrison and Chinle outcrops between the brine--yJell field ar.d Radium resE:Tvoir site. Noreover, 

in traversing Paradox Valley as well as crossing the anticlinal and synclinal structures bet~een the brine-well field site and Dry Creek, the 

pipeline would overlie the Hermosa Formation, and at times would overlie 

the Chinle and the Harrison. Hmv·ever, considering the narrov; dimension 

of the proposed pipeline right-of-\vay and the spotty nature of uraniu~

mineralization in the region, it seems unlikely that the pipeline would 

87 
BUREAU OF MINES 

have any significant adverse impact upon future uranium developments 

along the route. If in the future a conflict did materialize, relocation 

of short sections )f the pipeline would not be a costly undertaking. 

Therefore, the potential conflict between the proposed pipeline and possible uranium developments appears to be negligible. 

Radium reservoir would be centrally located in the lowest lying part 

of Dry Creek Basin. The site now receives intermittent stream runoff, 

mostly from the northwest and the southeast. The basin is breached immediately north of the site by Dry Creek, which meanders north about 8 

miles to its confluence \\·ith the San Higuel River, :2 miles northvlest of 

Naturita (fig. 1 on page 81). 

A thin veneer of plancos Shale blankets the surface of most of the 

reservoir site. Dakota Sandstone crops out along the northern edge of 

the site, and recent wind deposits of sand and silt, which appear to be 

mostly eroded Mancos and Dakota, are found at the northeastern edge (fig. 

7 on page 86). Burro Canyon Formation underlies the Dakota, and the Morrison Formation is beneath the Burro Canyon. The Salt Wash Member of the 

Morrison reportedly is 900 to 1,500 feet beneath the surface at the reservoir site and is extensively mineralized with uranium. 

Radium reservoir site is blanketed by lode claims held hy Union 

Carbide Corp., Hetals Division, Grand Junction, Colo. (fig. 8). The 

company also has extensfve claims else1>rhere in Dry Creek r.asin. Reportedly, most of the areas claimed by Union Carbide are surrounded by 

claims of other interests. 

Union Carbide Corp. tentatively plans to begin mining uranium ore 

at the Radium reservoir site in the early 1980's. Impoundment of the 

Radium evaporation pond at the site would be a severe impediment to 

mining operations and would terminate or substantially curtail access to 

the 5.27-square-mile reservoir site. The brine level in the evaporation 

pond would rise relatively rapidly during early years of operation; therefore, surface mining structures would have to be protected by continuing 

enlargement of dikes and roadways, or the mining and access structures 

initially would have to be developed on earthen platforms at substantial 

extra cost. 

Development of Radium reservoir or any other similar evaporation 

pond in the central part of Dry Creek Basin would result in a major conflict with apparently significant, deep-seated, uranium ore deposits in 

the area and could result in a substantial loss of this valuable mineral 

resource. For this reason, it is recommended that the Bureau of Reclamation seek an alternative site for the proposed evaporation pond. 

Other Hetals 

Vanadium and radium occur, together with uranium mineralization, in 

the project area. They are recovered during uranium mining and are 

88 
FIGURE 8. - Mining claim cornerposts and discovery pits in proposed Radium reservoir site. 

View is west toward the upthrust ridge that delineates the southwest edge of 

Dry Creek Ba_in, a structural syncline. (Telephoto, Hektor 135mm lens.) 

FIGURE 9. -Brine well at the proposed brine-well field site. Brine is pumped through a 

surface pipeline along the Dolores River canyon, right·center, to a Uravan 

uranium mill. 

89 
BUREAU OF MINES 

separated in subsequent processing. No other metallic mineral resources 

are known in the Paradox Valley Unit project area. Moreover, regional geology does not suggest the presence of other subsurface metallic mineral 

deposits. 

Nonmetallic Minerals 

Salt 

Brine (sodium chloride solution) is produced at the proposed brinewell field site by Union Carbide Corp. (fig. 9 on page 89). The brine is 

transported through a surface pipeline along the Dolores River to Union 

Carbide's uranium mill in Uravan, about 7 miles northeast of the brine 

well (fig. I on page 81). The brine is used, along with soda ash, to precipitate uranium as "yello", cake" from a pregnant solution of uraniumvanadium. Bureau of Reclamation plans for the development of the brinewell field would not have any severe adverse impact upon this established 

mineral operation. 

Potash (potassium chloride) occurs \\7ith the sodium c.h1.oride in the 

Paradox ~lember of the Hermosa Formation. tIinable deposits appear. to be 

located northwest of the proJect area. Hm.,rever, extraction of cny deepseated potash would not be hindered by project structures. 

Other Nonmetallic ~Hnerals

Sand, gravel, and stone are produced in the region in small quanti-­

ties, mostly for use in local. road construction and maintenance. Gypsum 

in the Hermosa Form"tion is a commonplace ·mineral resource in the region. 

Because 

related 

these nonmetallic mineral resources are abundant, a 

conflict is not anticipated in the project area. 

mineralfUneral Fuels 

Oil and Gas 

The 

Utah, in 

first 

1908. 

discovery of oil in the Paradox Basin was at 

The Paradox Basin is a region that includes 

Mexican Hat, 

small areas 

in north\veste.rn Ne\\' Mexico and northeastern Arizona, and large areas in 

southeastern Utah and south",estern Colorado. A fev; maj or oilfields, 

numerous minor oilfields, and a fel-l small r;asfields are scattered throughout the basin; most of the production is recovererl within 30 miles of the 

Four Corners (the point wllere the four State borders meet). Nost of the 

oil production in the basin has been recovered in Utah. The Paradox 

Basin contains many geologic structures favorable for oil and gas accun\u-­

lation, including the Paradox Valley and Dry Creek Basin in the project 

area. However, Paradox Valley, a structural anticline, and Dry Creek 

Basin, a structural syncline, to date have shared only modestly in the 

basin's oil and gas potential. 

90 
BUREAU OF HINES 

Hontrose Dome gasfield is located about S miles north of Radium 

reservoir site along Dry Creek, and Andys Mesa gasfield is approximately 

3 miles south of the .site. Apparently, these gas accumulations are 

located in fault zones along the northern edge of Dry Creek Basin. No 

producing gas wells are found along the proposed pipeline or in the 

vicinity of the brine-well field site. No producing oil wells exist in 

the project area. 

Prospects for gas discoveries in the project area seem to be moderately attractive. Although finds to date have been small in size, the 

region contains favorable structures. The brine-well field and pipeline 

would not create any exploration-related conflict. Radium reservoir site 

is centrally located over the trough of the underlying narrow, elongate 

syncline, and therefore is not a very likely target area unless other 

structure exists at depth. The proposed evaporation pond would have a 

northeast-southwest dimension of only 1.5 miles, so directional drilling 

could probe most of the underlying formations from the edge of the reservoir. 

Considering the nominal dimensions of the brine-~vell fielc and pipeline, and the 1.S-mile-wide reservoir site, the future search for and 

possible recovery of oil and gas would not be unduly hindered. 

Coal 

Although a number of the formations in the project area include coal 

measures elsewhere in western Colorado, there is no evidence that these 

formations carry coal seams in the project area. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Information gained from the study of geologic literature, the review of Bureau of Mines records pertinent to the area, and the reconnaissance field examinat'on strongly suggest that, other than sand, gravel, 

and stone deposits, there are no surface or ncar-surface mineral resourC8S 

of value present at the brine-well field and along the pipeline of the 

Paradox Valley Unit project area. Owing to the narro~, elongate configuration of the brine-well field and narrow pipeline right-of-way, the exploration for and recovery of possible deep-seated mineral deposits would not 

be unduly hindered. 

Substantial and extensive uranium mineralization apparently underlies the proposed Radium reservoir and nearby areas in Dry Creek Basin. 

The Bureau of Reclamation should seek an alternate site for one proposed 

evaporation pond. 

91