ENMRWS - Environmental Assessment.pdf

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Environmental Assessment Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties, New Mexico Upper Colorado Region

January 27, 2011

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA ii

Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Summary of the Proposed Action The Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority (ENMWUA: formerly the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (ENMRWA)), the project proponent, is proposing to construct the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Project (Project). The project was authorized on March 30, 2009 in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11; 123 Stat.

991 [1300-1303]; Appendix A). If Congress appropriates funds, it is anticipated that the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) would provide federal funds for project construction.

Reclamation would transfer federal funds to the ENMWUA.

The Proposed Action is funding the Project, which consists of construction of a pipeline and associated intake, storage, pumping, water treatment, and delivery facilities from Ute Reservoir to the eastern New Mexico municipalities of Clovis, Elida, Grady, Melrose, Portales, and Texico;

Curry and Roosevelt counties; and Cannon Air Force Base (CAFB) (Participating Communities).

The overall Project Area for the EA includes the area potentially affected by the Project— portions of Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt counties. The proposed federal action would provide funding to the ENMWUA to deliver 16,450 acre-feet (AF) of water per year from Ute Reservoir to the Participating Communities to meet a portion of current and future water supply needs. The planning horizon considered in this EA is 2060, which is within the normal range for water supply projects (40- to 60-year planning horizons are common). The Project is anticipated to supply water well beyond the planning horizon. Based on the analysis, the Proposed Action would not result in any significant impacts to the environment.

Background Currently, all Participating Communities rely solely on ground water from the Ogallala aquifer for their M&I water supply. Overall, historical water demand is much greater than aquifer recharge, which has resulted in declining water levels throughout the aquifer. On November 13, 2009, the State Engineer closed the High Plains aquifer in the Curry-Portales Underground Water Basins to new permits for agricultural, commercial, municipal, or industrial wells. Permits for small uses, as well as use transfer (such as agricultural to municipal), changes in well locations, replacement wells and supplemental wells will still be allowed, if statutory requirements are met.

As the water levels in the aquifer drop, well production rates also decline and ground water becomes too expensive to meet demands. Wells then have to be extended or replaced to reach to greater depths. The ability of the Participating Communities to provide a reliable M&I water supply is currently or will soon be limited by declining ground water levels in the Project Area.

Most of the Ogallala aquifer in the Project Area is characterized as having “little or no saturated thickness”. In addition, some Participating Communities face declining ground water quality that cannot be remedied without additional water treatment infrastructure. As ground water levels decline, water quality often declines as well.

Environmental Impacts The following resources and socioeconomic factors were evaluated in detail in the Environmental Assessment for anticipated impacts from the proposed Project: water resources, biological resources, socioeconomics and recreation, cultural resources, Indian Trust Assets, and environmental justice. The following resources are discussed further:

Water Resources

Surface water in the Project Area includes Ute Reservoir, the Canadian River downstream of Ute Reservoir to the state line, and sections of Revuelto Creek, Running Water Draw, Frio Draw, and Blackwater Draw. Ground water in the Project Area includes the Ogallala and other freshwater regional aquifers within Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt counties, as well as deep brackish groundwater aquifers.

Water quality varies throughout the project area depending on resource (surface or ground water), aquifer, and location within the aquifer. Generally, the Canadian River has high total dissolved solids (TDS) but is fully supporting of its state-designated uses. Ute Reservoir generally has high TDS, and is impaired for aluminum, and mercury in fish tissues. Freshwater aquifers in the Project Area also generally have high TDS, with localized higher concentrations of radon, fluoride, and arsenic. Deep brackish aquifers by definition have high TDS, and areas of radium concentrations. The Proposed Action would not result in changes to water quality.

Water quantity in Ute Reservoir, as well as releases to the Canadian River, are governed by the Canadian River Compact and Amended Decree. The Compact and Amended Decree restrict water storage on the Canadian River below Conchas Dam, including Ute Reservoir.

Approximately 193,240 AF of water can be stored in Ute Reservoir before water must be spilled.

Flow in the Canadian River below Ute Dam is a result of spills and seepage. Water level elevations currently average about 3,781 feet, or a surface area of about 6,289 acres. Spills normally occur about once in every 2.4 years under current operations, depending on precipitation inflow and evaporation (and other minor outflows). Seepage in the Canadian River is relatively consistent at about 3 to 5 cfs. The Proposed Action would change the average expected water level and surface area in Ute Reservoir, because there would be withdrawals for project use. Water level elevations under the Proposed Action would average about 3,775 feet (about 5 feet less than the current average) and the surface area would average about 5,508 acres.

The Proposed Action would change the duration and frequency of releases that are required under the Canadian River Compact and Amended Decree, to approximately once in 3.2 years. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have a significant effect on seepage and therefore baseflows in the Canadian River. In addition, the NMISC has committed in the Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan to maintain the existing baseflows in the Canadian River.

The Proposed Action would slightly reduce usage of the Ogallala aquifer, and slightly extend the life of the aquifer. These benefits would not likely be measurable. No significant impacts to surface water, water quality or ground water from this action are expected.

Biological Resources

The lesser prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) is a candidate for federal listing with known habitat in the project area, and the federally-listed threatened Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi) occurs in Revuelto Creek and downstream of Ute Reservoir in the Canadian River. The Canadian River currently sustains populations of native plains river fish, including the Arkansas River speckled chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), the suckermouth minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis), and the Arkansas River shiner, which are all listed by the State of New Mexico as Threatened. The existing baseflow regime, fluvial geomorphology, as well as flood flows from Revuelto Creek appear to support a reproducing population of the shiner. The Proposed Action could have minor, immeasureable effects on the baseflow, fluvial geomorphology, or floodflows that support this species. Mitigation measures during construction would eliminate or minimize impacts to the lesser prairie-chicken. The Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan and commitments by the NMISC in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have resulted in a final determination of “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” for the shiner. No impact would occur to endangered, threatened, or sensitive plant species. The Section 7 process between Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the applicants (NMISC and ENMWUA) is complete, and the Service has provided concurrence that the project is “not likely to adversely affect” any threatened or endangered species.

Minor vegetation impacts would occur from project implementation. Most impacts would be temporary in nature. Permanent impacts would occur where permanent facilities are sited. An increase in water level fluctuations in Ute Reservoir expected under the Proposed Action would result in a shift in shoreline vegetation, including wetlands. The amount of wetlands is anticipated to remain relatively stable. Most permanent wetlands are located at reservoir inlets, which would not be affected by reservoir levels. Minor, temporary construction disturbance to wildlife would occur from the Proposed Action.

Socioeconomics

The primary affected environment for socioeconomics comprises the Participating Communities, and the Quay County communities of Logan and Tucumcari. Logan and Tucumcari’s economies rely in part on tourism at Ute Reservoir. Other socioeconomic issues that rely on the reservoir include property values and quality of life. The economies of the Participating Communities rely on a sustainable water source for municipal and industrial uses. The Proposed Action would have a beneficial socioeconomic effect on the Participating Communities by providing a sustainable water supply for residences and businesses. The Proposed Action would have a short-term beneficial effect on Logan and Tucumcari during construction, and a long-term negative effect is possible during drought periods due to lower average water levels in Ute Reservoir.

Recreation

The primary affected environment for recreation includes the boating and fishing facilities at Ute Reservoir. As noted previously, the Proposed Action would result in lower average water levels in Ute Reservoir and could potentially affect access to recreation facilities (for example, boat ramps) and the quality of recreation.

Cultural Resources

Most of the project area has low potential for cultural resources, and few resources were located during surveys of the proposed project facilities. The exceptions are the area south of Ute Reservoir and the vicinity of Blackwater Draw north of Portales. Detailed survey and testing activities have found no significant cultural resources that would be adversely affected by the Proposed Action. The State Historic Preservation Officer, Reclamation and the ENMWUA have executed a Programmatic Agreement for the Project. No traditional cultural properties have been identified in the Project Area during tribal consultation. No significant impacts are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action.

Environmental Justice

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not disproportionately (unequally) affect any low-income or minority communities within the Project Area.

Indian Trust Assets

No Indian Trust Assets have been documented in the Project Area. Therefore, Reclamation has no impact to Indian Trust Assets resulting from the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed action are expected to be low. Cumulative impacts from two reasonably foreseeable actions—climate change and potential future water withdrawals from Ute Reservoir—were considered. The cumulative effects of the proposed action on the identified resources are not significant.

Conclusion Based on the analysis present in the EA, Reclamation’s assessment of Indian Trust Assets and Environmental Justice, Reclamation finds that there would be no significant impacts associated with the proposed action. Reclamation makes this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500). Reclamation has determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the human environment. Therefore, no environmental impact statement will be prepared for this proposal.

This page left intentionally blank

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA ix

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Environmental Assessment Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties, New Mexico

Cover photograph: Revuelto Creek near proposed pipeline crossing Prepared by ERO Resources Corporation for New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission and Bureau of Reclamation

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA x

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Document ac acre AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year asl above sea level BA Biological Assessment BBER Bureau of Business and Economic Research bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practice CAFB Cannon Air Force Base Census U.S. Census Bureau CEQ Council on Environmental Quality cfs cubic feet per second Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Compact Canadian River Compact CRMWA Canadian River Municipal Water Authority DOC dissolved organic carbon EA Environmental Assessment ENMRWA Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (precedes ENMWUA) ENMRWS Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System; also see “Project” ENMWUA Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority ENMU Eastern New Mexico University ERO ERO Resources Corporation ESA Endangered Species Act ft foot or feet gpcd gallons per capita per day gpm gallons per minute ITA Indian Trust Assets M&I municipal and industrial mg/L milligrams per liter mgd million gallons per day NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHNMP Natural Heritage New Mexico Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMAW New Mexico American Water NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMISC New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission NMOSE New Mexico Office of the State Engineer Participating City of Clovis, Town of Elida, Village of Grady, Village of Melrose, Communities City of Portales, City of Texico, Cannon Air Force Base, Curry and

Roosevelt counties, NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places Ogallala High Plains/Ogallala aquifer PA Programmatic Agreement Project Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Project Project Area Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt counties Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA xi shiner Arkansas River shiner SHPO State Historic Preservation Office State State of New Mexico state line New Mexico/Texas state line TDS total dissolved solids µS/cm microsiemens per centimeter ULSP Ute Lake State Park USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey UWC Ute Water Commission WTP water treatment plant

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA xii

Contents Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Ute Reservoir Construction and Expansion

1.2.2 Ute Reservoir Operation and the Compact

1.2.3 Ute Reservoir Water Contract

1.2.4 1962 Memorandum of Agreement

1.2.5 Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 High Plains/Ogallala Aquifer Uses

1.3.2 Existing Water Supply

1.3.3 Existing Water Demand

1.3.4 Projected Water Demand

1.4 Issues Summary

1.4.1 Surface Water Elevation in Ute Reservoir

1.4.2 Surface Water Flow in the Canadian River

1.4.3 Ground Water Hydrology

1.4.4 Water Demands and Water Conservation

1.4.5 Water Quality

1.4.6 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species

1.4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions

1.4.8 Recreation

1.4.9 Cultural Resources

1.5 Federal Permits, Licenses, and Approvals

1.6 Document Organization

Chapter 2. Alternatives

2.1 No Action Alternative

2.1.1 Current M&I Water Supply

2.1.2 No Action Alternative

2.2 Proposed Action

2.2.1 Raw Water Intake, Conveyance, and Storage

2.2.2 Water Treatment

2.2.3 Finished Water Conveyance and Storage

2.2.4 Pumping and Operation

2.2.5 Construction, Reclamation, and Operation Practices

2.3 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

3.1 Hydrology

3.1.1 Surface Water

3.1.2 Ground Water

3.1.3 Water Quality

3.1.4 Fluvial Geomorphology

3.2 Recreation and Socioeconomics

3.2.1 Recreation

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA xiii

3.2.2 Socioeconomics

3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.3.1 Interior Least Tern

3.3.2 Lesser Prairie-Chicken

3.3.3 Arkansas River Shiner

3.4 Wetlands and Vegetation

3.4.1 Wetlands

3.4.2 Vegetation

3.5 Wildlife Resources

3.6 Geology, Climate, Soils, and Air Quality

3.6.1 Geology

3.6.2 Climate

3.6.3 Soils and Farmland

3.6.4 Air Quality

3.7 Cultural Resources

3.8 Indian Trust Assets

3.9 Environmental Justice

Chapter 4. Effects Analysis

4.1 Hydrology

4.1.1 Surface Water

4.1.2 Ground Water

4.1.3 Water Quality

4.1.4 Fluvial Geomorphology

4.2 Recreation

4.2.1 Curry and Roosevelt Counties

4.2.2 Quay County

4.3 Socioeconomics

4.3.1 Curry and Roosevelt Counties

4.3.2 Quay County

4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

4.4.1 Interior Least Tern

4.4.2 Lesser Prairie-Chicken

4.4.3 Arkansas River Shiner

4.5 Vegetation and Wetlands

4.6 Wildlife Resources

4.7 Geology, Climate, Soils, and Air Quality

4.8 Cultural Resources

4.9 Indian Trust Assets

4.10 Environmental Justice

4.11 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Chapter 5. Cumulative Impacts

5.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

5.1.1 Twelve Shores at Ute Lake and Quay County Entity Water Use

5.1.2 Climate Change

Chapter 6. Consultation and Coordination

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA xiv

6.1 Scoping/Public Involvement

6.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Consulted

Chapter 7. List of Preparers

Chapter 8. References

Figures Figure 1. Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties in Project Vicinity Figure 2. Northeast New Mexico Historic Ground Water Diversions Figure 3. Declining Water Levels in the Ogallala/High Plains Aquifer within the

Project Area Figure 4. 2060 Water Demand Forecasts for Participating Communities Figure 5. Proposed Action Alternative Conceptual Diagram Figure 6. Proposed Action Location Figure 7. Location of Proposed Ute Reservoir Intake Pump Station Figure 8. Location of Caprock Pump Station and Water Treatment Plant Figure 9. Typical Permanent and Temporary Construction Easements Figure 10. Schematic of Intake Structure Figure 11. Maximum Monthly Diversions under the Proposed Action Figure 12. Ute Reservoir Area-Capacity Curve (2002) Figure 13. Historical Ute Reservoir Storage Figure 14. Ute Reservoir Historic Footprints for 1987 to 2007 and Minimum

Fisheries Pool Figure 15. Canadian River at Logan Gage – Historical Daily Streamflow Figure 16. Canadian River at Logan Gage – Historical Streamflow Exceedance

Curves Figure 17. Ute Reservoir – Dissolved Oxygen and Depth Plot Figure 18. Trophic State Continuum Figure 19. Canadian River at Logan Gage – Specific Conductance and Streamflow

(1992–2008) Figure 20. Simulated Ute Reservoir Elevation (Stage) Time Series Figure 21. Simulated Ute Reservoir Footprints Figure 22. Average Annual Releases for Average, Wet, and Dry Years Figure 23. Declines in Saturated Thickness for the No Action Alternative Figure 24. Cumulative Effects to Ute Reservoir Storage Figure 25. Simulated Ute Reservoir Releases/Spills

Tables Table 1. Average Water Use, 2004–2006 Table 2. Participating Communities Water Use, Future Demand, and Water

Reservation Table 3. Summary of Federal Permits or Approvals Table 4. Water Treatment Plan Process, Benefits, and Goals

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System EA xv

Table 5. Participating Communities Water Use, Future Demand, and Water Reservation

Table 6. Summary of Impacts of the Alternatives Table 7. Estimated Annual Economic Effects of Ute Reservoir Visitors on Quay

County Table 8. State, County, and Municipality Populations Table 9. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages – Fourth Quarter 2007 Table 10. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Terrestrial

Species in Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

Table 11. Vegetative Communities Observed in the Project Area Table 12. Plant Species of Concern with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Table 13. State Endangered and Threatened Species, and Species of Special

Concern Potentially Occurring in the Project Area Table 14. Simulated Effects on Ute Reservoir for 1966–2007 Historical Inflows Table 15. Simulated Ute Reservoir Releases/Spills Table 16. Canadian River Streamflow Effects Associated with Releases/Spills over

41-Year Simulation Period Table 17. Simulated Results for Declines in Ogallala Aquifer Saturated Thickness Table 18. Canadian River at Logan Gage – Estimated Salt Loading Table 19. Projected Annual ULSP Visitation (+/- 50%) Table 20. Habitat Components and Potential Effects to the Arkansas River Shiner Table 21. Permanent and Temporary Direct Impacts to Vegetation Communities Table 22. Simulated Results and Cumulative Effects for Ute Reservoir Conditions Table 23. Projected Annual Ute Reservoir Visitation under the Cumulative Effects

Scenarios Compared to the No Action Alternative (+/- 50%) Table 24. Pueblo and Tribal Governments Consulted Table 25. Organizations, Agencies, and Groups Consulted Table 26. Preparers of this Environmental Assessment

Appendices Appendix A. Canadian River Compact and Amended Decree; Project Authorization Appendix B. List of Technical Reports Appendix C. Responses to Comments

Environmental Assessment ENMRWS

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

Key Dates for Ute Reservoir

• 1950 – Canadian River Compact established

• 1957 and 1959 – Legislative approval for Reservoir and Dam

• 1962 – Reservoir complete

• 1984 – Reservoir expansion

• 1987 – Ute Water

Commission established

• 1993 – Lawsuit against New

Mexico regarding Canadian River Compact

• 1996 – Joint Powers Agreement reached to reserve 24,000 AF per year of municipal supply for Ute Water Commission

• 1998 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the Arkansas River shiner as a threatened species

• 2005 – Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan signed

• 2009 – ENMRWS Project Authorized

• 2010 – Water Utility (ENMWUA) formed as a State entity

The Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority

(ENMWUA), the project proponent, is proposing to construct the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Project (Project).

The project was authorized on March 30, 2009 in the Omnibus

Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11; 123 Stat.

991 [1300-1303]; Appendix A). If Congress appropriates funds, it is anticipated that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) would provide federal funds for project construction. Reclamation would transfer federal funds to the

ENMWUA. Reclamation is the lead federal agency for the

Environmental Assessment (EA). The Proposed Action is funding the Project, which consists of construction of a pipeline and associated intake, storage, pumping, water treatment, and delivery facilities from Ute Reservoir to the eastern New

Mexico municipalities of Clovis, Elida, Grady, Melrose, Portales, and Texico; Curry and Roosevelt counties; and

Cannon Air Force Base (CAFB) (Participating Communities;

Figure 1). The overall Project Area for the EA includes the area potentially affected by the Project—Quay, Curry, and

Roosevelt counties. The proposed federal action would provide funding to the ENMWUA to construct facilities to deliver

16,450 acre-feet (AF) of water per year from Ute Reservoir to the Participating Communities to meet a portion of current and future water supply needs. The planning horizon considered in this EA is 2060, which is within the normal range for water supply projects (40- to 60-year planning horizons are common). The Project is anticipated to supply water well beyond the planning horizon.

The ENMWUA and the New Mexico Congressional delegation are currently seeking federal funding for the Project, to be administered by Reclamation. Because federal funding through

Reclamation is a discretionary federal action and subject to compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this EA was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of the

Proposed Action and other alternatives for constructing the

Project and meeting the project purpose and need.

Project Authorization

The ENMRWS Project was authorized on March 30, 2009.

Section 9103 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 authorizes financial and technical assistance to the ENMWUA, with the following limitations:

• No facilities for irrigated agricultural purposes;

• Total federal cost share not more than 75%;

• NEPA compliance must be completed prior to expenditure of federal funds for construction; and

• An Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Plan must be developed.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L.

111-11; 123 Stat. 991 [1300- 1303]; Appendix A)

The purpose of Ute Reservoir is to store water allocated by the Canadian River Compact to New Mexico. At the time of its planning and construction, Ute Reservoir water was anticipated as a water source for municipal and industrial use, specifically to replace a declining ground water supply in Eastern New Mexico.

1.2 Background

The following background information provides a summary of

Ute Reservoir and the compacts, contracts, agreements, management plans, and other legal obligations that dictate its operation and the use of its water. Two documents—the Canadian River Compact (Compact) and the authorizing legislation (see sidebar below) are included in Appendix A.

1.2.1 Ute Reservoir Construction and Expansion

The State of New Mexico (State) constructed Ute Reservoir on the Canadian River in 1962. The purpose of Ute Reservoir was to store water allocated by the Compact to New Mexico. Ute

Reservoir water was anticipated as a source for municipal and industrial (M&I) use, specifically to replace a declining ground water supply in Eastern New Mexico. Upon completion, the reservoir had a spillway elevation of 3,760 feet and a maximum capacity of 110,000 AF. In 1984, the State expanded the reservoir, raising the spillway elevation to 3,787 feet and increasing the maximum capacity of the reservoir to 245,000 AF.

The water in Ute Reservoir is permitted to the New Mexico

Interstate Stream Commission (NMISC), and administered by the

Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE). The reservoir is bordered by Ute Lake State Park (ULSP), a popular recreation destination for activities such as boating, fishing, hunting, and camping.

Private lands and the Village of Logan also border the USLP.

Figure 1. Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt Counties in Project Vicinity.

1.2.2 Ute Reservoir Operation and the Compact

Ute Water Commission Apportionment

Allocations of water from the Canadian River watershed between New Mexico, Texas, and

Oklahoma are specified in the Compact as modified by Supreme Court Stipulated Judgment and

Decree (Compact; Appendix A). The Compact is a water allocation agreement that allows New

Mexico to store certain waters originating in the drainage basin of the Canadian River below the

Conchas dam. According to the Compact, New Mexico must release all water in excess of

200,000 AF of total conservation storage in all reservoirs below Conchas Lake. NMISC releases water from Ute Reservoir assuming 6,760 AF of water is in storage capacity in reservoirs other than Ute Reservoir downstream of Conchas Lake. Approximately 193,240 AF of water can be stored in Ute Reservoir before water must be spilled. The Compact limits the amount of water stored, not the amount of water used. The State has no minimum delivery obligations to downstream states under the Compact. Throughout the remainder of this EA, the 193,240 AF storage limit is referred to as the “Compact maximum.”

1.2.3 Ute Reservoir Water Contract

ENMWUA (Participating

Communities) City of Clovis 12,292 AF Village of Elida 50 AF Village of Grady 75 AF Village of Melrose 250 AF City of Portales 3,333 AF Town of Texico 250 AF Curry County 100 AF Roosevelt County 100 AF

Quay County Entities (non-participants)

Village of San Jon 150 AF City of Tucumcari 6,000 AF Quay County 1,000 AF

In 1997, the Ute Reservoir Water Commission (UWC) entered a contract with the NMISC to maintain an option to purchase and to purchase water stored in the Ute Reservoir for beneficial consumptive uses, including municipal and industrial (M&I), sanitation, recreation and community irrigation uses. The UWC is a 12-member organization that includes the eight members of the ENMWUA (see sidebar).

The NMISC sustainable yield analysis found that 24,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) will be available for purchase by

UWC. A portion of this water (16,450 AFY) is reserved by the UWC for members of the ENMWUA, and the remainder (7,550 AFY) is allocated by the UWC Quay

County members (City of Tucumcari, Village of Logan, and

Quay County). The UWC, on behalf of its members, may exercise its option to purchase any portion of the 24,000 AFY for the benefit of any of its members. Diversion plans and specifications must be approved by the NMISC, and diversions are subject to the terms and conditions of State Engineer Surface Permit No. 2900, as amended, and the 1997 Ute Reservoir

Water Contract. The UWC is responsible for any water diversion and conveyance facilities, and for securing any easements necessary for those facilities. In addition, the UWC must measure any diverted water and provide documentation of water volumes to the NMISC.

Temporary facilities for withdrawal of UWC water for construction uses for a suburban residential and recreational community along the south shore of Ute Reservoir, are in place. The

UWC, on behalf of members Tucumcari and Quay County, has exercised its option to purchase approximately 800 AFY and entered short-term leases with the developer for use of this water.

1.2.4 1962 Memorandum of Agreement On August 20, 1962, the NMISC and the State Game Commission (now the New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)) entered into a memorandum of agreement that established a minimum reservoir elevation of 3,741.6 feet (commonly referred to as the “fisheries minimum pool”). This agreement requires a minimum pool to be maintained; withdrawals for water supply purposes would be curtailed at that elevation.

1.2.5 Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan

The Canadian River and Revuelto Creek in Quay County provide habitat for the threatened

Arkansas River shiner (shiner). In 2005, the State executed an Arkansas River Shiner

Management Plan (Management Plan) in lieu of critical habitat designation (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) 2005). The plan provides for the protection of State water resources and species. The plan was developed by the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority

(CRMWA) to maintain and enhance shiner habitat integrity in the Canadian River between Ute

Dam and Meredith Lake, Texas (Service 2005). Objectives of the CRMWA Plan include:

• Maintaining stream flows at existing levels of base flow;

• Controlling saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia);

• Controlling erosion in riparian zones; and

• Minimizing impacts to shiner low-flow habitat conditions from off-road vehicle groups.

Ongoing surveys conducted by the NMISC and NMGFD indicate that the shiner population between Ute Dam and the New Mexico/Texas state line (state line) composes a relatively high proportion of the total fish abundance in this reach. The population is self-sustaining under the current hydrologic regime (CRMWA 2005). NMISC is committed to maintaining the existing hydrologic regime to protect downstream populations (CRMWA 2005).

1.3 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the federal action is to provide partial federal funding and oversight to construct facilities related to the Proposed Action. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide the

Participating Communities in rural eastern New Mexico a long-term sustainable water supply and to deliver, through the Project, 16,450 AF of water annually from Ute Reservoir through 2060.

The Project uses 2060 as the planning horizon, and water delivery is anticipated to continue beyond 2060. The need for the Project is to provide the facilities necessary to meet the current and future demand for municipal water, including drinking water.

1.3.1 High Plains/Ogallala Aquifer Uses

The High Plains/Ogallala (Ogallala) aquifer underlies portions of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. At this time, the Ogallala aquifer is the only source of potable water for the Participating Communities, and has many other purposes. The largest withdrawals from the

Ogallala aquifer are for irrigated agriculture. In 2002, about 237,300 acres were irrigated in the three-county regions (Quay, Curry, and Roosevelt). Most of the irrigated acreage (94 percent) is in Curry and Roosevelt counties, which are irrigated solely with ground water (D.B. Stephens and

Associates 2007). Irrigated agriculture accounts for about 96 percent of all ground water diversions (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Northeast New Mexico Historic Ground Water Diversions.

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Acre-Feet

Average Water Use for Northeastern New Mexico, 1975 - 2000

Other (274)

Municipal and Industrial (254)

Irrigated Agriculture (557,533)

Livestock (5,386)

Public and Military (16,370)

Mining and Minerals (447)

Source: D.B. Stephens and Associates 2007.

Note: Categories for “municipal and industrial” and “public and military” represent total M&I demands.

City of Clovis Water Supply

1.3.2 Existing Water Supply

Currently, all Participating Communities rely solely on ground water from the Ogallala aquifer for their M&I water supply.

Overall, historical water demand is much greater than aquifer recharge, which has resulted in declining water levels throughout the aquifer (Figure 3). On November 13, 2009, the State Engineer closed the High Plains aquifer in the Curry-Portales Underground

Water Basins to new permits for agricultural, commercial, municipal, or industrial wells. Permits for small uses, as well as use transfer (such as agricultural to municipal), changes in well locations, replacement wells and supplemental wells will still be allowed, if statutory requirements are met.

Since 2003, the static water levels in all of NMAW’s wells in the Ogallala aquifer have declined an average of 3 feet per well per year. Annual well production rates are decreasing on average 16 gallons per minute per well, which amounts to a 10 percent decrease in annual output.

“Today we are running 59 wells to produce the same amount of water as we could produce with 28 wells a decade ago” (Kathy Wright, NMAW).

This year, NMAW requires $2.18 million to rehabilitate six irrigation wells and convert them to domestic use to maintain water supplies to existing customers.

New Mexico Public Regulation Commission May 15, 2009

As the water levels in the aquifer drop, well production rates also decline. Wells then have to be extended or replaced to reach to greater depths. The ability of the Participating Communities to provide a reliable M&I water supply is currently or will soon be limited by declining ground water levels in the Project Area. As shown in Figure 3, most of the Ogallala aquifer in the Project Area is characterized as having “little or no saturated thickness” (McGuire 2007). In addition, some

Participating Communities face declining ground water quality that cannot be remedied without additional water treatment infrastructure. As ground water levels decline, water quality often declines as well (Section 3.1.23 — Water Quality for more details).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Eastern Plains Council of Governments estimate the

New Mexico portion of the Ogallala aquifer has a theoretical storage capable of meeting current

M&I and agricultural demand through 2040 (McGuire 2003). However, the actual useful life of the Ogallala aquifer may be shorter because of limitations on recoverable storage. Studies by the cities of Portales (Wilson 2001, 2004) and Clovis (New Mexico American Water (NMAW) 2004) determined that the ground water resource in the two-city area would be essentially exhausted between 2033 and 2040. NMAW, water supplier to Clovis, reports that water levels at producing wells are declining rapidly, which limits NMAW’s ability to provide water to Clovis. New wells lose capacity so quickly that they are no longer economical to operate after 8 years (NMAW

2004; see sidebar).

Portales has two well fields in the Ogallala aquifer that supply the City’s water. These two well fields have experienced rapid declines in both saturated thickness and well productivity (Wilson

2001, 2007). A 2004 ground water report by Wilson concluded that, even assuming Portales could acquire lands and water rights currently used by farmers in the nearby areas, about 7 years of water supply would remain in 2043 with no other ground water options available.

Figure 3. Declining Water Levels in the Ogallala/High Plains Aquifer within the Project Area.

The other smaller Participating Communities have observed similar declines in well capacities and water levels, and have had to add water supply wells because of the associated reductions in pumping capacity

(Cooper, pers. comm. 2008). The smaller communities have fewer water supply options and infrastructure costs (including drilling new wells) are much higher on a per-person basis.

Table 1. Average Water Use, 2004–2006.

Participating Communities

Average Annual Water Use (AF)

City of Clovis 6,162

Town of Elida 49

Village of Grady 21

Village of Melrose 141

City of Portales 4,217

City of Texico 171

Cannon Air Force Base 1,121

The declining quality of existing ground water supplies, in conjunction with changing

State water quality standards (e.g., drinking water standard for arsenic), is another reason for securing a replacement water supply.

Aquifer declines have contributed to increased concentrations of certain constituents for drinking water supplies, including total dissolved solids (TDS), arsenic, fluoride, iron, radon, and volatile organic compounds. Currently, the Participating Communities disinfect ground water with chlorine and use well operational blending or temporary well shutdowns to maintain adequate water quality. Additionally, CAFB treats a portion of its water supply with reverse osmosis for removal of fluoride, and the City of

Texico uses an airstripper to remove volatile and semivolatile organic compounds. Wells also are taken out of production permanently as water quality declines. Texico, Melrose, Grady, and

Elida are experiencing difficulty complying with State and federal drinking water requirements

(CH2M HILL 2006a). As water levels decline, constituent concentrations are expected to increase and new treatment systems would be needed.

Curry County* 1,013

Roosevelt County* 1,776

Total 14,671

*Estimated annual demand.

Sources: NMED 2007; Rebman, pers. comm. 2008;

NMAW, pers. comm. 2008.

1.3.3 Existing Water Demand

Table 1 shows the average annual water supplied in recent years (2004 to 2006) to the

Participating Communities based on actual data (NMED 2007; NMAW, pers. comm. 2008;

Rebman, pers. comm. 2008). For Curry and Roosevelt counties, the estimated annual demands are shown. The average water use for the counties is based on current population that would be served by the Project in those counties, multiplied by the average per capita water use. The total average annual water use for the Participating Communities for 2004 to 2006 was about 14,671

AF (Table 2).

1.3.4 Projected Water Demand

The water demand forecasts for Participating Communities used county population projections made by the University of New Mexico Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) and forecasts developed for several Participating Communities in recent 40-year water plans and other studies. BBER county population forecasts were combined with 2000 Census (CH2M HILL

2006b) data to obtain population estimates for Participating Communities. These projections assume that the year-2000 member-to-county population fractions remain constant through the

2060 planning horizon. Based on BBER forecasts, in 2060 the total population for Participating

Communities is expected to be 62,932. Under the forecasts developed by Participating

Communities, the population is expected to reach 90,576 by 2060 (CH2M HILL 2006b).

BBER’s estimates of growth likely are conservative, and the Participating Communities’ estimates are optimistic; the actual future growth in population probably will lie between the two estimates.

BBER and Participating Communities’ projections were coupled with per capita use rates to develop a series of overall water demand forecasts through 2060 (Figure 4). The first set of forecasts assumes that no further conservation will take place in the Participating Communities.

These forecasts are based on 2000 per capita use data for each community from the New Mexico

Environment Department (NMED). The second set of forecasts assumes the Participating

Communities will reduce their per capita use. The average M&I use for the Participating

Communities is about 200 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), and the reduced use for forecast purposes was 175 gpcd. The range of M&I water demand/water use in comparable areas in the southwestern U.S. is approximately 144 to 223 gpcd (CH2M HILL 2005a). The 2060 forecasts range from a total projected water need of 12,340 AFY (BBER population projection with conservation measures) to 22,370 AFY (community population projection with no further conservation measures). The average of all water demand projection scenarios is 17,000 AFY.

This compares closely with the July 2005 Participating Communities delivery request of 16,450

AFY (Figure 4). The current average demand is about 14,670 AFY.

Figure 4. 2060 Water Demand Forecasts for Participating Communities.

Source: CH2M HILL 2006b.

Participating Communities Water Demand

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

BBER With No Further Conservation

Communities With No Further Conservation

BBER With Conservation

Communities With Conservation

Scenario Average

AFY

16450

Water conservation plays an important role in the demand forecasts developed for the

Participating Communities. Most Participating Communities have water rate structures that reward water conservation. For example, water gets more expensive per gallon as more is used.

Clovis and Portales have wastewater reuse programs involving application of treated effluent to nearby agricultural land (CH2M HILL 2005a). While reuse by agriculture does not reduce per capita M&I demand within the communities, it does have the beneficial effects of slightly reducing overall ground water pumping in the local area. Because irrigated agriculture in the

Project Area uses roughly 34 times more water every year than M&I uses, the beneficial effect of

M&I reuse is very small. The Ogallala aquifer has high regional demand and low natural recharge, and is “effectively being mined and cannot be considered a renewable resource”

(Wilson 2007). Water conservation prolongs well life, but is not a complete or permanent solution. With even the most aggressive conservation (e.g., the Participating Communities use only 50 percent of their current demand), there is still a need for a long-term sustainable potable water supply. This is largely because of high agricultural demand for water, which would overwhelm any effects of conservation.

In summary, the Participating Communities have reserved Ute Reservoir water to meet future

M&I water demands and to replace existing unsustainable ground water supplies that are diminishing in quantity and quality. The total reservation of 16,450 AFY will meet all existing needs and a portion of future water needs for the Participating Communities through the 2060 planning horizon, with the exception of the City of Portales. The City of Portales’ water reservation is less than existing water use, and the remaining demand will be met by continuing to pump ground water. Table 2 shows a comparison of existing water use, projected water needs, and the amount the Participating Communities have reserved. Some Participating Communities have reserved water in excess of their current and forecasted water needs, while some have reserved less. It is possible for the communities to reallocate or sublease their water allocation to balance community needs.

Table 2. Participating Communities Water Use, Future Demand, and Water Reservation.

Participating Community

Current Water Use

(AFY)

2060 Demand Estimate

(AFY)1

Water Reservation

(AFY)

12,292 2 City of Clovis 6,162 8,988

Town of Elida 49 74 50 Village of Grady 21 27 75 Village of Melrose 141 203 250 City of Portales 4,217 4,523 3,333 City of Texico 171 293 250

CAFB 1,121 1,706 -

Curry County 1,013 1,188 100 Roosevelt County 1,776 - 100 Totals 14,671 17,002 16,450 1 Demand estimates for Roosevelt County are incorporated into other entities.

2 Includes CAFB.

Note: Some Participating Communities have reserved water in excess of their current and forecasted water needs, while some have reserved less. It is possible for the communities to reallocate or sublease their water allocation to balance community needs.

Source: CH2M HILL 2006b.

1.4 Issues Summary

Scoping is the first phase of the public involvement process. It is designed to help determine the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the NEPA process. The intent of the scoping process is to gather comments, concerns, and ideas from those who have an interest in, or may be affected by, the Proposed Action, and identify issues the public and government agencies believe are most important. During September 2007 scoping, Reclamation sought and received input from the public, interested organizations, and agencies to help identify issues for evaluation in the

EA. The following issues were identified during scoping.

1.4.1 Surface Water Elevation in Ute Reservoir

The Project would have an intake in Ute Reservoir, and up to 16,450 AFY would be pumped out of the reservoir. The current demands on the reservoir include releases associated with the

Compact, reservoir spills, natural evaporation and seepage from the reservoir, and minor construction water uses for 12 Shores at Ute Lake. There is a concern that pumping withdrawals would lower the reservoir’s surface water elevation and could affect surrounding residential developments and recreation opportunities (also see Issue 1.4.7, Socioeconomic Conditions).

1.4.2 Surface Water Flow in the Canadian River

The Project would withdraw water from Ute Reservoir as described in Section 1.4.1. Although controlled releases to the Canadian River occur only occasionally (about once every 5 years).

when storage in the reservoir exceeds the Compact maximum, flows in the river immediately downstream of the dam are primarily a result of seepage through or beneath the dam. There is a concern that changes in reservoir pool elevation may change the seepage rate and, therefore, change the baseflow in the Canadian River downstream of the dam. Changes in baseflow could affect downstream conditions, including the stream channel and wildlife habitat.

1.4.3 Ground Water Hydrology

Currently, the Participating Communities are relying on a nonsustainable ground water source— the Ogallala aquifer—for M&I water supplies. Water quality and water levels in the aquifer are declining in some areas because the aquifer is mined primarily for agricultural purposes. There is a concern that if the Project does not occur, communities depending on the aquifer may be left without a M&I water supply.

1.4.4 Water Demands and Water Conservation

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is based on existing and potential future water demands. Current and proposed conservation measures may affect future water demands. There is a concern among Quay County communities that Participating Communities are using too much water, and believe the Participating Communities could implement more conservation measures as an alternative to the Proposed Action.

1.4.5 Water Quality

There is a concern that changes in ground water quality in the absence of the Project could require additional water treatment infrastructure, which would affect water cost. There is also a concern that irrigation use and residential septic tanks around Ute Reservoir are causing poor surface water quality, making it untreatable for potable uses or reducing water treatment options.

In addition, there is a concern that pumping water out of Ute Reservoir may affect water quality in the reservoir.

1.4.6 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species

The Project Area provides wildlife habitat. There is a concern that depletions in the surface area of Ute Reservoir and flows in the Canadian River, and temporary or permanent impacts from facilities associated with the Project may affect fish and wildlife habitat, other aquatic life, and habitat for federally threatened and endangered species, including the shiner.

1.4.7 Socioeconomic Conditions

The Project Area is predominantly rural, with Clovis and Portales as the major population centers.

Tourism and agriculture are important regional economic sectors in the Project Area. There is a concern that the Proposed Action may affect socioeconomic conditions of Quay, Curry, and

Roosevelt counties; communities in these counties; and downstream water users. Potential concerns include impacts to population and employment, changes in water costs, and the effect of changing Ute Reservoir water levels on the Quay County tourism and recreational economy.

There is also concern that without an alternative water supply, socioeconomic conditions in Curry and Roosevelt counties, and communities in those counties, may be affected.

1.4.8 Recreation

ULSP is an important recreational resource for the State. Visitation to ULSP is especially high when recreation opportunities are limited at nearby reservoirs (including Brantley and Conchas) due to low lake levels.