OCR Text |
Show Representatives of planning agencies ,'met with the Uintah Basin Energy -'.planning and Development Council C Thursday of last week and discussed , future growth trends forecast for the .Uintah Basin area. i'c The highlight of the meeting was the : presentation of the second report made on the impact the oil shale industry fe would cause in the Uintah Basin. The "latest socio economic projections is prepared by the Uintah Basin Energy Planning Council office show a rapid growth in population in the Basin during dur-ing the next 15 years. '. The study bases its projections on four oil shale projects, Paraho, White River Shale, Geokinetics, and Tosco; one power plant,-Deseret Generation and Transmission (Moon Lake) Power Plant; and the White River dam, reser voir and hydro power plant. A workforce for these projects is expected ex-pected to bring a peak of 6,268 in 1988 starting with a low of 177 workers in 1980 and ending in 1995 with 3,690 workers as the projects are finished with the construction stages. During this period the total construction population is figured by multiplying the construction workforce by 3.6 times and the operational population is determined determin-ed by multiplying the operational workforce by 7.625 times. The study allows for 15 percent of the population to go to Colorado and the remainder re-mainder to stay in the Uintah Basin. The highest population increase expected ex-pected due to the projects is 26,881, according ac-cording to the study. At the council meeting C.R, Chuck Henderson and Tom Murray explained the socio economic projections study. Rees Madsen, representing White River Shale and Joe Merino, representing represen-ting Tosco cautioned the group about coming to a conclusion concerning the population numbers. They both stressed stress-ed that the time frame could be moved and the population numbers would be -changed. But they both agreed that the projects would require the specified number of workers if everything went as planned. A proposal to make a new joint socio economic plan to assist and coordinate energy impact planning was made by Dick Merrell, Dept. of Community and Economic Development for the state. The council agreed to accept Merrell's offer. Buzz Hunt, Utah Energy Office and Lloyd Austin, Division of Water Rights gave reports on energy developments and activities on the White River Dam project. Hunt said the Utah Energy Office is a coordinating office, not regulatory, and its purpose is to promote energy projects pro-jects within the state. Austin reported that the White River (Continued on Page 16) Energy council (Continued from Page 1) dam BLM environmental impact statement state-ment first draft is scheduled for October Oc-tober 1980 and the final draft for February 1981. Dr. Polly Garrett of the Department of Energy explained the DOE's role for energy impact assistance. She stressed the need for reliable information concerning con-cerning impact. She said when the need arises funds will be given for the needs of the areas impacted by oil shale activities. ac-tivities. But she stated "We need help in planning and coordination." Dr. Garrett gave the following steps that should be taken for making impact studies: Anticipate the worst and the best cure and then track the expectations. Keep data current as possible and pull it together, don't duplicate, coordinate. coor-dinate. The data and information should be validated by those who will use the information, in-formation, oil shale companies and others. Have basis for monitoring and self-monitor self-monitor so you can see if you are doing what you should be doing. Look for the cumulative aspect. Competent analysis, grow lo cope with impact, coordinate planning with counties, regions and state agencies. It was reported at the meeting that the Deserel Generation Moon Lake power plant was still on schedule and is on line to begin construction in April of 1981. |