WSP06202

• File Number: 8200.765
• Description: White River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 6/6/1982
• Author: DOI
• Title: White River Dam Project - Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

SUMMARY

Current recreational and scenic uses of the White
River in Utah are important to a small but growing
number of users. particularily canoeists,

The loss of about 13.5 river miles (22 km) and the
associated native aquatic ecosystem is considered
important by a segment of the public. Also, the inunda-
tion of 995 acres of riparian vegetation is considered
important terrestrial wildlife habitat.

In preparing this environmental Impact statement
(EIS). BLM has noted several interrelated projects
which would contribute to cumulative impacts to the
region and the Upper Green River system,

Other related projects on the Upper Green River
and its tributaries include the Juniper-Cross Mountain
Dams on the Yampa River, the Cheyenne Stage II
Water Diversion Project on the Little Snake River (a
tributary of the Yampa), and the Central Utah Project
on the Duchesne River system, Several related syn-
fuel projects located in the Uinta Basin are also being
covered in a separate EIS.

There is at present no specific compact between
Colorado and Utah concerning the White River,
Therefore, allocation for emerging water-consuming
projects is not presently subject to any special inter-
state arrangement other than the overall provisions of
the Colorado River Basin and Upper Colorado River
Basin Compacts.

ALTERNATIVES

Several dam sites on the White River in Utah were
investigated by the Utah Division of Water Resources
using a screening process, and then dropped from
further consideration because the White River Dam
site best met the state selection criteria. including en-
gineering feasibility,

In response to NEPA. alternatives to the White River
Dam Project have been identified an<;! analyzed by
BLM in this EIS, The proposed White River Dam Pro-
ject is identified as Alternative 1. and the other alterna-
tives are as follows:

Alternative 2: No Action

This is a mandatory alternative required by NEPA.
Under this alternative, BLM would not approve the use
of Federal lands for the applicant's proposal or the
other alternatives,

Alternative 3: Pumping From the

White River and Augmenting From

Hell's Hole Canyon Dam

The main water supply for energy development
would be direct pumping of 70,000 acre-feet annually
from the White River by individual developers in Utah

during normal water years, The 70.000 acre-foot per
year figure was selected for the analysis of alterna-
tives because it was the approximate active capacity
of the proposed reservoir,

The project alternative would be the construction of
the potential Hell's Hole Canyon Reservoir with a stor-
age capacity of 25.000 acre-feet. This side canyon
reservoir would be filled by pumping from the White
River during high flows, During periods of low flows in
the White River. releases would be made from the
reservoir to augment natural flows in the river and thus
provide a uniform water supply for energy develop-
ment projects, Releases from storage would be
needed approximately 20 percent of the time under
present conditions; future potential water depletions
from the White River in Colorado wouid increase the
frequency of need for water releases from Hell's Hole
Canyon Reservoir,

Alternative 4: Pumping Water From

the Green River

This alternative would provide 70.000 acre-feet of
water pumped continuously from the Green River to
the vicinity of the proposed White River Dam site,
Water would be released from Flaming Gorge Reser-
voir which would flow downstream about 120 miles
(193 km) to a diversion point near Walker Hollow.
about 5 miles (8 km) downstream from Jensen. Utah.
A river pumping station. settling pond and sluiceway.
two high-lift pumping stations. and approximately 28
miles (45 km) of buried pipeline would convey water
for distribution to individual water users along the
White River,

The U,S, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has au-
thority to contract for use'of water from the Flaming
Gorge Reservoir. This would be subject to negotiation
according to a report entitled, "Alternative Sources of
Water for Prototype Oii Shale Development, Colorado
and Utah," (USDI. Bureau of Reclamation 1974,)
Although it is physically possible to use water from
Flaming Gorge Reservoir, the feasibility of this water
source is contingent on negotiation between USBR
and the Utah Division of Water Rights, It is the opinion
of the Utah Division of Water Rights (State Engineer)
that the USBR does not have any water which can be
contracted for outside of that which is already allo-
cated to the individual units of the Central Utah Project
and water that would be withdrawn from the Green
River to supply the Indian lands on the Leland Bench
Project. According to Dee C. Hansen, Utah State En-
gineer (1981):

It would be the view of the State Engineer that
individuals or companies must make application
with the State Engineer to appropriate water and if
it is determined by the State Engineer that there Is
in fact unappropriated water available that that

2