WSP06202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

['~?~l'12 SUMMARY application could be approved but the proposed use would not come as a result of a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation unless the Bureau were to change the plans of the Central Utah Project and delete some of those features and then file a change application changing the uses that were initially considered part of the Central Utah Project to cover a new project such as oil shale development. Alternative 5: Pumping Water From the White River and Supplementing With Water Pumped From the Green River The main water supply, 70,000 acre-feet. would be pumped from the White River by individual water users during normal river flow years. The alternative project would be a pipeline similar to that in Alternative 4. During dry years. water would be rei eased from Flam- ing Gorge Reservoir and pumped from the Green Riv- er to supplement White River flows, The main differ- ence between Alternatives 4 and 5 would be the amount and frequency of pumping from the Green River, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESOFTHE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Alternative 1 : White River Dam and Reservoir Oil shale would probabiy not be available for mining or production during the project's life on 1.980 acres (801 ha) inundated by the reservoir, A depletion of 75,000 acre-feet of water from the White River would result in an increase in salinity at Imperial Dam on the Colorado River of 4,1 milligrams per liter (mg/l). The reservoir would inundate about 995 acres (403 ha) of riparian habitat, while another 4.575 acres (1,851 ha) of riparian habitat, lOcated downstream from the proposed dam, would be changed because of reduced river flows, Some wiidlife would be displaced or lost (Le.. up to 176 beaver and 200 deer). The native aquatic ecosystem would be lost within 13.5 river miies (22 km) olthe White River. while about 50 river miles (80 km) of habitat would be altered below the dam, A partial loss of native fauna could occur in the lower 10-20 miles (16-32 km) of the White River, Blockage of the channei and changes in water quality would result in changes of habitat for the Col- orado squawfish. bony tail chub, humpback chub. razorback sucker. and other fishes, However. with Implementation of the operation procedures and con- servation measures described in the FWS Biological Opinion. the White River Dam Project would not Iikeiy jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered fishes. The cumulative loss of flows in the Upper Green River Basin from this project and other proposed water developments in the Green River system could adversely affect the existing habitat of the Colorado squawfish. The loss of stream-canoeing opportunity would occur in the White River Canyon through the area which would be inundated and downstream depend- Ing upon flow releases. Alternative 2: No Action Current management levels would be maintained for the Federal lands along tt1e White River in Utah, Oil shale developers would have to seek other water supply methods and processing might be delayed be- cause of the lack of a reliable water source in the vicinity of the proposed White River Dam Project. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems would remain essentially undisturbed on the Federal lands along the White River Canyon in Utah, at least to the extent that they would not be impacted by water deveiopments related to the White River Dam Project. Demands for water are expected to expand be- cause of the increased interest in synthetic fuels, in- cluding those derived from oil shaie, Although ad- vances in technology may continue to reduce quanti- ties of water needed to process oil shale, there would still remain a need for water in the retorting processes, dust control, surface rehabilitation. and other activi- ties. Alternative No.3: Pumping From the White River and Augmenting From Hell's Hole Canyon Dam About 260 acres (105 ha) of oil shale would be inundated, The depletions of 70.000 acre-feet would cause salinity to increase 4.1 mg/l at Imperial Dam on the Colorado River. The cumulative loss of flows in the White River from this aiternative and potential future projects upstream in Colorado could reduce the White River as Colorado squawfish habitat. Also. water de- pletions from the White River (70.000 acre-feet per year) would alter the aquatic ecosystem below the withdrawai point. Cumulative impacts from this alternative and other proposed water developments in the Green River sys- tem could reduce flows sufficiently to adversely affect the continued existence of the Colorado squawfish, bony tail chub, humpback chub. razorback sucker, and 3