WSP06202 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~) ~; r'"\- . . 'j;) PURPOSE AND NEED 2. Regardless of the selected retorting system. the water requirements shown for an acceptable degree of dust control and shale compaction are only estimates. There is a substantial tradeoff be- tween water use and energy production. The Ute Indians have a right to annually divert water from the White River in Utah (Winters Doctrine) to irrigate lands near Ouray. Utah. This entitlement has been estimated to be 61.598 acre-feet per year to irrigate 12.833 acres of land (refer to Appendix 3). A recent economic study of the Ute Indian Irrigation Pro- ject suggested that irrigation of Ute lands would not be economically feasible and that the Ute Tribe may con- sider selling or leasing a portion of their water rights for industrial use (McKee and Morgan 1978). The Ute Tribe is currently analyzing alternatives toward de- veiopment of an integrated program of water usage. A small quantity of water (4 to 5 cfs [3,000 to 3.600 acre-feetj) would also be withdrawn from the reservoir for the Town of Bonanza's domestic and gilsonite pro- cessing uses under this proposal. In addition to the above known water requirements, additional water may be needed for other oil shale and tar sand developments near the White River. The de- veiopment stages of these resources varies so much that it is difficult to make accurate projections of the amount of additional water needed; however. the amounts stated below appear to be the maximum requirements. Table 1-1 shows the estimated water requirements for the oil shale and tar sand development projects mentioned earlier and other miscellaneous uses. Two other companies. Geokinetlcs, Inc.. and Sohio Shale Oil. propose to use Green River water for oil shale development. However. if water is not available from the Green. these companies could use water from the White River Reservoir. Their projected water needs are 1.000 acre-feet for Geokinetics and 4.000 acre-feet for Sohio. Based on these projections. the proposed White River Dam Project would not be able to meet all of the projected needs through the year 2000. The BLM has, however, prepared this Final EIS with the understand- ing that the Utah Division of Water Resources could deplete up to 75,000 acre-feet consumptive use plus approximately 5,500 acre-feet for evaporation from the White River. This would total 80.500 acre-feet. It is projected that the annual depletion from the White River Dam Project would reach 75,000 acre-feet be- fore the year 2000. SCOPING PROCESS AND IDENTIFIED ISSUES Notice was published in the Federal Register, Volume 44 No. 181, September 17. 1979. announcing the schedule of public meetings to identify the issues and alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS concerning this project. Public meetings were held on October 17. 1979, in the BLM Vernal District Office and October 18. 1979, in the BLM Utah State Office. Salt Lake City. Utah. Since these formal scoping meetings. numerous contacts have been made with Federal, State. local agencies. and others to solicit their concerns and ex- pertise (e.g" Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency. Heritage Recreation and Conservation Service, Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources. Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. Utah State Historic Preserva- tion Officer. Uintah County Commissioners, environ- mental and special interest groups, and individuals). Numerous issues were identified in the scoping pro- cess. A summary of these issues is provided below. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Three species of rare endemic fish (Colorado squawfish. humpback chub, and bony tail chub) have been observed in portions of the White River and are Federally listed as endangered. The razorback suck- er. currently listed as a sensitive species. has been reported and may occasionally enter the White River from the Green River. One sensitive plant species. Penstemon albifluvis, occurs in the reservoir impound- ment area. Other officially listed threatened, en- dangered. and sensitive species found within the re- gion include the bald eagle, golden eagle, peregrine falcon. and Uinta Basin hookless cactus. The Utah Division of Water Resources requested on August 13. 1980, that BLM extend the Section 7 consultation period required under the Endangered Species Act on this project. On February 24. 1982. the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided a formal Biological Opinion on the impacts of the proposed project to the threatened and endangered species. The reason for the extension was to allow the FWS additional time to conduct fishery studies on the White River. These studies helped to clarify the importance of the White River to Colorado squawfish and the other en- dangered fishes. Appendix 4 contains the FWS Bio- ological Opinion and comment letters received from various groups and individuals on the Opinion. Energy Development The Nation's energy situation relates to the White River Dam Project in several ways. There are strong regional and state views that increased energy de- velopment would serve regional-national energy needs and that water to support such development is 9