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

n~:,:?~~7

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the proposed action and the
alternatives for supplying water for oil shale and other
development near the White River in Uintah County,
Utah (Figure 2-1). The alternatives are:

1. The White River Dam and Reservoir;

2. No action;

3, Pumping from the White River and augment-
ing with water stored behind Hell's Hole Canyon
Dam;

4. Pumping water from the Green River; and

5. Pumping water from the White River and sup-
plementing with water pumped from the Green RIv-
er.

The White River Dam Project is the proposed
alternative of the Utah Division of Water Resources.
Other alternatives were developed through the scop-
ing process initiated in 1979 by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), The description of these alterna-
tives is based on reconnaissance level studies by the
United States Department of Interior (USDI), Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR) (1974) and by BLM and Its
consultant. BIO/WEST. Inc.. who prepared the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Western rivers. such as the White. have high peak
flows during average water years; however, most of
the water flows during spring runoff. and flows become
very low in late summer and fall. During drought condI-
tions. rivers such as the White are reduced consIder-
ably in volume during all months of the year. There-
fore water storage in a reservoir to supply develop-
me~t demands during low.flow periods is a require-
ment of most Western water development.

The White River Dam Project was proposed to meet
a water requirement identified by the Utah Division of
Water Resources forthe White River. During develop-
ment of other alternatives for this EIS. storage was a
prime consideration. Storage for Alternatives 4 and 5
would come lrom Flaming Gorge Reservoir. a large.
existing reservoir on the Green River (Figure 1-1).
However, approval for this water use would have to be
granted by the Utah Division of Water Rights (State
Engineer) and the Secretary of Interior (Utah Division
of Water Rights 1981), Storage for Alternative 3 would
come from a 25,000 acre-foot reservoir in Hell's Hole
Canyon, a side canyon to the White River.

In describing and analyzing the proposed project
and alternatives. BLM recognizes two important con-
ditions:

1. The physical and environmental parameters

are based on historical and/or current conditions.
This is particularly relevant with respect to White
River flows and identified water uses in Colorado
and Utah. This means that the proposed project and
alternatives are described as they would be oper-
ated with historical and/or current river hydrology,
as a "first-added" new development of water re-
sources.

2. Future events in the Upper Colorado River
Basin, including tributaries such as the White River,
could markedly alter parts of the alternative descnp-
tions related to river flows. storage frequencies.
sediment loads. and similar system-related items.
Although potential future developments are identi-
fied in concept. specific quantification of such future
events is speculative and essentially impossible to
do accurately at this time.

The White River Dam EIS is based on the best
information available, quantified to the extent now
possible from empirical records. experience, observa-
tion. and interpretation of real data. Even so. some
assumptions have been necessary and are so stated
in the document.

Two criteria were set up for the development of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed White River
Dam. First. the alternatives would develop 70.000
acre-feet of water per year. Second. the water would
be delivered to a point on the White River in the vicinity
of the White River Dam. The 70.000 acre-foot figure
was used because it was projected in the Draft EIS
that the White River Dam and Reservoir could provide
67.000 acre-feet of water as active storage capacity,
That figure was rounded out to 70.000 acre-feet for the
other alternatives. This figure (70.000 acre-feet) con-
verts to a constant flow rate of 97 cubic feet per second
(cIs).

U.S, Geological Survey (USDI. Geological Survey
1980) Watson gage data from the White River: the
main water source for Alternatives 1,3. and 5. Indicate
that discharges of less than 250 cfs occur 5 percent of
the time and that discharges of less than 350 cfs have
historically occurred more than 20 percent of the time.
To provide 97 cfs for energy development and meet
the 250 cfs downstream requirements (see Appendix
3). regulation wouid be required nearly every year.
During the worst case year (1977), 39,000 acre-feet of
storage would have been required to supply a total
need of 70.000 acre-feet. This was calculated by using
in stream water from the White River when flows ex-
ceeded 250 cfs, but requiring storage water when
flows were lower than 347 cfs. When natural flows
were lower than 250 cfs. the entire 97 cfs was obtained
from storage. and no instream water was used.

13