|
<br />;1A;?~nO
<br />,_, .I~.. "__ V
<br />
<br />DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
<br />
<br />It should be noted that irrigation withdrawals in Col-
<br />orado have increased in recent years and it is antici-
<br />pated that oil shale development and associated
<br />growth in Colorado will deplete from about 90,000 to
<br />172.000 acre-feet per year by the year 2000 (Colorado
<br />River Water Conservation District 1979).
<br />
<br />The storage capacity of Hell's Hole Canyon Reser-
<br />voir (Alternative 3) would be approximately 25,000
<br />acre-feet During periods of extreme drought condi-
<br />tions, this wouid not be sufficient to supply the full
<br />70.000 acre-foot per year water requirement This
<br />alternative should, therefore, be considered a partial
<br />alternative, Based on topography it would be possibie
<br />to construct a dam in Hell's Hole Canyon to provide
<br />70,000 acre-feet of reservoir capacity. However. this
<br />dam would be in excess of 400 feet (122 m) high and it
<br />is doubtful that the project would be economicai (Bing-
<br />ham Engineering 1981a), Therefore. only the partial
<br />alternative was considered.
<br />
<br />All of the other alternatives meet the 70.000 acre-
<br />foot requirement in "worst-case" situations.
<br />
<br />ALTERNATIVES NOT DISCUSSED
<br />
<br />Other alternative means of supplying water were
<br />briefiy screened for consideration, Several dam sites
<br />on the White River and other alternatives were re-
<br />viewed by Bingham Engineering (1969). consultants
<br />to the Utah Division of Water Resources, but were
<br />rejected as being less cost effective than the proposed
<br />site. Figure 2-2 shows alternative dam sites that were
<br />considered. Various alternatives for developing water
<br />for oil shale, including the USBR Watson site, were
<br />also considered jointly in Utah and Colorado. based on
<br />reconnaissance level data gathered by the USBR
<br />(1979). However, the other dam sites appeared to
<br />offer no environmental advantages over the appli-
<br />cant's proposed site. and were, therefore. not consid-
<br />ered in this EIS.
<br />
<br />The groundwater supply in the vicinity of the Utah
<br />Oil Shale Tracts has been studied by VTN Colorado,
<br />Inc. (1975 and 1977). an environmental consulting
<br />firm from Denver, Colorado. and the USDI. Bureau of
<br />Reclamation (1974). Most investigations thus far have
<br />been restricted to the areas of Oil Shale Tracts Ua and
<br />Ub. but it can be assumed that groundwater character-
<br />istics are relatively consistent across the project area,
<br />Approximately 80,000 acre-feet of groundwater is be-
<br />lieved to be held in storage in the Bird's Nest Aquifer
<br />(VTN Colorado, Inc. 1977 and Bechtel Petroleum. Inc.
<br />1981). The recharge characteristics of the aquifer are
<br />not well known. but production of water from the aqui-
<br />fer is considered to be minimal (VTN Colorado. Inc.
<br />1977 and Bechtel Petroleum. Inc. 1981). Water in the
<br />Bird's Nest Aquifer. located from 0 to 1,000 feet (0-305
<br />m) below the surface, is unsuitable for domestic, com-
<br />mercial, or agricultural purposes (VTN Colorado, Inc.
<br />1977) because of water quality, Although the quality
<br />
<br />varies with locations. it averages 3,000 milligrams per
<br />liter (mg/I) total dissolved solids (TDS) and is common-
<br />ly charged with hydrogen sulfide gas.
<br />
<br />The extent of the Bird's Nest Aquifer is unknown.
<br />However. the majority of recharge to the aquifer would
<br />be by lateral movement from precipitation and runoff
<br />intercepted at outcrops. The relatively small surface
<br />area of outcrops, the low permeability, and the low
<br />structural gradient of the aquifer limit the rate at which
<br />recharge can occur (Bechtel Petroieum, Inc, 1981).
<br />
<br />The Douglas Creek Member of the Green River
<br />Formation lies 900 to 1 ,000 feet (274-305 m) below the
<br />Bird's Nest Aquifer and is potentially usable (Austin
<br />and Skogerboe 1970). Water quality taken from sever-
<br />al flowing welis averages about 900 mg/I in TDS (VTN
<br />Colorado. Inc. 1977). The member appears to contain
<br />a reasonable amount of fair quality water. but has a
<br />maximum transmissivity capability of about 1.500 gal-
<br />lons/day/foot (Phillips 1980 and Bechtel Petroleum,
<br />Inc. 1981). To produce enough water to support oil
<br />shale operations. 20-30 wells scattered over several
<br />thousand acres would be required to avoid pumping
<br />effects of one well upon another (Phillips 1980),
<br />
<br />Perhaps the most important aspect of using ground-
<br />water as a source of supply is that relatively large rates
<br />(70,000 acre-feet per year) of pumping would lead to
<br />significant groundwater depletion. Because of slow
<br />recharge, this could create a long-term shortage.
<br />
<br />The use of groundwater for oil shale or industrial
<br />development may be physically possible; however,
<br />because of considerations such as cost. water quality,
<br />and volume. representatives of the Utah Division of
<br />Water Resources do not believe that groundwater is a
<br />viable water source at this time. However, groundwa-
<br />ter in Colorado could, depending upon hydrogeologic
<br />and economic factors. be a potentially significant
<br />source of supply for tar sand and oil shale develop-
<br />ment (Colorado Department of Natural Resources
<br />1979).
<br />
<br />If groundwater became a source, general, legal, and
<br />institutional considerations would apply. the most im-
<br />portant of these being the potential disruption of arte-
<br />sian conditions. reductions in surface flow, and reduc-
<br />tions in the discharge of springs (Colorado Depart-
<br />ment of Natural Resources 1979),
<br />
<br />Additional studies on the groundwater supply of the
<br />project area would be required to clarify the amount of
<br />water available. It is possible that groundwater could
<br />be used on a limited basis to augment water pumped
<br />from the White or Green Rivers. Groundwater could
<br />also supply some of the smaller water users projected
<br />for the region. Because of the limitations noted above.
<br />groundwater has not been considered a viable
<br />alternative in this EIS.
<br />
<br />It is possible that a dam on Evacuation Creek.
<br />
<br />15
<br />
<br />.,'1
<br />
|