WHITE RIVER STORAGE FEASIBLITY STUDY PHASE 1 REPORT Prepared for the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District W. W. WHEELER ASSDBIATES, INC. Water Resources Engineers :3qu s. INBA ET. cu Bonn-34:15 aus-751-413u FAX INTERNAL REVIEW DRAFT 4/27/14 April 2014 n. 4 nu 1. WIJ 1.1J 1.4 1 H1114 a a a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of the White River Storage Feasibility Study is to begin the planning process for a new water storage reservoir within the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District The encompasses the lower White River basin in western Rio Blanco County, in northwestern, Colorado. The owns and operates the Taylor Draw Hydroelectric Project. The project is a run-of-the-river project that provides 2MW of hydropower and ?at water recreation on Kenney Reservoir, the reservoir created by Taylor Draw Dam. The has average annual revenues from hydropower and mill levies of approximately $700,000. Taylor Draw Dam can also provide municipal water supply for the Town of Rangely, located about six miles of the dam. The is facing a serious water crisis because Kenney Reservoir, which originally provided 13,800 acre-feet of storage, is silting in at an average rate of more than 300 acre-feet per year. The loss of this storage reduces recreation use in the reservoir and the ability to provide long term municipal and industrial water storage for the Town of Rangely. This report was prepared by W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. (Wheeler) for the The study and the initial stakeholder involvement process were managed by EIS Solutions. The feasibility study was scoped to be consistent with the alternatives analysis process that is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because any new water storage reservoir will likely require a Special Use Permit (SUP) from the US. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The vast majority of the land in Rio Blanco County is owned by the BLM and approval of a new reservoir will likely require extensive NEPA documentation. The feasibility study scope included Phase 1 coarse screening and Phase 2 fine screening evaluations. The obtained grants from the YampaNVhite/Green Basin Water Roundtable Roundtable) and the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for the first phase of the study. Per the request of the Roundtable, this report was prepared to summarize the Phase 1 coarse screening evaluations. The Phase 1 work included more than 30 initial meetings with potential project stakeholders, an update of projected water demands in the development of an initial project purpose and need statement, a map study of potential reservoir sites, and coarse screening evaluations to identify primary reservoir sites that would be suitable for initial engineering feasibility design and on-site environmental evaluations in Phase 2 of the study. Harvey Economics identi?ed the need for future water storage in western Rio Blanco County for recreation, water supply, energy development, and instream environmental flows that could range from 20,000 to 90,000 acre?feet of storage by 2065. Wheeler identified 24 potential reservoir sites near the White River and facilitated public workshops to screen the sites to three primary reservoir sites. The screening criteria included minimum storage, minimum recreational surface area, infrastructure impacts, and preliminary environmental impacts. The three primary reservoirs sites are off-channel reservoirs located at Wolf Creek, Spring Creek, and Gilliam Draw. x: 7'1; W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Study Phase 1 Report - Internal ReVIew WHITE RIVER STORAGE FEASIBLITY STUDY PHASE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I TABLE OF CONTENTS II 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Objective 1 1.2 Authorization 1 1.3 Feasibility Study Approach 2 1.4 Scope of Work 3 1.5 Project Personnel 3 2.0 BACKGROUND 5 2.1 Project Setting 5 2.2 The Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District 5 2.3 Reservoir Siltation 5 2.4 Summary of Previous Evaluations 6 2.5 Water Rights 6 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 8 3.1 Water Demand Updates 8 3.1.1 Assumptions 8 3.1.2 Municipal and Industrial Demands 9 3.1.3 Energy Development 9 3.1.4 Recreation 10 3.1.5 Environmental 10 3.1.6 Other Potential Needs 12 4.0 MAP STUDY OF RESERVOIR SITES 13 4.1 Map Study of Potential New Reservoir Sites 13 4.2 Taylor Draw Dam (Kenney Reservoir) Enlargement 14 4.3 Dredge Kenney Reservoir 15 5.0 COARSE SCREENING 16 5.1 Preliminary Coarse Screening 16 5.2 Secondary Coarse Screening Criteria 17 5.2.1 Environmental Impacts 17 5.2.2 Infrastructure Impacts 18 5.2.3 Property Impacts 19 5.2.4 Boundary 20 5.3 Secondary Coarse Screening Results 20 6.0 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS 21 6.1 Workshop Meetings 21 6.2 Roundtable Meetings 21 6.3 Other Stakeholder Meetings 21 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 23 8.0 REFERENCES 24 $315355 phase 1 ?53? . - Page ii Wa mr i??cscw cos ?ngnocv List of Tables Page Table 3.1 Projected Water Storage Needs in Rio Blanco County 8 Table 4.1 Potential White River Storage Sites 14 Table 4.2 Taylor Draw Enlargement Summary 15 Table 5.1 Preliminary Screening 16 Table 5.2 Environmental Impacts 18 Table 5.3 Infrastructure Impacts 19 Table 5.4 Property Impacts 20 Table 5.5 Secondary Screening Summary 20 List of Figures Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Potential Storage Sites Figure 3 Taylor Draw Enlargement Figure 4 Selected Engineering Sites List of Appendices Appendix A - Feasibility Study Statement of Work Appendix White River Storage Feasibility Study Proposed Purpose Need Statement Appendix Coarse Screening Summary Figures White River Storage Feasibilty Study if" W. W. WHEELER Phase 1 Report_lntemal Review Draft24l27/14 I, S: AESUCIATES.INC. sources Engineers 1 .0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE The objective of the White River Storage Feasibility Study is to begin the planning process for a new water storage reservoir within the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District In the early 19805, the designed, constructed, permitted, and funded the Taylor Draw Dam Hydroelectric Project, also known as Kenney Reservoir. Taylor Draw Dam provides hydropower and recreation, and was permitted to provide water supply for the Town of Rangely. Kenney Reservoir, which is located on the mainstem of the White River upstream of Rangely. is silting in at an average rate of more than 300 acre-feet per year. The original two-mile-Iong reservoir is now reduced to about one-mile of open water and another mile of very diverse wetlands in the original upstream mile length of the reservoir. The loss of reservoir storage has significantly reduced recreation use at Kenny reservoir and the ability of the reservoir to provide any future water supply to the Town of Rangely. The has a serious water issue that must be addressed within its District. Most of the land within the boundaries is owned by the U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), so any new reservoir construction will require a Special Use Permit from the BLM, which will require extensive permitting and documentation required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The planning, permitting, ?nancing, design, and construction of a new water supply reservoir can take ten years or longer and the realizes that it must begin an aggressive planning process that will be consistent with the NEPA documentation that will be required for the project. The initial scope of the feasibility study included an initial Phase 1 coarse screening and a second Phase 2 fine screening of potential reservoir sites. The obtained grants for Phase 1 of the feasibility study from the YampaNVhite/Green Basin Roundtable and Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Water Supply Reserve Account (WSRA) grant program. Although a Phase 1 Report was not included in the original scope of work, this Phase 1 Report was prepared as an out-of-scope work item that was requested by the Basin Roundtable during the April 16, 2014 meeting. 1.2 AUTHORIZATION This Phase 1 report was prepared by W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. (Wheeler) with input from EIS Solutions and Harvey Economics (HE). Phase 1 of the feasibility study was funded with 10 percent of the funds from the 45 percent of the funds from the Basin Roundtable account, and 45 percent from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) WSRA grant program. The Phase 1 study was authorized by the roundtable on October 16, 2013 for Phase 1. Phase 1 was authorized by the CWCB on November 20, 2013. White River Storage Feasibilty Study 1 W. WHEELER Phase1 Report- Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 4 AssnnIArea NB esources Page 1 Some preliminary feasibility study scoping work was performed by Wheeler and EIS Solutions in August and September of 2013 that was not included in the scope of Phase 1 or 2 of the feasibility study. Work was performed as scoping for the October 16, 2013 project presentation to the Roundtable, which was authorized by the on September 3, 2013. The authorized Wheeler to begin scoping the feasibility study on September 3, 2013. Wheeler and EIS Solutions were authorized by the to immediately begin Phase 2 of the feasibility study on March 26, 2014, even though the Phase 2 study grants from the Roundtable and CWCB could not be approved until May 2014 or later. 1.3 EASIBILITY STUDY APPROACH EIS Solutions and Wheeler recognize that due to the extent of BLM lands located within the it is highly likely that any new storage reservoir will impact BLM lands and require a Special Use Permit from the BLM. Approval of a BLM permit will require NEPA documentation. Based on a meeting with representatives from the BLM White River Field Of?ce and the on April 16, 2014, the NEPA documentation for a new storage reservoir on the White River will likely require extensive documentation as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because, as a minimum, there will likely be significant impacts to endangered fish in the White River and Colorado of the reservoir. Most water storage feasibility studies like this are initially focused on initial engineering evaluations and then begin to evaluate permitting and environmental constraints. Based on the collective experience of EIS Solutions and Wheeler?s key staff with the NEPA process, the initial focus of this study was to perform an initial cursory evaluation of alternatives and an initial coarse screening process to minimize the potential of spending scarce project planning funds on engineering evaluations for reservoirs that are likely unpermittable. During the initial stakeholder's meeting with the BLM on April 16, 2014, the BLM Field Of?ce Manager indicated that the initial Phase 1 coarse screening work was very helpful and could be used to document the initial scoping work that would be required for an EIS. The original scope of the two-phased feasibility study is provided in Appendix A. Phase 1 of the study included a map study to identify potential storage sites near the White River, development of an initial purpose and need statement, and a coarse screening evaluation to eliminate reservoir sites from primary consideration that a considered to be unpermittable. Coupled with the Phase 1 work was an extensive series of initial stakeholder meetings with key potential project stakeholders to begin to identify key issues that could be a challenge to successfully implementing new water storage in the j; W. W. WHEELER White River Storage Feasrbilty Study Phase 1 Report - internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 ASSOCIATESINB. Page2 A secondary purpose of the initial stakeholder meetings was to begin to develop broad?based support for the project. Phase 2 of the study is intended to develop feasibility-level engineering designs for the primary reservoir sites that resulted from Phase 1 of the study. During Phase 2 of the study, preliminary ?eld site visits of the primary reservoir sites will be conducted to identify potential environmental or other key constraints that could affect the ability to obtain construction permits for the proposed primary reservoirs. Phase 2 will also include the preparation of a ?nancing plan for the project and preparation of a feasibility study report that summarizes the Phase 1 and 2 study phases. Continued stakeholder meetings with existing and newly identified stakeholders were also included in Phase 2 of the study. 1.4 SCOPE OF WORK The key work tasks included in the Phase 1 scope of work are documented in Appendix A and are summarized as follows: . Phase1 Stakeholder [Roundtable Communications, . Complete Alternatives Map Study, Initial Alternatives Workshop, 1 2 3 4. Re?ne Purpose and Need and Water Demands, 5. Coarse Screening Evaluations, and 6 Facilitate a Coarse Screening Workshop. The original scope of work included a report to be generated as part of the Phase 2 work that summarized both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this study. This Phase 1 report was not part of the Phase 1 work scope, but it was prepared at the request of the Roundtable request at its April 16, 2014 meeting. It is intended to be a progress report that summarizes the Phase 1 work completed to date. Information documented in this report is subject to further review and refinement during the second phase of the study. 1.5 PROJECT PERSONNEL The following personnel contributed to the work documented in this Phase 1 report: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Stephen Jamieson, P.E., Project Manager, Wheeler Danielle Tripp, P.E., Project Engineer, Wheeler Christine Mugele, P.E., Associate Engineer, Wheeler Gary Thompson, P. E., Water Rights Engineer, Wheeler Ed Harvey, Harvey Economics W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Study 4 :l Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/ 14 ASSUCIATES.INB. Page3 6. Susan Walker, Harvey Economics Brad McCloud provided project management and project oversight direction to the feasibility study and coordinated the initial Phase 1 stakeholder meetings. . W. WH EELER White River Storage Feasibilty Study Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 ASSOCIATESINC. Page4 n? 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 PROJECT SETTING The White River watershed encompasses approximately 3,750 square miles of land in Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties in northwestern Colorado (see Figure No. 1). The White River ?ows into the Green River south of Vernal, Utah. Approximately 500,000 acre-feet of water ?ows out of the White River annually into Utah, and the total consumptive use on the White River in Colorado is approximately 30,000 acre-feet (YNVIG Roundtable, 2014) The watershed ranges in elevation from 11,000 feet1 on the east end to 5,000 at the Utah State Line. Major sub-drainages to the White River include Piceance Creek, Douglas Creek, Wolf Creek, Yellow Creek, and Crooked Wash. 2.2 THE RIO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT was originally formed in 1978 as part of Water Users Association No. 1 under the Colorado River Water Conservation District. In 1992 all assets of the Water Users Association No. 1 were transferred to form the The constructed the Taylor Draw Hydroelectric Project in 1983 and 1984. Taylor Draw Dam is located approximately six miles upstream of the Town of Rangely. The main project features of this run-of-the?river project include a powerhouse with a generating capacity of two- megawatts and Taylor Draw Dam, which forms Kenney Reservoir. The currently operates and maintains the hydropower plant, the dam, and recreational facilities at Kenny Reservoir. The collects revenues from a District-wide mill levy of approximately $192,000 annually, on average. The also generates hydropower, which produces an annual average revenue of approximately $511,000. Between the mill levy and hydropower revenues, the has average annual revenue of $703,000. As will be documented in Phase 2 of the study, the could realize a significant increase in revenues if it chooses to place a water rights call on the White River at certain times of the year when power production is reduced due to low in?ows to Kenney Reservoir. 2.3 RESERVOIR SILTATION In 1998, an undenivater survey was performed of Kenney Reservoir to obtain topographic information for the top of the accumulated sediment in the reservoir since its first?lling in 1985 (GEI, 1999). According to this survey, the reservoir volume below the spillway at Taylor Draw Dam has decreased from 13,800 acre-feet in 1985 to 9,400 acre-feet in 1999, resulting in an average annual rate of sediment accumulation of 315 Elevations in this report are reported in feet above the 1988 North American Vertical Datum. 35!, W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Feasrbilty Study .. V: Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 49ij ASSOCIATESINC. Page5 acre-feet per year. The 1985 surface area of Kenney Reservoir is approximately 650 acres and the 2014 surface area obtained from a recent aerial photograph in online is approximately 335 acres that is available for recreation. 2.4 SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS No speci?c water supply studies have been done for the since the original feasibility studies completed for Taylor Draw Dam. The study has provided a generalized evaluation of water shortages in the White River Basin, but this study was not specifically focused on the developing water crisis within the The Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District prepared a Water Storage Feasibility Study in April 2013; however, this study was focused only on the development of reservoir sites located within the instead of a basin-wide assessment for storage sites on the White River Basin. The evaluated eight potential storage sites for geotechnical/geological suitability; land ownership; geographical location; topography; recreational opportunities; constructability; existing infrastructure; native water supply; environmental impacts; and permitting concerns. In a meeting between representatives of the and the on March 26, 2014, the indicated that the purpose of their 2013 water storage feasibility study was to help maintain due diligence for its existing water rights. The representative indicated that its annual revenues are approximately $30,000 and that they really don't have the ?nancial ability to develop any of the proposed reservoir sites. 2.5 WATER RIGHTS The majority of the larger senior water rights on the White River are located upstream of Meeker. of Meeker. the White River operates under free river conditions throughout most of the year. As a result, the is expected to ?le for 2014 water rights for the selected primary reservoirs after completion of Phase 2 of the feasibility study. The also has conditional water rights associated with Taylor Draw Dam that could be transferred to the preferred reservoir site with minimal impacts expected to other water users. The conditional water rights include: a 13,800 acre feet (Adjudication date: 11/21/1966) 0 13,800 acre feet (Adjudication date: 12/31/1982) 0 620 (Adjudication date: 11/21/1966) The Colorado River District also has some conditional water rights on the White River that include: 0 75,957 acre feet (Strawberry Creek Reservoir, Adjudication date: W. w_ WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIIty Study A 5 r: I B. Phase 1 Report - Internal Revuew Draft: (Ft/:52; 0 29,374 acre feet (Wray Gulch Reservoir, Adjudication date: 12/31/1973) In an initial meeting with representatives of the Colorado River District, the River District representatives indicated that they would consider transferring these water rights to a new feasible reservoir located within the if it appeared that these water rights could be feasibly transferred. These water rights are located further upstream on the White River, so there could be more potential impacts to other water users than a change case associated with transferring conditional water rights associated with Taylor Draw Dam. White River Storage Feasibilty Study 19":2" a W. WHEELER Phase1 Report- Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 8: Page? 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED Harvey Economics (HE) updated previous information, interviewed potential water users, and updated general water demands to focus more speci?cally on future water demands for the The focus of HE's economic evaluations were on economic sectors, or general water-user groups, who might have an existing or future need for additional water rights and water storage in the region. HE then estimated and quantified the amount of reservoir storage space that would be required to meet those needs. This information was then provided to Wheeler in order to develop an initial purpose and need statement and for use in the coarse screening analysis. The initial purpose and need statement for the project is provided in Appendix and the coarse screening is described in Section 5 of this Phase 1 report. As part of the water demand analysis several key interviews were conducted by HE. The interviews are documented in Section 6.0 of this report. 3.1 WATER DEMAND UPDATES A summary of the updated water demands is provided in Table No. 3.1. A brief description of the methodology to obtain these demands are provided in the sections after Table No. 3.1. Further information is provided in HE draft report. (HE, 2014) The HE report will be finalized concurrently with the White River Storage Feasibility report scheduled to be completed at the end of Phase 2 of the study. TABLE 3.1 - PROJECTED WATER STORAGE NEEDS IN RIO BLANCO COUNTY Near-Term Intermediate-Term Long-Term (through 2030) (through 2045) (through 2065) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) Municipal and Industrial 1,050 - 2,100 1,250 2,500 1,600 3,150 Natural Gas 0 500 3,500 Oil Shale 0 3,500 17,600 8,500 42,300 Recreation Recreation Design Criteria (described in Section 3.1.4) Environmental 3,000 42,000 3,000 42,000 3,000 42,000 Other TOTAL 4,050 44,1 00 8,250 62,600 16,600 90,950 3.1.1 ASSUMPTIONS HE developed water and storage demands for each sector for an approximate 50-year planning period through 2065. The focus of the study was mainly on water needs for Rio Blanco County; however, HE also reviewed the needs for the rest of the White River Basin. The primary focus of the water demand updates (f'r?l W- WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIlty Study A I E. Phase 1 Report - Internal Revuew Draft: 4127/14 Resources Engineers age 8 was on industries that have the ability to contribute financially to the construction of a new water storage reservoir within the The conclusions and estimates of the need for water and storage for the sectors are based, in part, on the experience and expert judgment of the economists along with available information at the time the projections were developed. In many instances, de?nitive data was not available for a more precise analysis and substantial uncertainty exists with key driving variables that will determine future water needs. 3.1.2 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEMANDS The Towns of Rangely and Meeker were the focus of the analysis for this sector because they are the only incorporated jurisdictions located within Rio Blanco County. Because Meeker?s existing and future source of water is alluvial groundwater, it was assumed that the town would not require new raw water storage; therefore, the focus of the M&l need for new storage was centered on the Town of Rangely. Estimates of near, intermediate, and long-term water storage needs for the Town of Rangely are based on projections of annual water demands and the assumption that the Town would likely seek water storage space to hold one to two years worth of annual water demands in order to ensure available water supplies during times of drought or for other unexpected circumstances. Table No. 3.1 provides projections for water storage needs for M&l for the near and long-term. 3. 1.3 ENERGY DEVELOPMENT The current and future operations of both the natural gas and oil shale industries were evaluated for future water and storage needs. Current prices and shut-in volumes are currently temporarily depressing the natural gas development in the area. Exploration in the Williams Fork strata currently requires minimal fresh water beyond what is currently produced as well by-product; however exploration in the Mancos Shale horizon in the future may require additional water, which was included in the demand projections. The oil shale industry in Colorado is in its early stages of development with small independent piloting programs exploring the development possibilities. However, the oil shale industry is more active internationally. If the technology, price, and permitting issues are favorably resolved in Colorado, and once successful production can be demonstrated in the area, energy companies would likely begin to renew their interest in oil shale development in the area. HE projects a long?term ramping up of production through 2065. The water and storage Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 332;, W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Study . . 5: ASSOCIATES. PageQ demands for this industry were estimated for a low water use technology scenario and for a high water use technology scenario, as a result of the unknowns with the type of technology that will be used in the oil shale industry in the future. The projected needs for oil shale and natural gas development are summarized in Table No. 3.1. 3.1.4 RECREATION It is HE's opinion that there is demand for additional reservoir recreational opportunities based on current recreation activity in Rio Blanco County. That conclusion is supported by the following facts: (1) There are currently only three large lakes available for recreation in the Rio Blanco County; however, Kenny Reservoir is becoming increasingly silted in and will likely become unavailable to ?at water recreators at some point in the future; (2) only two of those reservoirs allow motorized sports (one of which is Kenney Reservoir that is silting in and the other is Rio Blanco Lake which has a small surface area); (3) many Rio Blanco County residents currently travel to areas outside the County for better quality ?shing and boating experiences; (4) potential reservoir locations are accessible from a number of larger regional cities and towns, including Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs; the right reservoir characteristics and amenities are likely to attract visitors from a wide geographic area. The interviews conducted with people familiar with and involved in recreation in the County indicate that a new reservoir should have the following characteristics in order to attract visitors and support a number of recreational opportunities: 0 A minimum of 700 to 1,500 acres of surface area; . An elongated shape; . Minimum depth of 50 feet in some areas of the lake; . Variable bottom shelving; . Interesting and variable lakeside topography; 0 Good road access for visitors with boats and other equipment. 3.1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL The White River, below Kenney Reservoir to the Colorado/Utah border, provides habitat for two federally listed threatened and endangered ?sh species: the Colorado Pikeminnow and the Razorback Sucker. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), which includes partners such as the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the States of Colorado and Utah have undertaken a number of activities to protect these species in several Colorado River Basins, including the Colorado River, Yampa River, and Gunnison River. The Recovery Program has only recently begun work to develop a Programmatic Biological . W. WH EELE White River Storage Feasibilty Study Phase 1 Report lntemal Review Draft: 4/27/14 ASSUBIATESJNB. Page10 Opinion (PBO) for the White River Basin, which will include a number of flow recommendations aimed at maintaining peak ?ows and minimum flows. It is anticipated that once the ?nal ?ow recommendations have been developed for the White River, some level of future water augmentation will be required to meet the target flows that will likely be established at the Watson stream gage station on the White River near the Colorado/Utah border. Because the P30 development for the White River Basin is in its infancy, a simple, spreadsheet-based storage/yield model was developed by Wheeler to determine the potential storage needs to meet a target stream?ow at the Watson USGS stream?ow gage. The model used the daily average ?ow at the USGS gage at Watson and the USGS gage below Meeker from October 1961 to November 2013, with the exception of October 1979 to September 1985 when data was unavailable. Three other stream?ow gages are located between Meeker and the Watson gage. However the USGS gage below Meeker was used because it provided the longest record of data available. The model took into account two daily scenarios: 1) Inflow scenario: The minimum stream?ow demands were met at the Watson Gage, therefore, water could be diverted into the ?potential? reservoir for storage to be used for future release for environmental water demands. The amount of water that was permitted to be diverted into the reservoir was either 1) the maximum diversion rate possible, which is limited based on the fill facilities that would be constructed, which are unknown in Phase 1; 2) the amount of water that would produce the maximum amount of storage available in the reservoir for environmental needs; or 3) the measured discharge at the USGS gage below Meeker minus the target discharge needed at the USGS Watson gage, the assumed transit losses, and the assumed necessary flows for water rights. 2) Outflow scenario: The minimum stream?ow demands are not met at the Watson Gage. Therefore, water is assumed to be released from the ?potential" reservoir to meet the streamflow requirements at the Watson Gage. The amount of water that was released was the target streamflow needed minus the streamflow measured at the Watson Gage, plus the assumed transit losses, and plus the assumed necessary flows for water rights. The following assumptions were made in constructing the model: 1) A transit loss of 0.5-percent per mile for 63 miles was assumed. Because the preferred reservoir site is unknown at Phase 1 of the study, the length from Crooked Wash Reservoir site was used, as this site is located approximately near the middle of the potential reservoir sites. Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 AS: W. W. WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIIty Study ,5 AESUCIATESJNE. Page11 2) The maximum diversion fill rate for the reservoir, which will be based on the designed reservoir ?ll facilities that was assumed to be 100 cfs. 3) A stream?ow buffer of 20 was estimated during all times in the model to be used to satisfy water rights. 4) The reservoir will allow the minimum stream?ow at the Watson gage to be met 95 percent of the time. 5) The minimum streamflow target at the USGS Watson gage was assumed to range from 200 to 300 cfs. Based on the Colorado River Recovery Program Project for FY 2013, the baseflow dry target at the Watson Gage was 300 (CRRP, 2013). Based on target streamflows of 200 and 300 at the USGS Watson Gage, it is anticipated that 3,000 acre-feet to 42,000 acre-feet, respectively, of storage will be needed to meet the minimum target streamflows 95 percent of the time. Future re?nements will need to be made to the model, after the updated target streamflow requirements in the White River PBO are updated. The reservoir transit loss length will need to be updated based on the preferred reservoir location and the diversion inflow rate will need to be re?ned based on the inflow feasibility design of the reservoir fill facilities. 3.1.6 OTHER POTENTIAL NEEDS Other potential needs for water storage on the White River include agriculture, Colorado River Compact Storage, and Trans-basin Diversions. Additional agricultural demands have been noted as needed in the SWSI studies, however based on HE's Opinion, the agriculture sector is not expected to be able to contribute significant ?nancial resources for a new water storage project now or in the foreseeable future. Providing an emergency supply of water in storage that could be released to offset a Colorado River Compact call could assist the State of Colorado to provide the required water demands without injuring other Colorado water users; however, the feasibility or demand of this potential water storage is unable to be quantified at this time. Trans-Basin Diversions have been discussed in recent years in the State of Colorado; however, water needs for a transbasin diversion project from the White River were considered to be too speculative to include at this time. w_ w_ WH EELER Whlte River Storage FeaSIbIlty Study 6: ASSUCIATES.INB. Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4127/14 Page 12 to Highway 64 and any infrastructure near Highway 64 for the length of the approximately eight-mile-Iong reservoir at the 90,000 acre~feet expansion. TABLE 4.2 TAYLOR DRAW ENLARGEMENT SUMMARY Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx. . . Dam Dam Surface Max Approx. Potential Dam Sites Height Length Area Volume Drainage Area (Feet) (Feet) (Acres) (Acre-Feet) (Square Miles) Feet Feet Acres Acre-Feet Square Miles Taylor Draw Dam (Existing) 81 1,130 335 1 13,800 2 2,788 Taylor Draw Dam (Enlarged by 20,000 Acre-feet) 104.5 1,470 1.077 33,800 2,788 Taylor Draw Dam (Enlarged by 90,000 Acre-feet) 142.5 2,030 2.323 103,800 2,788 1 The approximate surface area for the existing Kenney Reservoir includes the approximate area that can be used for recreation. The surface area in 1985 was approximately 650 acres. 2 The storage in Kenney Reservoir prior to any siltation of the reservoir. 4.3 DREDGE KENNEY RESERVOIR Dredging Kenney Reservoir was to create more storage in Kenney Reservoir was also evaluated based on initial public meeting comments. Dredging had been assessed earlier by the since their existing storage and recreation is being severely impacted by the siltation. Based on assessment by Dredge Pro in 2010, their conclusion was that "there is no economical way to do this project? and no identi?ed location for storage of the silt is available after dredging. Based on the costs of the recent dredging of Strontia Springs Reservoir located southwest of Denver, Colorado, approximately 387 acre-feet of silt was dredged in 2011 for approximately $30 million, resulting in an approximate cost of $77,520 per acre-foot to dredge the reservoir. Kenney Reservoir is silting at approximately 315 acre-feet per year (GEI, 1999), indicating that since 1985 approximately 9,450 acre-foot of water storage has been lost. Based on this information, dredging Kenney Reservoir to regain the original storage would cost over $700 million dollars. Strontia Springs also had an identified site for disposal of the dredged sediment within approximately six miles from the reservoir. Dredge Pro's assessment was that Kenney Reservoir does not currently have an identi?ed waste location, which could make the costs significantly higher, if the identified disposal site is several miles from the reservoir. Based on the cost of this option and since siltation is expected to occur in the future at this site, this is not considered to be a viable alternative. White River Storage Feasibilty Study Phase 1 Report - lntemal Review Draft: 4127/14 Page 15 w. w. WHEELER ,1 .5. 5.0 COARSE SCREENING Based on the future water storage needs summarized in Table No. 3.1 a reservoir with storage of 20,000 acre-feet to 90,000 acre-feet is needed to meet the projected 2065 water demands. In the coarse screening process, Wheeler eliminated several alternatives in a ?Preliminary Screening", then assigned additional coarse screening criteria in the "Secondary Screening" to determine the most primary reservoir sites for Phase 2 engineering and environmental analysis. 5.1 PRELIMINARY COARSE SCREENING Preliminary coarse screening was performed which screened out the reservoir sites that did not meet the minimum water storage needs or the minimum surface area needs for recreation. In total, 14 sites were screened out in the preliminary screening, as documented in Table No. 5.1, with two sites screened out based on location. The reservoir sites that were evaluated further after the preliminary screenings are shown in red for a 90,000 acre-foot reservoir on Figure No. 2. TABLE 5.1 PRELIMINARY SCREENING Approx. Approx. ?33:33:: ?323:3: Reason for Screening Surface Area Storage at at Site Site Potential Dam Sites (Acres) (Acre-Feet) Storage Recreation Location Chase Draw Reservoir 190 6,349 Cottonwood Creek Reservoir 10,790 1,881,534 2 Hall Draw Reservoir 194 8,434 Hammond Draw Reservoir 103 3,414 Keliog Gulch Reservoir 165 7,041 Kenney #2 Reservoir 45 2,669 Little Spring Creek Reservoir 137 6,245 McAndrews Gulch Reservoir 205 16,389 School Gulch Reservoir 196 9,523 Scullion Gulch Reservoir 427 28,810 Taylor Draw Reservoir 340 49,617 Torn Little Gulch Reservoir 1 308 10,896 Wolf Creek Reservoir (Mainstem) 12,493 785,048 3 Wray Gulch Reservoir 1 438 19,362 1 Reservoir sites from the Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District Water Storage Feasibility Study. 2 Cottonwood Creek Reservoir was screened out as a potential reservoir because it is considered to be too far to assist with stream?ows for endangered ?sh. 3 Wolf Creek Reservoir on the mainstem of the White River was screened out as a potential reservoir site because of signi?cant 404 permitting and reservoir siltation concerns. . W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Study A I AT Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4127/14 IN . Page 16 only State Highway that was impacted at any of the sites was Highway 139 by the Douglas Creek reservoir site. The infrastructure impacts that each reservoir has at the 90,000 acre-foot water surface are summarized in Table No. 5.3 and shown on the ?gures in Appendix C. TABLE 5.3 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS Leng?1of of Oil and Total Road Dirt or Other County State RESERVOIR Gas Wells Length Road Roads Highway (MILES) (MILES) (MILES) (MILES) Crooked Wash 0 3.4 3.4 0.0 0.0 Douglas Creek 11 6.4 0.8 1.2 4.5 Gillam Draw 1 4.0 1.4 2.6 0.0 HayGuhh 0 18 25 1B 00 Smith Gulch 0 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 Spring Creek 0 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 Sulphur Creek 0 2.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 Wolf Creek (Off Channel) 0 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 Yellow Creek 0 7.3 2.2 5.2 0.0 5.2.3 PROPERTY IMPACTS The nine reservoir sites were assessed for any impact to properties, which included: 1. Number of private landowners impacted. 2. BLM [Colorado land impacts. Although none of the reservoir sites were specifically screened based on the number of landowners impacted, it provided an idea of the number of properties that were impacted and the entities or private landowners that would need to be contacted in future phases of the study to further develop a reservoir at the site. The property that each reservoir impacts at the 90,000 acre-foot water surface is summarized in Table No. 5.4 and shown on the ?gures in Appendix B. w. w. WHEELER ,1 a. ASSOCIATES, Re White River Storage Feasibilty Study Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4127/14 Page 19 TABLE 5.4 PROPERTY IMPACTS Private Property BLM Land Colorado Land Impacts RESERVOIR Impacts Impacts of Properties) Crooked Wash YES YES 3 Douglas Creek YES NO 4 Gillam Draw YES NO 0 Hay Gulch YES YES 0 Smith Gulch YES NO 1 Spring Creek YES NO 0 Sulphur Creek YES NO 2 Wolf Creek (Off Channel) YES YES 3 Yellow Creek YES YES 0 5.2.4 BOUNDARY Screening reservoirs located outside of the boundary, per the March 26, 2014 public workshop consensus, resulted in the screening of reservoirs at Crooked Wash, Hay Gulch, Smith Gulch. and Sulphur Creek. The district boundary is shown on Figure Nos. 1 and 2. 5.3 SECONDARY COARSE SCREENING RESULTS A summary of the secondary screening and reasons for screening out the reservoir sites are provided in Table No. 5.5. Based on the secondary screening, the primary reservoir sites that were selected for engineering and environmental analysis in Phase 2 of the feasibility study were Gillam Draw, Spring Creek, and Wolf Creek (off-channel). TABLE 5.5 SECONDARY SCREENING SUMMARY Screened for Screened for Screened because the Environmental Infrastructure site is not located in RESERVOIR Impacts Impacts Crooked Wash YES YES Douglas Creek YES Gillam Draw Hay Gulch YES Smith Gulch YES YES Spring Creek Sulphur Creek YES Wolf Creek (Off Channel) Yellow Creek YES W. W. WH EELER White River Storage Feasibiity Study Phase 1 Report - lntemal Review Draft: 4/27/14 Page 20 AESCICIATESJNB. 6.0 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS During the Phase 1 evaluations, several meetings were held with key stakeholders with representatives from ES, HE, Wheeler, and the The purpose of these initial meetings was to explain the project to the key stakeholders and allow stakeholder input to help identify key issues that may impact the project. 6.1 WORKSHOP MEETINGS Public workshops were conducted to gather public input and provide the public with information on the project progress. The following workshops were conducted in Rangely as part of Phase 1 evaluations: . January 29, 2014 - Alternatives Workshop . February 26, 2014 Purpose Need Workshop . March 26, 2014 Coarse Screening Workshop 6.2 YIWIG ROUNDTABLE MEETINGS Presentations were made at the Roundtable during the following meetings to keep the roundtable informed of the project progress: 0 October 16, 2013 The proposed scope for both Phases 1 and 2 of the White River Storage Feasibility Study were presented. . January 15, 2014 An overview of the upcoming workshops that were held in Rangely was introduced to encourage Roundtable participation. . April 16, 2014 - A summary of the Phase 1 work was provided to the Roundtable and a second request was made for Phase 2 funding approval. 6.3 OTHER STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS The following is a list of people in various industries that were met with by HE, Wheeler, and the as part of the Phase 1 workDan Eddy, Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District Alden Vanden Brink, Town of Rangely Utilities Supervisor, T. Wright Dickinson, YWG Basin Roundtable Jeff Comstock, YWG Basin Roundtable Jeff Devere, YWG Basin Roundtable Russell George, CNCC CWCB ?2 W. W. WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIlty Study a Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 ASSOCIATES, Pa 21 asaurces Engineers 9 7. Eric Jaquez, Rio Blanco County 8. Katelin Cook, Rio Blanco County Economic Development 9. Stephanie Kobald, Meeker Chamber of Commerce 10. 11 Kristin Steele, Rangely Area Chamber of Commerce . Glenn Vawter, National Oil Shale Association (NOSA) 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Roger Day, American Shale Oil (AMSO) Jeremy Boak, Colorado School of Mines David Ludlum, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, West Slope Region David Cesark, Mesa Energy Partners Jeff Kirtland, WPX Energy Jessica Dooling, XTO Energy Tim Webber, Western Rio Blanco Metropolitan Recreation Parks District Kyle Battige, Aquatic Biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Jana Mohrman, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, UC Recovery Program Tom Pitts, Water Consult, UC Recovery Program Grant Nulle, Colorado State Demographers Of?ce Dan Birch, Colorado River District Ray Tenney, Colorado River District Peter Brixius, Rangely Town Manager John McClow, Counsel, Gunnison Water Conservation District Jacob Bornstein, Colorado Water Conservation District Bonnie Peterson, Club 20 Ed Coryell, Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District Luke Allard and Scott Ritter, Chevron Tracy Boyd, Shell Bob Lange, BLM White River Field Office Hydrologist Kent Walter, BLM White River Field Office Manager Ester McCullough, BLM White River Field Of?ce Assistant Manager Heather Sauls, BLM Planning Environmental Manager Richard Brooks, BLM GIS Specialist . .5 W. W. WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIIty Study ASSOCIATES, IND. . Phase 1 Report - lntemal Review Draft: 4/27/14 Page 22 . fir-1. 7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Key results and conclusions of Phase 1 are summarized below: 1. Based on the updated future water demands assessment in the a range of water storage from approximately 20,000 acre-foot to 90,000 acre-foot reservoir will be needed by 2065 to meet the water demands of the for Energy Development, Recreation, and Environmental needs. 2. Following the preliminary and secondary coarse screening, three primary reservoir sites were selected to proceed with the engineering evaluations: a. Gillam Draw Reservoir b. Spring Creek Reservoir c. Wolf Creek Reservoir 3. The scope of Phase 2 of the White River Feasibility Study is provided in Appendix A and includes the following work tasks: Phase 2 Stakeholder/Roundtable Communications Preliminary Engineering Workshop Constraint Evaluations Financing Plan Stakeholder Meeting Agency Presentations ?9??9?9-953?9? Final report .1 I W. W. WH EELER White River Storage FeaSIbIlty Study . a I AT 5 I Phase 1 Report - Internal Review Draft: 4127114 Page 23 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 8.0 REFERENCES . Applegate Group, Inc. (Applegate, 2013), Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District Water Storage Feasibility Study, April 2013. . Bureau of Land Management (BLM, 2013), Geospatial Data and Metadata Statewide Layers for BLM Colorado, 2013. CDM Smith, Inc. (SWSI, 2010), Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SW81) for the Yampa-White Basin, 2010. CDM, Inc. (CDM, 2006) Water Supply and Needs Report for the Yampa/White/Green Basin, July 2006. CDM Smith, Inc. (CDM, 2012), Yampa-White Basin Roundtable Watershed Flow Evaluation Tool Study Report, June 2012. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT, 2013), CDOT Data Catalog, 2013. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC, 2013), COGCC GIS Online, 2013. Colorado River Recovery Program (CRRP, 2013) FY 2013 Annual Project Report, General Hydrology Support, Project No. 19, 2013. Dredge Pro (Dredge Pro, 2010), Correspondence with the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District, May 25, 2010. Consultants, Inc. (GEI, 1999), Sediment Study Survey Results, letter to the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District, January 19, 1999. Harvey Economics (HE, 2014), Purpose and Needs for the White River Storage Feasibility Project, DRAFT REPORT, March 2014. State of Colorado (SEQ, 1997) Office of the State Engineer, Dam Safety Branch, Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction; January 1, 2007. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2013), National Wetland Inventory Data based on the areal extent of wetlands and surface waters as defined by Cowardin et al. 1979, 2013. United States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2013) National Elevation Dataset, Seamless Distribution System, 2013. URS Corporation (URS, 2008), Energy Development Water Needs Assessment (Phase 1 Report), prepared for the Colorado, Yampa, and White River Basin Roundtables Energy Subcommittee, September 2008. YampaNVhite/Green Basin Roundtable Roundtable, 2014) Working Draft of the Basin Implementation Plan for the Yampa/White/Green River, April, 2014. T- w_ w. WH EELER White River Storage Feasibilty Study . ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 1 Report - internal Review Draft: 4/27/14 Page 24 [tum-mmdrama?H- I - 8 -r C.) \N?hiie R?V'er . s4 TE KENNEY . .. RESERVOIR - 64 Nb 2: 0?0 $759 A RIC I .I TAYAPUTSPLAH s?el?nOG 139 JLegend in I I I County . . Soi?urc?e Esriir .. . . NR9 -N,GeoBase, . . . . and the GI- I-I qua!" I I i Service Area l-I White River Watershed Denver Grand Junc?on COLO RAPO (an I. . II crud-mumASSOCIATES. INC. r'r. . . 2.1.. Hal H?hour??H-; h?yu?i??J?rh? White River Storage Feasibility Study Service Area Location Map Job. 1555.07 FIGURE 1 FeasibilityStudy\Drawing sessment_Coarse Screen_P PT.mxd ?Wfd HO mil-HI IDJ . 'i-Ilr. -. I I .l I Kenney Reservoir (Existing) {Rio ELAN OCOUNTYP 1! 1? 4 Cottonwood Creek Reservoir l?i?I'U'f' Kenney #2 Reservoir Chase Draw Reservoir? *3 .l I Crooked Wash Creek Wolf Creek - Reservoir; Riservmr? "Iii. Hall ole?n Scullion Reservoir Gulch Reservoir port: . Hammond "f Draw? Reservoir . . Eb Little 'Spring Creek Gulch Reservoir . Reservoir' .- - . ndrews Gulch Reservoir I .i Creek Reservoir .2- . RANGELY w: Taylor Draw . 4' Gillam Draw I Reservoir Yeli?wy . acr'eek Reservoir 3hr.- Douglas Creek Reservoir . Legend Kenney Reservoir (approx. Kenney Reservoir {a pprox. original surface area) if, While River Wale rshed 90,000 Acre-Feet Reservoir Sites :5 Original Reservoir Silas State Boundary availa DIG surface area - I I I Cou my Boundary Service Area Service Area i Tom __ittle GulchR eser rvoir Wray Gulclf_ Res yervoir Kellog Res after sillallon) -- ?i 1 ?mam-Inn gran-1H:- Ina . .. . _Sulphur Creek Reservoir Smith Gulch Reservoir "(We ervoir Hay Glilch Reservoir W. W. WHEELER ASSOCIATES. Jl-. Ilht mm: Ha t. mum-q. White River Storage Feasibility Study Potential Storage Sites FIGURE 2 VLOZ Job. #2 1656.07 Enlarged Taylor Draw Dam 90,000 Acre-Feet Additional Storage 20,000 Acre-Feet Additional Storage Surface Area 1,077 Acres Original Normal High Water Line Surface Area 649 Acres Approximate 2014 Recreation Area Surface Area 335 Acres Legend w. w. WHEELER ASSUCIATEEJNB. Haar?im?rm-a engine-9:5- 9 Kenney Reservoir Surface Area Englarged by 90,000 AF 9 Kenney Reservoir Surface Area Englarged by 20,000 AF 2014 Ken ney Reservoir Surface Area ?3 Original Kenney Reservoir Surface Area White River Storage Feasibility Study Taylor Draw Dam Enlargement VLOZ Job. #2 1656.07 FeasibilinSiudy\Drawing ites.mxd I . . . . MOFFAT COUNTY i I K3 RIO BLANCO COUNTY RANGELY- MEEKER I x. 'h Existing igeng?ey?eservojr ?(Taylor Draw Damb I - -. . Springgleek QReservoir .. f?ilim?raw . . . - - I i a "v I Legend 9 90.000 AF RESERVOIR 9 20.000 AF RESERVOIR 2014 Kenney Reservoir Original Kenney Reservoir as White River Watershed County Boundary a Service Area Service Area -J . Creek Reservoir W. W. WH EELER 5: ASSOCIATES. INC. White River Storage Feasibility Study Primary Storage Sites Job. #2 1656.07 FIGURE 4 APPENDIX A FEASIBILITY STUDY STATEMENT OF WORK EXHIBIT A White River Storage Feasibility Study Statement of Work STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District will be conducting a water storage feasibility study for the White River to identify potential moderate-sized, off-channel reservoirs along the White River to replace recreation being lost at Kenney Reservoir as well as providing additional water storage for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users. Reservoir sites will also be evaluated for the potential to be enlarged to accommodate other potential water storage partners for uses such as: 1. Enhancing Threatened and Endangered Species habitat 2. Enhancing Minimum Stream Flows 3. Providing water for Self-Supported Industrial needs such as natural gas, coal, uranium, and oil shale. 4. Providing Colorado River Compact storage during periods of extreme drought. The study will also include development of a ?nancing and repayment plan PROJECT ROLES: The Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District has selected EIS Solutions and W. W. Wheeler and Associates, Inc. (Wheeler) to complete the work. EIS Solutions will be responsible for managing the project, facilitating project communications, and conducting stakeholder meetings. Wheeler will perform the feasibility analysis and prepare the feasibility report. BUDGET and SCHEDULE: The project will be conducted in two phases that will include an initial course screening phase and a second ?ne screening phase. Key work tasks, budgets, and milestones for each phase of the work are summarized in Table 1 below followed by a description of each work task. Table 1 - Summary of Key Work Task Budgets and Schedules Tentative Phase Task Due Date Emet 1 Phase 1 Stakeholder/Roundtable Communications ongoing $50,000 1 Complete Alternatives Map Study 1?29-14 $15,000 1 Initial Alternatives Workshop 1?29-1 4 $1 1,000 1 Re?ne Purpose and Need and Water Demands 2-26-14 $50,000 1 Coarse Screening Evaluations 3-26-14 $13,000 1 Facilitate 3 Coarse Screening Workshop 3?26-14 $11,000 Phase 1 Subtotal $150,000 2 Phase 2 Stakeholder/Roundtable Communications ongoing $55,000 2 Preliminary Engineering Workshop 5-28-14 $58,000 2 Constraint Evaluations 6-18-14 $38,000 2 Financing Plan 6-18?14 $26,000 2 Stakeholder Meetings 7-30-14 $20,000 2 Agency Presentations 7-13-14 $10,000 2 Draft Report and Draft Report Workshop 7-20-14 $15,000 2 Finalize Report 8-15-14 $8,000 Phase 2 Subtotal $230,000 Total Feasibility Study Budget $380,000 WORK TASK DESCRIPTIONS Phase 1 Course Screening Phase 1 Stakeholder and Roundtable Communications: EIS will meet with key stakeholders and YampaNVhite/Green basin Roundtable members to identify key issues and begin to develop a broad range of support for the project. Complete Alternatives Map Study: Wheeler will use GIS tools to identify potential reservoir storage sites along the White River and develop preliminary reservoir plans and storage information to develop an initial list of reservoir alternatives. Initial Alternatives Workshop: The initial reservoir site alternatives and potential advantages and disadvantages of each site will be reviewed and discussed with the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District Board during a public meeting workshop in Rangely. Refine Purpose and Need and Water Demands: Wheel will subcontract with Harvey Economics to update potential water demands information for the White River based on previous work completed for the State-wide Water Supply Plan and other recent work by others. Of particular interest will be to update potential water demands for future energy production. This information will be used to update and quantify key purpose and need parameters. Course Screening Evaluations: Wheeler will develop potential course screening criteria and perform an initial course screening of the alternatives for review in the coarse screening workshop. Facilitate a Course Screening Workshop: Wheeler will facilitate a coarse screening workshop that reviews the initial alternatives, re?ned purpose and need parameters, and will coarse screening alternatives with the goal of eliminating potential storage sites that will not meet the proposed purpose and need criteria. Phase 2 Fine Screening Phase 2 Stakeholder and Roundtable Communications: will continue to meet with key stakeholders and YampaNVhite/Green basin Roundtable members to update and communicate project ?ndings and begin to identify potential project partners for the project. Preliminary Engineering and Workshop: After completing coarse screening, Wheeler will perform preliminary engineering to size drain and ?ll facilities, spillways, dam con?gurations, and other project features. This work will also involve development of preliminary construction quantities and project cost opinions. Constraint Evaluations: Wheeler will subcontract to WestWater Engineering to collect initial environmental and cultural information at each reservoir site. Wheeler will also use available databases to identify features that would be impacted by reservoir sites such as oil wells, pipelines, roads, and other key infrastructure. Financing Plan: Wheeler will subcontract to Harvey Economics to use the preliminary project cost information to develop a ?nancing plan and ability-to-pay analysis for the projects. Stakeholder Meetings: These stakeholder meetings will involve more detailed question and answer sessions with key stakeholders or potential project partners to help re?ne the alternatives to maximize project bene?ts and minimize adverse consequences. Agency Presentations: this would involve making project presentations to the Colorado Water Conservation Board, Water Roundtables, and other key agencies identi?ed during the study. Draft Report and Draft Report Workshop: Wheeler will prepare a draft report that summarizes the work completed in Phase 1 and 2 of the study. Wheeler will also conduct a public workshop to solicit comments on the draft feasibility report. Final Report: The ?nal task will be to address review comments and ?nalize the report. APPENDIX WHITE RIVER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY PROPOSED PURPOSE 8: NEED STATEMENT Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District White River Storage Feasibility Study Proposed Purpose and Need Statement The Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District is planning to develop a new, multi-purpose, water storage reservoir in the White River Basin. The purpose of the new storage project is to provide reliable water storage to meet the following primary water needs that are expected to develop in western Rio Blanco County in the next 50 years: 1. Municipal and Industrial needs in and around the Town of Rangely; 2. Water supply for the natural gas industry; 3. Water supply for the oil shale industry; and 4. Environmental water storage for flows. The minimum projected reservoir storage requirements to meet these needs through 2065 range from 20,000 to 90,000 acre-feet. Another key need for the new reservoir is to replace the unmet need for open water recreation in northwest Colorado. This open water recreation demand was previously met by Kenney Reservoir, but about half of the surface area and approximately 9,450 acre-feet of storage has been lost in Kenney Reservoir since 1985. It is estimated that the reservoir is continuing to silt in at an average rate of 315 acre-feet per year. The ideal recreational characteristics for a new reservoir are as follows: 1. A minimum surface area of 700 to 1,500 acres; 2. A minimum depth of 50 feet; 3. An uneven lake front topography and variable ?bottom shelving? depths in the reservoir to enhance a reservoir ?shery; 4. A reservoir length that is at least twice as long as it is wide; 5. Adequate vehicle access to the reservoir. The new reservoir should have the physical storage characteristics to be expanded beyond 90,000 acre-feet if needed to meet other potential water supply demands that could develop in the future for irrigation; Colorado River Compact protection; or potential transbasin diversions. The new reservoir must also be constructed in a location that: 1. Minimizes impacts to existing infrastructure such as oil gas wells, local industry, public roads and other infrastructure; 2. Minimizes environmental impacts to environmental resources such as wetlands and endangered or protected species habitat; 3. Can store and deliver water with minimal losses to meet the four, primary, above- mentioned water needs; A key element of the project is that the project must be affordable and implemented within the ?Ability to Pay" thresholds of the Rio Blanco Water Conservancy District and its project partners. RIO WATER Preliminary: 4I16114 A. 1 11. "IllAPPENDIX COARSE SCREENING SUMMARY RIVER BASIN MOFFAT COUNTY: RIO BLANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90,000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (wiih'n impact area) . OilandGasWells (within impaclarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) NEEIHOS 3 Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road Dirt Road Minor Road State Highway sgs?e uv PropertyOwnership Ownership - BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE 0 4,000 Feet RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Crooked Wash Reservoir Uimeich ms?uutus 99;: 6521015"; ?91 l3W Mean: Em mam weiem?aelmij . - TimCiiSC?m lea-"1f ?mite-arms 1 Job 1656.07 Flgure CS 1 0'9 99 959 ?.009 L?r?ti WHITE RIVER BA SIN MOFFAT counrrvi RIO BLANCO COUNTY Legend Reservoir 90.000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (with'n impact area) OiiandGasWeils (within impactarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County oad Dirt Road (.0 II - - I Minor Road State Highway gsMeuv PropertyOwne rship Ownership - ELM - COLORADO - PRIVATE RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Douglas Creek Reservoir imoxmsmis?uweacn?p nis?iluqsseasa?eiors?z emu: Em: frame ?a wax. Cdii?fe?i . .. ., ob 56.0 - 6 7 0999 ?999 i F?T??C?it?Uf??mC?Ti??J?iri. a (D (I .- u: 2 '515512 uv ilViG XWESISWE 95 ems?1. 0'999 ?999 HOOQWH 5% ?Amie ween Fifi}? We wm_m RIO BLANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90.000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (wiih'n impact area) . OilandGasWells (within impaciarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road Dirt Road I- - I MinorRoad Siaie Highway PropertyOwnership Ownership - BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Gil/am Draw Reservoir PLOZ Job #2 1656.07 WHITE RIVER BASIN I I I MOFFAT COUNTYI . RIO BLANCO COUNTY Legend Reservoir 90.000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (with'n impact area) . OilandGasWells (within impactarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road Naauos'a nun Dirt Road IDMinorRoad State Highway lsMeuv PropertyOwnership Ownership BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Hay Gulch Reservoir VLOZ F1351 "egg-3i WEE . . - ?E?h?l 7m 3:31: ti 1656.07 F gure CS 4 0'9 99 ?999 H00 9 WE a 1 95810187. 0999 H.999 H.009 L138 111 3/26/14" 30 mes: ailandi . Emma MOFFAT COUNTYI RIO BLANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90.000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (within impact area) . OilandGasWells (within impact area) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road ml" Dirt Road - I I Minor Road State Highway PropertyOwnership Ownership - BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE IZI ELM Wilderness Study Area 0 3,000 6,000 Feet RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Smith Gulch Reservoir Job 1656.07 Figure 03-5 MOFFAT RIO BLANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90,000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (wilh'n impaci area) . OiiandGasWelis (within impaclarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Naauos'a Type County Dad I- I I ll Dirt Road (.Minor Road State Highway PropertyOwnership Ownership - BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE lsMa uv RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 95 inite River Storage Feasibility Study Spring Creek Reservoir VLOZ umew e21: Ed Tia iit?kiiff'i?n 1mg? Tm1656.07 ?ring homage} 1231i} ?2112i: simian? E13 91015 1.0999 H.999 pxm?inudlnsup 3 o: 3 . 75 2 "sgslile uv imo xthIOis?quJm?p ms?uuqiseaa 35910151 099913.999 Eg?? Org-??e 43131 (?3333. [Eittgiu Hem; WEB: [Emerge 5-313? VER BASIN In. I I I I I MOFFAT RIO BLANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90,000 Acre?feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (withh impact area) . OitandGasWetts (within impactarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road Dirt Road - - I Minor Road State Highway PropertyOwnership Ownership - aw - COLORADO - RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Sulphur Creek Reservoir VLOZ Job #1 1656.07 Figure 08-7 WHITE RIVER BASIN MOFFAT RIO BLANCO COUNTY Legend Reservoir 90,000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (with'n impact area) . OilandGasWells (within impactarea) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County oad U) U: 2 mm Dirt Road - - I Minor Road State Highway PropertyOwne rship Ownership - ELM - COLORADO - PRIVATE Sistine uv?; RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT emis'z White River Storage Feasibility Study Wolf Creek Reservoir VLOZ umew 0'999 *W?m'gai?i - Job 1656.07 Figure 08-8 H.999 ?0091.118 1 pxurmonaii '.u-F a 2 313MB uv'; moxw?rsmis? UimeJoMp nisKiiliqis 283 96210137 09 99 H999 ?1009 Hi my a; Earn, more; ?Ha??frc nm?g ~51 ??13m; 31 T'?F?E?f?f?a mam-r; 2235153 VER BASIN MOFFAT ELANCO COUNTY Reservoir 90.000 Acre-feet High Water Line National Wetland Inventory (within impact area) OilandGasMIIS (within impact area) Greater Sage Grouse (within impact area) Roads (within impact area) Roads Type County Road Dirt Road I I I Minor Road State Highway Property Owners hip Ownership - BLM - COLORADO - PRIVATE ?4 Areas of Env. Concern (ACEC) 0 4.000 8,000 ?03 l4913"? Feet RIO BLANCO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT White River Storage Feasibility Study Yellow Creek Reservoir Job 1656.07 Figure CS-9