SIMULATED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED RESERVOIR-DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES ON STREAMFLOW QUANTITY IN THE WHITE RIVER, COLORADO AND UTAH

Transcription

1 SIMULATED EFFECTS F PRPSED RESERVIR-DEVELPMENT ALTERNATIVES N STREAMFLW QUANTITY IN THE WHITE RIVER, CLRAD AND UTAH By Gerhard Kuhn and Sherman R. Ellis U.S. GELGICAL SURVEY Water-Resurces Investigatins Reprt Lakewd, Clrad 1984

2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT F THE INTERIR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GELGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Directr Fr additinal infrmatin write t: Clrad District Chief U.S. Gelgical Survey, MS 415 Bx 25046, Denver Federal Center Lakewd, C Fr sale by: pen-file Services Sectin Western Distributin Branch U.S. Gelgical Survey, MS 306 Bx 25425, Federal Center Denver, C Telephne: (303)

3 CNTENTS Page Abstract i Intrductin Purpse and scpe Apprach Prpsed reservirs Unreslved issues Interstate water allcatin Indian water rights Minimum streamflw requirements fr endangered species Acknwledgments g Hydrlgy g Streamflw characteristics Streamflw recrds n Existing diversins and return flws Minimum streamflw requirements Precipitatin and evapratin _-_-- 15 Current water use _- 15 Mdel descriptin ig Mdel data requirements ig Reservir gemetry Reservir perating rules Avery Reservir Pwell Park Reservir Kenney Reservir White River Reservir Mdel calibratin Streamflw simulatins with alternative reservir cnfiguratins Avery and Kenney Reservirs Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs Cmparisn f alternative cnfiguratins Reservir active capacity versus yield Summary References cited g 111

4 ILLUSTRATINS Page Figure 1. Map shwing lcatin f streamflw-gaging statins and prpsed reservirs, White River basin, used in multireservir streamflw simulatins Graph shwing maximum, average, and minimum mnthly streamflw at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah, water years Hydrgraphs f average daily streamflw at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah, 1969 water year Graphs shwing: 4. Relatin between average streamflw and drainage area fr statins n the White River Cmparisn f mdel calibratin average streamflw with histrical average streamflw, at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at fur lcatins n the White River fr the Avery and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Simulated average streamflw diversin frm Nrth Frk White River t Avery Reservir Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f Avery Reservir fr the Avery and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at three lcatins n the White River fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f three reservirs fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at tw lcatins n the White River fr the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f fur reservirs fr the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at tw lcatins n the White River fr the Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f tw reservirs fr the Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Cmparisn f simulated average streamflws at three lcatins n the White River fr fur alternative reservir cnfiguratins IV

5 Figures CNTENTS Graphs shwing Cntinued Simulated annual demand and percent f time that varying annual demand was nt met fr six sizes f reservirs n the White River Duratin curves f simulated annual shrtages fr varius annual demands placed n reservirs f six different capacities n the White River Page TABLES Table 1. General data fr prpsed reservirs used in multireservir streamflw simulatins Prpsed Ute Indian water rights frm the White River in Utah- 3. General data fr streamflw-gaging statins used in multireservir streamflw simulatins Summary f precipitatin and evapratin data used in multireservir streamflw simulatins Summary f results f multireservir streamflw simulatins Percent increase in average annual yield fr increasing reservir sizes n the White River fr three levels f shrtage s Page METRIC CNVERSINS Multiply inch-pund unit acre-ft (acre-ft) acre-ft per year (acre-ft/yr) cubic ft per secnd (ft 3 /s) ft (ft) inch (in.) mile (mi) square mile (mi 2 ) T btain metric unit cubic hectmeter (hm 3 ) cubic hectmeters per year (hm 3 /yr) cubic meters per secnd (m 3 /s) meter (m) millimeter (mm) kilmeter (km) square kilmeter (km2 )

6 SIMULATED EFFECTS F PRPSED RESERVIR-DEVELPMENT ALTERATIVES N STREAMFLW QUANTITY IN THE WHITE RIVER, CLRAD AND UTAH By Gerhard Kuhn and Sherman R. Ellis ABSTRACT Numerus reservirs have been prpsed fr the White River basin in Clrad and Utah, primarily t prvide water fr il-shale develpment. The effect f streamflw depletin by fur f the prpsed reservirs n a perid f histrical streamflw, the water years, was simulated using a multireservir-flw mdel. The prpsed reservirs cnsidered in the study were Avery, Pwell Park, Kenney (Taylr Draw Dam), and White River Reservirs; cnstructin f Taylr Draw Dam was cmpleted during the study. Fur cnfiguratins f the prpsed reservirs were simulated. The reservir cnfiguratins were assumed t perate as a cmbined system, t prvide the annual demand f each individual reservir, while still meeting the minimum streamflw requirements. The current water-use pattern, which depletes abut 40,000 acre-feet per year and is dminated by irrigatin f hay meadws and pastureland, was maintained in the simulatins. Minimum streamflw requirements were met in the simulatin f ne tw-reservir cnfiguratin, except when histrical streamflw was less than the minimum requirement. Average streamflw depletin was abut 93,000 acre-feet per year in this simulatin. The three-reservir cnfiguratin, which wuld have depleted an average f 168,000 acre-feet per year, wuld nt have fulfilled the minimum streamflw requirements fr 1 r 2 mnths in 13 different years. Minimum streamflw shrtages ccurred less ften with the fur-reservir simulatin, even thugh average annual streamflw depletin wuld have been abut 222,000 acre-feet. Anther tw-reservir cnfiguratin, but with a large reservir used t prvide the water-use requirements f three smaller reservirs, als was simulated. This simulatin resulted in n minimum streamflw shrtages and an average annual streamflw depletin frm the White River f abut 226,000 acre-feet. Simulated streamflw thrughut the year generally became smaller and mre cnstant as streamflw depletin increased. Relatins between reservir active capacity and yield applicable t the White River als were develped. These relatins shw that reservir strage f abut 400,000 acre-feet is the maximum practicable fr the White River.

7 INTRDUCTIN Histrically, the primary use f streamflw in the White River basin, Clrad and Utah (fig. 1), has been agricultural, fr the irrigatin f hay meadws, pastureland, and sme grain fields. Industrial and municipal use f streamflw has been, and still is, small. Hwever, prpsed develpment f the area's il-shale and cal resurces will require cnsiderable quantities f water fr industrial, municipal, and recreatinal uses. In cnjunctin with energy develpment, the U.S. Bureau f Reclamatin (U.S. Water and Pwer Resurces Service 1980, p ) estimates annual water needs in the White River basin by the year 2000 culd be abut 190,000 acre-ft r mre, and they list 40 prpsed reservirs fr the basin (p ) which indicate that streamflw frm the White River will be a prbable surce fr much f the additinal water needs. Average streamflw f the White River during the past 50 years ( water years) is abut 488,000 acre-ft/yr, whereas current water use (depletin) prbably is n mre than 40,000 acre-ft/yr. Thus, the White River seems t have the ptential t supply additinal water. Hwever, fr the best use f the river's available water resurces, the effect f the prpsed develpments n streamflw and the current agricultural uses f streamflw needs t be determined. Purpse and Scpe The primary purpse f this reprt is t shw the ways in which streamflw in the White River may be affected by water-resurce develpments prpsed in cnjunctin with energy-resurce develpments. A secnd bjective is t shw hw much water can be develped frm the White River with different reservir capacities and with annual shrtages allwed fr an increasing number f years. This study was part f a larger, nging study funded by the U.S. Gelgical Survey t determine the stream water-resurce impacts f energy develpment within the White River basin (Hawkinsn and Lystrm, 1983, p ). Develpment f the White River's water-resurces will be a cmplex prcess, invlving many private and gvernmental entities and will require slutins t several unreslved issues. These aspects f streamflw develpment are beynd the scpe f this reprt and, by necessity, were largely disregarded in this study. Three f the unreslved issues are discussed briefly in subsequent paragraphs; they are interstate allcatin f water frm the White River, Indian water rights, and minimum streamflw fr endangered species. Tw additinal aspects als nt cnsidered herein are: (1) The ultimate effect f the prpsed streamflw depletins n the salinity f the Clrad River; and (2) the effect f sediment depsitin n the lng-term yield f the prpsed reservirs.

8 3 i-h C t c rf fl> i-i a a> w H. 3 3 H» h-' II I 1 I rf 00 H- ftj i-l CW fl> H- c 3 fc CW i-{ w rf H. tu»-! rf W rf 3 a C H- 3 C i ' a? rf H- 3 C * C fd a. i-i fd C fd l-l < n>?0 cr a?

9 In additin, this reprt is nt t be cnstrued as reflecting the present r future psitin f any State gvernment f the Upper r Lwer Clrad River Basin r f the Federal Gvernment with regard t interpretatin and applicatin f the treaties, cmpacts, and laws, which d r may affect the allcatin f water amng the States and amng private claimants within each State. In particular, nthing in this reprt is intended t interpret the prvisins f the Clrad River Cmpact (45 Statute 1057), the Upper Clrad River Basin Cmpact (63 Statute 31), the Water Treaty f 1944 with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series 994, 59 Statute 1219), the decree entered by the Supreme Curt f the United States in Arizna v. Califrnia (376 United States 340), the Bulder Canyn Prject Adjustment Act (54 Statute 774; 43 United States Cde 6l8a), the Clrad River Strage Prject Act (70 Statute 105; 43 United States Cde 620), r the Clrad River Basin Prject Act (82 Statute 885; 43 United States Cde 1501), r the Endangered Species Act (16 United State Cde 16) r t interpret r reach any cnclusins regarding future applicatin f the Federal reserved-rights dctrine. Furthermre, nthing in this reprt shall be taken t represent the present r future psitin f either the State f Clrad r f the State f Utah, r f the United States, with regard t any matter cncerning the use and develpment f the waters f the White River. Apprach In this study, a multireservir-streamflw mdel (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1976 and 1981), utilizing fur f the prpsed reservirs, was used t simulate the effects n streamflw f varius reservir and water-use cnfiguratins. A 50-year perid, the 1932 thrugh 1981 water years (a water year is ctber 1 thrugh September 30), was chsen as the study perid. Lng-term hydrlgic cnditins and water-use were assumed nt t have changed significantly during this perid. The mdel was first calibrated t histrical streamflw recrds (thse fr water years), which were extended in time whenever the recrds were incmplete during the 50 years. Methds used t extend the recrds are discussed in a subsequent sectin f this reprt. Fllwing calibratin, fur streamflw simulatins were made with fur alternative reservir and water-use cnfiguratins, t determine the effects f these cnfiguratins n streamflw and current water-use requirements. Als, the amunt f any shrtages in the annual delivery requirements f each reservir and water-use cnfiguratin was determined. The results f the simulatins prvide water resurce managers and planners sme insight int hw prpsed reservir develpment wuld affect streamflw and diversins in the White River. Fllwing this, numerus simulatins were made with a single reservir, which was varied in size, with varying water-use demands fr each size. These simulatins give an indicatin f the maximum yield fr a given reservir size, and the increase in yield with increases in the number f years with shrtages.

10 Prpsed Reservirs The 40 reservirs prpsed fr the White River basin (U.S. Water and Pwer Resurces Service, 1980, p ) have a cmbined strage capacity f abut 2.12 millin acre-ft, which is mre than fur times the average streamflw f the White River. Cnsequently, it seems reasnable t assume that nly a few f these reservirs will be cnstructed. The fur reservirs cnsidered in this study (fig. 1), Avery, Pwell Park, Kenney (the reservir created by Taylr Draw Dam), and White River Reservirs, were selected primarily because they represent the apprximate sizes and peratinal flexibility required t serve the future needs f the basin. Avery Reservir, a cmpnent f the prpsed Yellw Jacket Prject (U.S. Water and Pwer Resurces Service, 1980, p ), is described in sme detail in an engineering feasibility reprt (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1982). Pwell Park Reservir was an interim alternative f the Yellw Jacket Prject (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1982, p. IV-8, IV-9) and als is a prpsed reservir in the White River Study (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1983). Kenney Reservir is described in an envirnmental impact statement (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1982). Finally, White River Reservir, prpsed by the Utah Divisin f Water Resurces, als is described in an envirnmental impact statement (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982). Sme general data fr these reservirs are presented in table 1. The primary purpse f these reservirs, except Kenney Reservir, wuld be t prvide water fr il-shale develpment. The primary purpses f Kenney Reservir are hydrelectric pwer generatin and water supply. Additinal purpses indicated in the references cited abve include: Cal develpment (Avery Reservir nly); agriculture (Avery and Kenney Reservirs); municipal water (all except Pwell Park Reservir); recreatin (all reservirs); fld prtectin (all except Avery Reservir); pwer generatin (all except Avery Reservir). Althugh the last use is specified in the prpsals fr three f the reservirs, pwer generatin was nt included in the reservir peratins f this study. Unreslved Issues Interstate Water Allcatin An examinatin f alternative plans fr water develpment in the White River basin requires that certain assumptins be made cncerning allcatin f water between the States f Clrad and Utah. Any interstate allcatin f water frm the White River wuld have t cmply with prvisins f the Upper Clrad River Basin Cmpact. Fr study purpses, it was assumed that shrtages in the annual diversin requirements f the alternative reservir cnfiguratins wuld be divided equitably between the States f Clrad and Utah.

11 Table 1. General data fr prpsed reservirs used in multireservir streamflw simulatins Prpsed reservir Principal develper Suggested active capacity (acre-feet) Cii-v-C ******** a Le. (acres) Prpsed annual water yield (acre-feet) 1 Avery 2 Yellw Jacket 55, ,500 Water Cnservancy District. Pwell Park Unknwn. 110,000 4, ,000 (small) Pwell Park Unknwn. 300,000 5,000 Unknwn (large) Kenney Clrad River Water 11, ,200 (Taylr Draw Cnservancy Dam) District. White River Utah Divisin f 70,700 1,980 75,000 Water Resurces. 1Des nt include evapratin lsses. 2As a single cmpnent f the Yellw Jacket Prject. Irrigatin and municipal return flws nt cnsidered. 4 In cnjunctin with Avery Reservir. Indian Water Rights There are 12,833 acres f irrigable lands within the Ute Indian Reservatin in the White River drainage in Utah; water fr these lands is claimed by the Ute Tribe under the Winters Dctrine [Winters v. United States (207 United States 564)]. Negtiatins between the State f Utah and the Ute Tribe resulted in tentative agreement n a duty f 4.80 acre-ft per acre, r -a ttal demand f 61,598 acre-ft; hwever, the Ute Tribe has nt ratified this agreement (State f Utah, Divisin f Natural Resurces, written cmmun., 1984). The mnthly demands under this prpsal are summarized in table 2. In the envirnmental impact statement fr the White River Reservir, it was assumed that a reservir release f 250 ft 3 /s fr the purpse f maintaining fishery habitat als wuld satisfy the dwnstream demands fr irrigatin n the Indian reservatin lands (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982, p. 322). The value f 250 ft 3 /s als was used in this investigatin.

12 Table 2. Prpsed Ute Indian water rights frm the White River in Utah [Surce: U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982, p. 320] Mnth Acre-feet per mnth Prpsed water rights Cubic feet per secnd April May June July August September ctber TTAL 2,041 10,589 13,644 13,491 12,181 7,573 2,079 61, Minimum Streamflw Requirements fr Endangered Species Any study f the effects f prpsed develpments n the Streamflw f the White River needs t include the flws required fr endangered species identified in bilgical pinins fr the Taylr Draw Reservir Prject (Kenney Reservir) and fr the White River Dam Prject issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Taylr Draw Dam bilgical pinin (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1982, appendix E) states that "The majrity f the time, the reservir wuld be perated as a run f the river reservir where the utflw frm the dam wuld be the same as the inflw t the reservir. During drught years (such as 1977), the dam will release a minimum f 200 cfs, 144,800 af, r natural flw, whichever is less." The White River bilgical pinin (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982, appendix 4) states that flws dwnstream frm the prject wuld be 250 ft 3 /s r natural flws frm August 1- t June 14, and an average f 500 ft 3 /s frm June 15 t July 31 during nrmal years, but nt less than 250 ft 3 /s in dry years.

13 Acknwledgments The Utah Department f Natural Resurces, Water Resurces Divisin, prvided infrmatin regarding interstate allcatin f water frm the White River, the prpsed Ute Indian water rights under the Winters Dctrine, minimum streamflw requirements fr endangered species, and current water use in Utah. Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., prvided infrmatin regarding tw f the prpsed reservirs and water rights assciated with the Yellw Jacket Prject. The Clrad Water Cnservatin Bard prvided infrmatin cncerning the instream flw apprpriatins which were made under Clrad State law. Hwever, this reprt des nt necessarily reflect the views f the States f Clrad and Utah, r Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., and they d nt necessarily agree with the assumptins and cnclusins stated in the reprt. Assistance prvided by these rganizatins was very helpful in preparatin f this reprt, and this assistance is gratefully acknwledged. HYDRLGY The White River basin is an area f highly varied tpgraphy and climate, resulting in varied hydrlgic cnditins. The extreme eastern ne-fifth f the basin cnsists f muntains with elevatins frm abut 8,500 t 12,000 ft abve sea level. Precipitatin in the higher muntains may be as much as 60 in. annually; therefre, this small, muntainus area prduces mst f the basin's streamflw. The remaining fur-fifths f the basin generally is an area f rlling hills, with elevatins frm abut 5,000 t 8,500 ft. Precipitatin in this area is abut 8 t 20 in. annually. Because precipitatin is s scant, streams riginating here usually are ephemeral, r if perennial, have a small average streamflw. The il-shale and cal areas are in the semiarid part f the basin, near the White River. Streamflw Characteristics Streamflw characteristics f the White River are similar t thse f ther majr perennial streams in the Rcky Muntain regin, where mst streamflw results frm snwmelt during late spring and early summer. The maximum, average, and minimum mnthly streamflw at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah, fr the water years are shwn in figure 2. Abut 60 percent f the average annual streamflw at these tw statins ccurs frm April thrugh July and abut 45 percent ccurs during the mnths f May and June. Within-year streamflw variability at these tw statins is further illustrated by hydrgraphs f average daily streamflws fr the 1969 water year, a typical streamflw year (fig. 3). Because the vlume f flw is s unevenly distributed thrughut the year, it is evident that strage f snwmelt runff in reservirs wuld be necessary t even the distributin f the White River's flw.

14 STPEAMFLW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND STREAMFLW, M CUBC FEET PER SECND H- f W sr r+ e H* 0> M r+ r+ (T> fd H- t S P H- W i l 3 v > 0> C X H- *- B Cn e 3 «- 0) ^ &> n- P1 < W H- fd r^ ^*{ p n > s n> CJ H-- ft < ft> fd B) PT ^ D i-> n> B ft> H- C r i-t n> n> B (^ - D tr w <- rt n > n> P 8a a B H, M v C en STREAWFLDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH * 9 STREAMFUJW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH

15 I _ I CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT Figure 3.--Hydrgraphs f average daily streamflw at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah, 1969 water year Ul C STATIN White River near Meeker, Cl. STATIN White River near Watsn, Utah T 1500 S 1000», u. ui C H

16 An imprtant aspect f the White River basin's flw characteristics is the areal distributin f the streamflw surces. Apprximately 85 percent f the basin's average flw is cntributed by nly abut 10 percent f the drainage area, the headwaters area in The Flat Tps (fig. 1). Statin White River belw Meeker, Cl., gages 20 percent f the basin's drainage area, but has 92 percent f the basin's average discharge. Abut 3 percent f the basin's average flw is cntributed by Piceance Creek, the nly significant perennial tributary t the White River dwnstream frm the twn f Meeker. Based n the average streamflw fr the study perid (see "Streamflw Recrds" sectin herein) a graphical relatin between streamflw and drainage area was defined fr the White River (fig. 4). The relatin has a steep slpe frm the cnfluence f the Nrth and Suth Frks f the White River dwnstream t statin White River belw Meeker, Cl. Streamflw at the cnfluence f the Nrth and Suth Frks f the White River is the sum f streamflw at statins Nrth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl., and Suth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl. Althugh tributary inflw in this reach is nt evenly distributed, the extensive amunt f streamflw diversin fr irrigatin and the crrespnding return flws tend t distribute the flw increases mre unifrmly thrughut this reach; thus the fairly cnsistent relatin. Between statins White River belw Meeker, Cl., and White River abve Rangely, Cl., the relatin is nly inferred because data are lacking. Dwnstream frm statin t the muth, a gd relatin is again evident, but with a significant decrease in slpe, indicating that streamflw des nt increase appreciably in this reach when ne cnsiders the amunt f additinal cntributing area. Althugh tw f the statins depicted in figure 4 d nt fit the relatin as well as the ther statins, the differences between the average streamflws at these tw statins and thse frm the relatin fr the crrespnding drainage areas are nt significant. These differences are primarily due t smewhat smaller crrelatin cefficients at these tw statins in the streamflw recrd extensin. Streamflw Recrds Recrds fr 15 streamflw statins (fig. 1) were used in this study. Drainage area and average streamflw fr bth the perid f recrd and the study perid are presented in table 3. Because streamflw recrds fr mst f the statins used in the simulatins are incmplete fr the study perid, their recrds were extended in time t include the entire 50 years. Streamflw recrds were extended using a least-errr linear-regressin technique (Alley and Burns, 1983). Fr the purpses f this study, it was assumed that the streamflw fr , based n bth actual and extended streamflw recrds, represented histrical streamflw. 11

17 Z LU C C LU 450 u 430 SJ Z 410 LU C 390 I- C/5 Figure 4.--Relatin between average streamflw and drainage area fr statins n the White River C UJ CL 650 N data A UJ C < u. (A Q I CD X LU C t A Cnfluence f Nrth and Suth frks f White River A PLT F AVERAGE STREAMFLW FR FR STATIN NUMBER INDICATED DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES

18 Table 3.--General data fr streamflw-gaging statins used in multireservir stream flw simulatins Average streamflw fr water years 1 Cubic feet per secnd Statin number Perid f recrd Statin name Drainage Perid f area (square streamflw Acre- feet Cubic feet miles) recrd per year per secnd Acre-feet per year Nrth Frk White River near Bufrd, Cl-- fc«***j , Nrth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl A , Suth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl , , , , , ,000 10,600 13, White River abve Cal Creek near , C , , , , A , ,000 4, , ,000 16, *m i , T T ^ , White River near Clrad-Utah UCC JL1.I16, Ui.au White River near Watsn, Utah 3 QA 4, , , , , , , , , ,000 1Average streamflw based n statin recrds and extended streamflw recrd.

19 Existing Diversins and Return Flws Mre than 400 abslute water rights (an abslute right is ne which has been develped and put t beneficial use) n the White River have been decreed in Clrad, allwing fr streamflw diversins f mre than 1,000 ft 3 /s (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1982, p. II-9). Nearly all these diversins are fr irrigatin f hay meadws and pastureland, and generally cincide with the snwmelt runff seasn. Als, the full amunt f each diversin may nt necessarily be used each year. This large quantity f diversin is pssible because: (1) A large percentage f the diverted water is readily returned t the river, and (2) the rates f diversin usually are at a maximum during the runff seasn and decrease as streamflw decreases. Thirty majr irrigatin diversins, with a ttal water right f abut 800 ft 3 /s were identified fr this study and used in the streamflw simulatins. The quantity f streamflw diverted is variable, frm mnth t mnth and frm year t year; recrds fr these diversins ften are nt available, and if they are, many times they are incmplete, r merely estimated. Therefre, the amunt prescribed in the water right decree (Clrad Divisin f Water Resurces, written cmmun., 1982) was used as the basis f the diversin rates. Furthermre, it was assumed that the diversin rates were 100 percent f the decreed amunt during the mnth f June nly, and that they were 14, 86, 57, and 28 percent f the decreed amunt during May, July, August, and September, respectively. These diversin rates are similar t thse used by Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc. (1982, p. V-3, V-4) in their study f the Yellw Jacket Prject. N irrigatin diversins were used frm ctber thrugh April. A return-flw rate equal t 80 percent f the streamflw diverted was used fr all irrigatin mnths, and it was assumed that all return-flws ccurred the same mnth as the diversin. The abve diversin pattern allwed fr an annual depletin by irrigatin f abut 30,000 acre-ft frm the White River in Clrad. Sme municipal and industrial uses f streamflw frm the White River in Clrad als were identified fr this study; these uses are described in the "Current Water Use" sectin. Cnstant annual diversin rates, with n return flws, were assumed fr these uses t prvide the apprximate amunt f annual depletin required. Tw existing streamflw diversins in Utah were used in the mdel simulatins; these uses als are described briefly in the "Current Water Use" sectin. A cnstant annual diversin rate was assumed fr the Bnanza, Utah, use, with n return flw. Fr the current irrigatin f Ute Indian lands, a variable diversin rate was assumed fr the mnths f April thrugh ctber, and n diversin frm Nvember thrugh March. Hwever, a 50-percent returnflw rate was assumed fr these irrigatin diversins. All these diversins allwed fr a ttal annual depletin f abut 36,000 acre-ft f streamflw frm the White River. Hwever, this amunt was increased by abut 1,500 t 7,600 acre-ft/yr frm 1963 thrugh 1981 by the diversin fr secndary recvery f petrleum in the Rangely il field. 14

20 Minimum Streamflw Requirements Tw types f minimum streamflw requirements are discussed and used in this reprt. The first are instream flw apprpriatins, which are administered by the Clrad Water Cnservatin Bard accrding t their decreed pririty in the same manner as ther Clrad water rights. These instream flw apprpriatins are t prtect the natural envirnment t a reasnable degree, but are nt necessarily fr the maintenance f flw t prtect endangered species which may reside in the stream. The secnd type f minimum streamflw requirements are thse required by Federal Agencies t prtect endangered species in the river. These minimum flws are cntained in the permits t build and perate dams and are discussed in the "Minimum Streamflw Requirements fr Endangered Species" sectin f this reprt. The federally required minimum streamflws d nt have the status f water rights under Clrad water law (J. William McDnald, Clrad Water Cnservatin Bard, written cmmun., 1984). The Clrad Water Cnservatin Bard hlds instream flw apprpriatin n the fllwing reaches f the White River: 1. Nrth Frk f White River frm the cnfluence with Marvine Creek dwnstream t the cnfluence with the Suth Frk f the White River in the amunt f 120 ft 3 /s (case W-5652-H, District Curt, Water District N. 5, State f Clrad; date f apprpriatin Nvember 15, 1977). 2. Suth Frk f the White River frm the cnfluence with Swede Creek dwnstream t cnfluence with the Nrth Frk f the White River in the amunt f 80 ft 3 /s (case W-5652-B, District Curt, Water District N. 5, State f Clrad; date f apprpriatin Nvember 15, 1977). 3. White River frm the cnfluence f the Nrth and Suth Frks dwnstream t the cnfluence with Piceance Creek in the amunt f 200 ft 3 /s (case W-3652-C, District Curt, Water District N. 5, State f Clrad; date f apprpriatin Nvember 15, 1977). There are n instream flw apprpriatins fr the White River frm the cnfluence with Piceance Creek dwnstream t the Clrad-Utah State line (J. William McDnald, Clrad Water Cnservatin Bard, written cmmun., 1984). The State f Utah currently (1984) has nt established any minimum streamflw requirements fr the White River in Utah (Llyd Austin, Utah Department f Natural Resurces, Water Resurces Divisin, ral cmmun., 1984). 15

21 Precipitatin and Evapratin Precipitatin data fr climatlgical statins at Meeker and Rangely, Cl., and Bnanza, Utah, were used in the reservir analysis. The average mnthly precipitatin was used, even thugh the recrds used at each statin are f a different length and at different times. This was dne in favr f extending the precipitatin recrds in time and using individual mnthly values fr each year because: (1) Precipitatin falling n reservirs represents nly a small part f the annual water budget f the reservirs, (2) evapratin recrds als are incmplete fr the study perid, and (3) althugh precipitatin is smewhat variable frm ne year t the next, the lng-term trend has nt changed significantly during the study perid. Precipitatin data used fr the abve statins are summarized in table 4. N evapratin data are available within the study area, s data frm tw nearby statins, Frt Duchesne and Flaming Grge, Utah, were used. Nt every mnth had recrd fr an equal number f years, and als there were n data fr Nvember thrugh April, except that there was sme data fr April at Frt Duchesne (table 4). Generally, there is n significant difference between the May thrugh ctber evapratin data at the tw statins, s the average f the tw statins was used in the reservir study; the April average at Frt Duchesne alne als was used. The ttal May thrugh ctber evapratin used herein cmpares favrably with estimates f evapratin presented by Farnswrth and thers (1982); the pan cefficient used (table 4) is largely based n that reprt. Fr purpses f this mdeling study, it was further assumed that there was n evapratin frm Nvember thrugh March. Current Water Use The cmbinatin f streamflw depletin frm the White River in the States f Clrad and Utah currently is (1984) less than 10 percent f the average annual flw f the river. The majrity f the streamflw use is in the upper reaches f the basin, upstream frm Meeker, Cl. The majr use f water frm the White River is fr irrigatin f hay crps and pastureland; this use has nt changed significantly during the past 40 years (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1982, p. II-l). Depletin f streamflw by irrigatin frm the Clrad part f the basin averaged 29,300 acre-ft annually frm 1943 thrugh 1960; during this same perid the ttal annual depletin, by all beneficial and nnbeneficial uses averaged nly 38,400 acre-ft (U.S. Department f Agriculture, 1966, p. 53). Beginning in 1963, water frm the White River als was used fr secndary recvery f petrleum in the Rangely il field. Annual depletin increased frm abut 3,000 acre-ft in 1963 t abut 7,600 acre-ft in 1969 and 1970, and then decreased t abut 1,500 acre-ft in 1981 (Ry Chambers, Chevrn U.S.A. Inc., written cmmun., 1984). In additin, the twn f Rangely, Cl., depletes abut 1,000 t 1,500 acre-ft f water annually frm the White River fr municipal use. 16

22 Sept. ct. Nv. Dec Table 4. Summary f precipitatin and evapratin data used in muitireservir stream flw simulatins [Dashes indicate n data] Muth Statin Elevatin Perid f (feet) recrd used Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Average precipitatin, in inches Meeker, Cl. 1 6, Rangely, Cl. 1 5, Bnanza, Utah2 5, Frt Duchesne, Utah2. Flaming Grge, Utah. 2 Average used 4, , fr study area Average evapratin, in inches 3 [measured pan evapratin x 0.7 pan cefficient] Clrad State Climatlgist, (ral cmmuu., 1983). 2Natinal ceanic and Atmspheric Administratin ( ). 3Number f years with data fr individual muths varied frm 4 t 21

23 Use f streamflw frm the White River in Utah is nly a fractin f the use in Clrad. Abut 1,600 acre-ft/yr are depleted by the twn f Bnanza, Utah, fr municipal and industrial use. Als, abut 2,000 acre-ft are depleted annually by agricultural diversins n the Ute Indian lands (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1981, p. 39; Utah Divisin f Water Resurces, written cmmun., 1984). MDEL DESCRIPTIN The HEC-3 Reservir System Analysis fr Cnservatin, develped by the U.S. Army Crps f Engineers (1976, 1981) was used in this study; the tw references prvide a detailed descriptin f the mdel. HEC-3 is a multipurpse, multireservir streamflw ruting mdel with the capability f simulating reservir system peratins fr purpses such as water supply, navigatin, recreatin, lw-flw augmentatin, and hydrelectric pwer (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1981, p. 1). nly water supply and minimum streamflw requirements were cnsidered in this study. The mdel rutes streamflw thrugh a series f cntrl pints, with n streamflw lsses r gains ther than thse specified by the mdeler. The White River was simulated by 34 cntrl pints, representing either a streamflw, reservir, diversin, r return-flw pint. MDEL DATA REQUIREMENTS Several types f data are required by the HEC-3 mdel, depending n which f its ptins are used. Fr this study, data required at reservir cntrl pints were reservir gemetry, including utlet wrks and spillway capacities, and reservir perating rules. Mnthly values f precipitatin and evapratin als were required fr each reservir. At nnreservir cntrl pints, mnthly values f streamflw and diversin r return-flw rates were required. Mre than ne type f data culd be specified at a cntrl pint; fr example, streamflw data culd be input at a cntrl pint - and a diversin als culd ccur at the same lcatin. Streamflw, diversin r return-flw, precipitatin, and evapratin data have been described in the "Hydrlgy" sectin herein. The fllwing paragraphs prvide additinal discussin f the reservir data requirements. 18

24 Reservir Gemetry Reservir gemetry data fr the reservirs were btained frm the fllwing surces: Avery Reservir (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1982); Pwell Park Reservir (small) (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., 1983); Kenney Reservir (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1982); and White River Reservir (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982). The data btained include strage vlume, surface area, elevatin-vlume and elevatin-area curves, and utlet wrks and spillway capacities. nly elevatin-vlume and elevatin-area relatins were available fr Pwell Park Reservir (large) (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc., written cmmun., 1983), s utlet wrks and spillway capacities were estimated. Prpsed values fr active capacity, surface area, and water yield f these reservirs are presented in table 1. Reservir perating Rules All reservirs were divided int five strage levels t facilitate apprximate simultaneus adjustment f all reservir levels. The lwest level is always the bttm f the cnservatin pl (r tp f inactive strage); the secnd and third levels are intermediate levels in the cnservatin pl. Level fur is the tp f the cnservatin pl and level five is the tp f the fld pl (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1981, exhibit 4, p. 23). ther pertinent perating rules als required fr each reservir are dwnstream diversin and flw requirements. Generalized perating rules fr individual reservirs fllw. Avery Reservir peratin f the prpsed Avery Reservir is presented in sme detail by Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc. (1982); these peratins, including sme minr mdificatins used in this study, are summarized here. The fllwing annual water uses and quantities, in acre-feet, are specified: il-shale develpment (52,500), cal mining (12,000), agriculture (18,000), and municipal (5,000). The water fr il-shale develpment and municipal use wuld be released t dwnstream diversin pints, whereas the water fr cal mining and agriculture wuld be diverted directly frm Avery Reservir. Fr this study it was assumed that ne-half f the il-shale water wuld be diverted frm the White River in the vicinity f Sheep Creek and that the ther half wuld be diverted just upstream frm Piceance Creek. Water fr municipal use was diverted just upstream frm Meeker. A minimum flw f 200 ft 3 /s was specified fr the White River at these three diversin pints. 19

25 The mnthly diversin rates, and rates f agricultural and municipal return flw, used which were the same as thse given by Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc. (1982, p. HI-2, V-5, V-6). These rates f return flw are different frm the rates f return flw fr agricultural diversins described in the sectin n "Existing Diversins and Return Flws" herein. The return-flw rates that were specified allwed fr the return f 7,500 acre-ft/yr t the White River, assuming that the full amunt f diversin was diverted. In this study, thugh, it was assumed that all the agricultural and municipal return-flws ccurred during the same mnth as the diversin. Water fr il-shale and cal develpment, hwever, was entirely cnsumed. With return-flws taken int cnsideratin, the abve peratin f Avery Reservir wuld deplete abut 80,000 acre-ft annually frm the White River, excluding evapratin lsses. This basic perating plan was used fr all cnfiguratins in which Avery Reservir was a cmpnent, except when Pwell Park Reservir als was a cmpnent. In this instance, Avery Reservir wuld be perated in cnjunctin with Pwell Park Reservir (small), and there wuld be nly a single diversin fr il shale, dwnstream frm Pwell Park Reservir. This is described in the perating rules fr Pwell Park Reservir. Water fr Avery Reservir is t be diverted frm the Nrth Frk White River apprximately 3 mi upstream frm Bufrd, Cl. (Internatinal Engineering Cmpany Inc., 1982, p. IV-5), at a maximum rate f 250 ft 3 /s. The nly flw cnstraint specified at this diversin pint was a minimum dwnstream flw f 120 ft 3 /s in the Nrth Frk White River. Herein it was assumed that the streamflw at the diversin pint (befre diversin t Avery Reservir) was equal t the flw at statin Nrth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl., abut 3 mi dwnstream. Cmparisn f the drainage basins at the diversin pint and at statin indicated very little increase in flw between these tw pints. Finally, it was assumed that streamflw in Big Beaver Creek wuld nt be passed dwnstream t the White River, unless Avery Reservir was full. A small fisheries and recreatin lake (Lake Avery, capacity 7,600 acre-ft) is currently in place n Big Beaver Creek at the prpsed lcatin f Avery Reservir; this lake has very little effect n the histrical streamflw f Big Beaver Creek. 20

26 Pwell Park Reservir perating rules fr Pwell Park Reservir (small) are based n the descriptin presented by Internatinal Engineering Cmpany, Inc. (1983). This reservir wuld be perated in cnjunctin with Avery Reservir t prvide 102,000 acre-ft f water annually (equivalent t a cnstant diversin rate f 141 ft 3 /s) fr il-shale develpment. This water, which was assumed t be ttally cnsumed, culd be prvided by either reservir and wuld be delivered t a single diversin pint n the White River near the muth f Piceance Creek. A minimum dwnstream flw f 200 ft 3 /s was specified at this lcatin. In additin, the water requirements fr cal develpment, agriculture, and municipal use, as well as the assciated perating rules just described fr Avery Reservir, als apply t the jint peratin f Avery and Pwell Park (small) Reservirs. Fr the large versin f Pwell Park Reservir, the assumed perating rules were t prvide whatever water-use demand was placed n it, while still maintaining the minimum dwnstream flw requirement f 200 ft 3 /s. Additinal infrmatin regarding this reservir is presented in the "Streamflw Simulatins with Alternative Reservir Cnfiguratins" sectin. Kenney Reservir Fr Kenney Reservir, sme municipal use f water is anticipated, but the majrity f the water will be used fr ther, unspecified uses (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1982, p. 15). N prjected mnthly rates f water use are presented in the abve reference, s fr Kenney Reservir the rates f mnthly diversin als were largely assumed. The diversin rates assumed ranged frm 12 ft 3 /s during the winter mnths t a maximum f 20 ft 3 /s in July. Ttal cnsumptin f the water was presumed, allwing fr a annual depletin f 10,200 acre-ft frm the White River, excluding evapratin lsses. The bilgical pinin fr Kenney Reservir (U.S. Army Crps f Engineers, 1982, appendix E) states that a minimum streamflw f 200 ft 3 /s be maintained in the White River dwnstream frm the dam, unless inflw t the reservir is less than 200 ft 3 /s. This requirement was included in this study as a part f the perating rules fr this reservir. White River Reservir General perating rules fr White River Reservir are presented by the U.S. Bureau f Land Management (1982, p. 27, ); the basic requirement is that a minimum streamflw f 250 ft 3 /s be maintained in the White River dwnstream frm this reservir, unless inflw t the reservir is less than 250 ft 3 /s. Additinal cnsideratins fr streamflw dwnstream frm White River Reservir are presented in the abve reference (p ) but mst f these were nt used in this study because f limitatins in the HEC-3 mdel. Hwever, the additinal requirement that a minimum streamflw f 500 ft 3 /s be released frm the reservir frm June 15 t July 31 was included in this study. The time perid f that flw, thugh, was extended t begin n June 1 because the HEC-3 mdel was used in a mnthly mde. 21

27 The prpsal fr White River Reservir indicates a maximum cnstant diversin rate f 104 ft 3 /s, t be used almst exclusively fr il-shale develpment. Althugh abut 3,000 acre-ft wuld be fr municipal use (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982, p. 9), cmplete cnsumptin f water diverted frm this reservir was assumed. The prpsed yield fr White River Reservir, excluding evapratin lss, is abut 75,000 acre-ft annually. MDEL CALIBRATIN Histrical streamflw, n a mnthly basis, was simulated by a series f streamflw, diversin, and return-flw cntrl pints, beginning at the cnfluence f the Nrth and Suth Frks f the White River, which was the basic starting pint fr all simulatins. This same cntrl pint sequence, and the assciated streamflws, diversins, and return flws, als was used in the reservir simulatins, but with additinal cntrl pints fr any reservirs and their assciated diversins r return flws. In the streamflw calibratin prcedure, the 50-year average simulated streamflw was cmpared with the histrical average streamflw at five streamflw-gaging statins (als cntrl pints) n the White River. The five statins used in the calibratin were White River abve Cal Creek near Meeker, Cl., White River near Meeker, Cl., White River belw Meeker, Cl., White River abve Rangely, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah. In successive simulatins the streamflw at these pints was adjusted by changing drainage area versus streamflw relatins in the mdel until the simulated average streamflw equaled the histrical average streamflw at the streamflw-gaging statins. This prcedure was necessary because: (1) Nt every tributary t the White River was accunted fr in the cntrl pint sequence, (2) there undubtedly is sme errr in the diversin and return-flw pattern assumed, and (3) there prbably are sme increases in streamflw due t grund-water discharge. The mnthly averages f the mdel simulated streamflws and the histrical streamflws at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah, are cmpared in figure 5. Statin has streamflw recrd fr the entire perid and statin has streamflw recrd fr 48 f the 50 years. Even thugh there is a nticeable difference between the tw streamflws fr 2 r 3 mnths, especially at statin , these differences are incnsequential t the purpse f this study. 22

28 WhHe Rtver ner Meeker. Cte, Mdel Simulated Hletrii 75 Pvrentne 25 Ptrcentfle e CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Whfte Rfver neqr Wtan. Uth 190 CD Mdel STmulted EZ3 Hfetrll Pvrentfle CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUQ Figure 5.--Cmparisn f mdel calibratin average streamflw with histrical average streamflw, at statins White River near Meeker, Cl., and White River near Watsn, Utah 23

29 As a further test f the mdel calibratin, a regressin analysis (rdinary least squares) f the histrical mnthly streamflws versus the mdel simulated streamflws was dne at the abve tw statins. Ideally, the slpe f the regressin lines shuld be 1.00; the y-intercept f the lines shuld be 0; and the r 2 (cefficient f determinatin) shuld be Fr statin White River near Meeker, Cl., the statistics f the regressin were: slpe = 0.99; y-intercept = 3.4; and r 2 = Fr statin White River near Watsn, Utah, the statistics f the regressin were: slpe = 0.98; y-intercept = 13; r 2 = The standard errrs f estimate were 12 percent at statin and 18 percent at statin Fr bth regressins, the slpe was nt significantly different frm 1.00, and the y-intercept was nt significantly different frm 0; bth statistics were taken at the 5-percent level f significance. These results further indicate that the differences between mdel simulated streamflw and histrical streamflw are insignificant. The mdel simulated streamflw, hereafter referred t as pre-develpment streamflw, was then used in the reservir simulatins. STREAMFLW SIMULATINS WITH ALTERNATIVE RESERVIR CNFIGURATINS Fur alternative cnfiguratins f the fur prpsed reservirs were simulated. The first cnfiguratin simulated was a tw-reservir system, Avery and Kenney Reservirs. White River Reservir was included in the system, in additin t Avery and Kenney Reservirs, fr the secnd simulatin, and all fur f the prpsed reservirs cnsidered in this study were used in the third simulatin. The last simulatin was dne with nly Pwell Park and Kenney Reservirs, but the size f Pwell Park Reservir was increased greatly (table 1). This cnfiguratin was based n the assumptins that: (1) Avery Reservir water wuld be stred in Pwell Park Reservir and used exclusively fr il-shale develpment, and (2) that the water-use requirement fr White River Reservir wuld be prvided by and released frm Pwell Park Reservir, with the diversin pint being at the same lcatin as the prpsed reservir in Utah. The intent f this cnfiguratin was t see if ne large reservir culd prvide the same amunt f water as three smaller nes. In the simulatins, each alternative reservir cnfiguratin was perated as a system t prvide all, r as much as pssible, f the demands f each individual reservir, while maintaining the minimum streamflw requirements. If any shrtages were incurred, the shrtages are described herein in terms f the reservir system nly. It is assumed that if any f the alternative reservir cnfiguratins simulated here wuld becme a reality, the apprtinment f the shrtages t individual reservirs wuld be determined at that time. 24

30 Avery and Kenney Reservirs The simulated effects f the Avery and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin n average mnthly streamflws at fur lcatins n the White River are shwn in figure 6. Strearaflw depletin, n a percentage basis, wuld have been greatest at statin Nrth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl. The 50-year average strearaflw at this statin (table 3) wuld have been depleted 76,000 acre-ft/yr (105 ft 3 /s) by the upstream diversin t Avery Reservir. Streamflw depletin at statin White River near Meeker, Cl., hwever, wuld have been much less than at statin , averaging nly 27,000 acre-ft/yr (37 ft 3 /s). The primary reasns fr this are: (1) Water that wuld have been released frm Avery Reservir fr dwnstream diversin requirements is a cmpnent f the flw at this statin, and (2) varying amunts f the water that wuld have been diverted frm the Nrth Frk White River are returned directly t the White River by way f Big Beaver Creek when Avery Reservir is full. White River belw Piceance Creek (nt a streamflw-gaging statin) is dwnstream frm all streamflw diversins served by Avery Reservir, s the graph fr this lcatin shws the maximum effect Avery Reservir wuld have had n streamflw in the White River. Streamflw fr the White River belw Piceance Creek is derived in the mdel by the fllwing prcedure: 1. Use streamflw at statin White River belw Meeker, Cl., as basic flw; 2. Add any required return-flws between abve statin and Piceance Creek; 3. Subtract any required diversins between abve statin and Piceance Creek; and 4. Add flw cntributed by Piceance Creek. The graph (fig. 6) f average mnthly streamflw at statin White River at muth near uray, Utah, shws the added effect Kenney Reservir wuld have had n streamflw. The average histrical streamflw at this statin (table 3) wuld have been depleted abut 93,000 acre-ft/yr (128 ft 3 /s) by the Avery and Kenney Reservirs cnfiguratin, including evapratin lsses at the tw reservirs. 25

31 00 n c fd n i fd i fd 00 Q C^ C 50 < n H- fd a> < r- i pi- fd H- n i-f> fd TJ 3 CJ n n- n (-r D fd fd < 00 fd fd n CJ -i C 3 fd h- p &j (u 3 rt?^ 1^1 fd fd». 3 3 C CJ fd < *< ft) fd n- n 50 &> fd i-h 00 M fd fd C n n M < rr t n h-- fd n n a> a> M- i n- 3 C fd (/> n C 3 H- a> 3 n- rr 3" H- rf < 3" fd fd STTEAMFLW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND WWW \XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXh S.XXXXXXX g STREAMFUDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH * y s I q z < R I i 1* n 2 STKEAMFLW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND m a * s a 1 I I I c. c z c. C r c 6) 3i s :v3 "" s ii a I! a i* Jl Ii 2. XI ^ 2 ^NV ± sxs a L v \ vj XXXXXXXXXXI 1 1 y y\i.xxxxxxxxxxxi 1 cv^sa "]_ Si STREAMFUW, IN THUSANDS Q t 5 rt g tf g F ACRE-FEET PER MhfTH 8 0) 0) 3 Z I J 3" ff 2< fq1 a p

32 f "I w Pfcea I STEAMFlJW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND % _* g M 8 STREAMFUW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND u 5 <: T3 :r n c»- r n r^ i r re Q. fd N 33 < q t> < h- I <T re >- i-j T3 33 i 3 &>»- <T t> M 3 3- < rr re CD 3 3 > CU C < 00 t-h re re n> c. i-«w N> << W H- -J n- 3 3 re i /*V ft) ft) 3 rr?^ i~h n> fd h- Q. 3 ^ fi^ re <»< QJ fd ft It 50 CU re I-T) c w re re c n n w < rt i i-«i-- re n cu M ) 3 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXtes f a 9 \xxxxxxxxx\x,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I-- rr 3 C re en H- CJ 3 (f rr 3- H- (f < 3T re re g STREAMFIDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH g STREAMFUW, IN TUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH

33 The minimum streamflw requirement f 120 ft 3 /s fr the Nrth Frk White River at the diversin pint t Avery Reservir wuld have been satisfied fr all but 9 mnths f the simulatin perid. Histrical streamflws als were less than 120 ft 3 /s during thse 9 mnths and n streamflw wuld have been diverted t the reservir. At the three diversin pints n the White River served by Avery Reservir upstream frm Piceance Creek (see p. 19), the minimum flw requirement f 200 ft 3 /s, hwever, wuld have been satisfied fr the entire perid. The minimum streamflw requirement f 200 ft 3 /s fr the White River dwnstream frm Kenney Reservir als wuld have been ttally satisfied. In this simulatin, all the water-use requirements f this twreservir cnfiguratin were met fr the entire 50-year perid. The simulated mnthly average quantity f streamflw diverted frm the Nrth Frk White River t Avery Reservir is shwn in figure 7. Fr many mnths, thugh, especially the snwmelt mnths, the quantity f water diverted in the simulatin was mre than that required by Avery Reservir because the reservir was full r nearly full. It was nt knwn if the diversin t Avery Reservir wuld be based n the amunt f strage available, and, if s, what the diversin rate wuld be fr a given strage in the reservir. Therefre, the maximum amunt f water, but n mre than 250 ft 3 /s, always was diverted frm the Nrth Frk White River, while still maintaining the dwnstream minimum flw requirement f 120 ft 3 /s. Because f this assumptin, an average excess f 36,000 t 43,000 acre-ft/yr (50-60 ft 3 /s) wuld have been diverted; hwever, this excess wuld have been returned directly t the White River frm Avery Reservir. CD g CD LJ Q_ E-i 200 QJ QJ ^ 150 Q CD Cel CJ Q_ I LiJ C s en en 3000 Q CT NV EEC JRN FEB MftR ftpr MRY JUN JUL flufi SEP Figure 7.--Simulated average streamflw diversin frm Nrth Frk White River t Avery Reservir 28

34 Simulated end-f-mnth cntents fr Avery Reservir are shwn in figure 8; the reservir wuld have been full at least 1 mnth every year except During the very dry year f 1977, which was drier than 1935, the reservir wuld have been full nly during May. Hwever, the reservir wuld have been drawn dwn during the fllwing mnths t its lwest level f the simulatin perid. Kenney Reservir, because f its small size and small amunt f water use, wuld have remained full fr the entire simulatin perid, s its end-f-mnth cntents are nt illustrated. Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs The simulated effects f the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin n streamflw at three lcatins n the White River are shwn in figure 9. Streamflw effects at statin Nrth Frk White River at Bufrd, Cl., were the same in this simulatin as in the previus simulatin (fig. 6) and are therefre nt repeated in figure 9. At statin White River near Meeker, Cl., and at White River belw Piceance Creek, simulated average mnthly streamflw (fig. 9) was nly slightly different than that simulated fr the Avery and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin (fig. 6). Hwever, streamflw at statin White River at muth near uray, Utah, was reduced cnsiderably mre in this simulatin in cmparisn t the previus simulatin. Average streamflw depletin at this lcatin fr the three-reservir cnfiguratin wuld have been abut 168,000 acre-ft/yr (232 ft 3 /s) including evapratin lsses at all three reservirs. The minimum streamflw requirements f 200 ft 3 /s in the White River at the diversins served by Avery Reservir which are dwnstream frm Kenney Reservir, wuld nt have been met 3 mnths f the 1977 water year. The minimum streamflw requirement f 250 ft 3 /s dwnstream frm White River Reservir wuld nt have been met fr 2 mnths in the 1977 water year and fr 5 mnths in the 1978 water year. Als, the minimum streamflw f 500 ft 3 /s during June and July wuld nt have been met in 13 years (15 mnths ttal), but never wuld have been less than 250 ft 3 /s. 29

35 78 88 Avery Reservir Maximum Cnservatin Pl 98 uj «UJ U. UJ 38 C < 28 U. 2 «z C X I- f,«minimum Cnservatin Pl 940 Acre-Feet C I- z z 0 88 C > 58 C UJ C UJ 48 C 38 y Maximum Cnservatin Pl \ 'N IV U " ' *\ 1 f f 1 \ M ' I F cm 18 Minimum Cnservatin Pl 940 Acre-' Feet \ f S YEAR Figure 8. --Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f Avery Reservir fr the Avery and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin. 30

36 STREAMFUW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND 5 8 fat STREAMFUW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND «8 y rr TJ 50 fd p* n C w r r n r i r n s: Q. < p" r v *- r fd 30 " - 33 < r " r p a> \Y Whtta RTver 3 CJ r p S p* r r 00^ rr 3 r i 00 CJ f-r 3 r Q. rr r r j r ^ rr n D rr 50 ij p- n> Q. r r \XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Ir ff p xxxxxxxxxxxxx.\xxxxxxxx\xxx\\xx\xxxxx fd H- fd tu 3 30 H. >- < P r w n»- rr P P g STREAMFUW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH g STREAMFIDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH r.

37 Qg36Q. White River t muth nar uny. Utah CD Avery, Kenney, nd White RTver Reeervtre Z S Lv v- < ^ ^ v <x < /> ^ / X / / / CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUQ SEP Figure 9.--Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at three lcatins n the White River fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin Cntinued. It shuld be pinted ut that the minimum streamflw requirement f 250 ft 3 /s dwnstream frm White River Reservir nly applies if the inflw t the reservir is 250 ft 3 /s r mre (U.S. Bureau f Land Management, 1982, appendixes 3 and 4). Hwever, the presence f the reservirs upstream in Clrad in the simulatin wuld have depleted the streamflw int White River Reservir cnsiderably, ften t abut 200 ft 3 /s, the minimum streamflw requirement dwnstream frm Kenney Reservir. Therefre, because f the differences in these minimum streamflw requirements, the present mdeling effrt specified that a minimum streamflw f 250 ft 3 /s always was required dwnstream frm White River Reservir fr the entire simulatin perid. Fr the purpse f this study, it als was assumed that any f the reservirs in this cnfiguratin culd prvide water frm strage, if available, t fulfill this minimum flw requirement. The abve descriptin regarding minimum streamflws als applies t the next tw streamflw simulatins. 32

38 Shrtages in the annual diversin requirements f the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin in this simulatin ccurred in 3 years: 1968, 1977, and The simulated shrtages were abut 12,000 acre-ft/yr (17 ft 3 /s) in 1968, 21,000 acre-ft/yr (29 ft 3 /s) in 1977, and 40,000 acre-ft/yr (55 ft 3 /s) in The diversin requirement f this system, nt including lsses fr evapratin, wuld have been abut 165,000 acre-ft/yr (228 ft 3 /s), s the maximum annual shrtage was abut 24 percent. Simulated end-f-mnth cntents fr Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs fr this cnfiguratin are shwn in figure 10. There is cnsiderably mre fluctuatin in the cntents fr Avery Reservir in this simulatin in cmparisn t the previus simulatin; this als is true fr Kenney Reservir, which remained full in the previus simulatin. The graphs f the end-f-mnth cntents shw that the reservirs wuld have filled nearly every year and that all three reservirs wuld have been depleted f their active capacity in the 1968, 1977, and 1978 water years. Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs Average mnthly simulated streamflw fr the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin at tw lcatins n the White River is shwn in figure 11. In this simulatin, streamflw at statin Nrth Frk White River near Bufrd, Cl., was identical t that in the previus tw simulatins (fig. 6), and at statin White River near Meeker, Cl., simulated streamflw was nly very slightly different frm that in the three-reservir simulatin just described (fig. 9). Hwever, simulated streamflw fr this fur-reservir cnfiguratin at White River belw Piceance Creek and statin White River at muth near uray, Utah, is cnsiderably different, because f the greater amunt f streamflw depletin by Pwell Park Reservir (small), perated in cnjunctin with Avery Reservir. The greatest amunt f streamflw depletin wuld have ccurred during the mnths f May, June, and July. - The ttal streamflw depletin fr this cnfiguratin at the muth f the White River wuld have been abut 222,000 acre-ft/yr (306 ft 3 /s), including evapratin lsses at all fur reservirs. 33

39 79 Avery Reservir Maximum Cnservatin Pl *- LU I LU cr 28 u. C Q z C D X *- i. fsae Minimum Cnservatin Pl 940 Acre-Feet C LU I- Z ' Maximum Cnservatin Pl Icr LU cr 38 Minimum Cnservatin Feet fi YEAR Figure 10.--Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f three reservirs fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin. 34

40 20 Kenney Reservir Maximum Cnservatin Pl 15 III UJ u. I UJ DC LL C z < C D I 10 Minimum Cnservatin Pl [ S C H Z 20 UJ H Z tt is > DC UJ C " 10 Maximum Cnservatin Pl Minimum Cnservatin Pl [953 I YEAR Figure 10.--Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f three reservirs fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfigurat in--cntinued. 35

41 180 White River Reservir Maximum Cnservatin Pl LU 90 LU LL I M LU * CC < 40 LL c 29 Q Z C D X h- f, Minimum Cnservatin Pl c h- Z 160 LU h- Z 140 CC 120 > CC 100 Maximum Cnservatin Pl LU C CC m mm ** Minimum Cnservatin Pl YEAR Figure 10.--Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f three reservirs fr the Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfigurat in--cntinued. 36

42 White River Plceane belw Cheek. Ckx & i; 3 3" a. H- c ST r C- r 3- r 33 < r < r r i T n 'C i 3 r r 33 >-«5C r* 6> ^ r 3" <»- CA r r cn r n < < 00 r r n < w w - r* &J ^0 fd i CJ r» C 3 r r i-n n C a. ra?r rs n ^-> f. 0) w 33 r r-^i J i»- r W 00 t ' ff C"* v -< ^ f* n -. rr r CJ h^ &3 r* 7S 3 M- r 3 i-n 3 w t-t 33 c *< 3 r 3" STREAMFUW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND STREAMFlJW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECND S STREAMFLDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET RTve uth B 3 zs a * a 0 c. z c. C r Q 4 g i» 1 1 TSx\x1 ^xx2xlxji \\\\\l s3 ^3 sxxxxn \X\\vvl ^^v^vvv^vvxn^^\^^x^^\\^^^ l vvv wxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxv\\\\\\\n S\N\\\\\N ^xxvj "" i \V\VvJ * I I STREAMFUDW, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET PER MNTH g 0 i i 8 i 0 0 develpment Pr Z2 nd White Rfver ReeervTni 1=3 Avery, t Kenney femj Rwel Prk 1

43 The minimum streamflw lcatins f this cnfiguratin basically were the same as fr the previus three-reservir cnfiguratin, except that the tw il-shale diversins n the White River upstream frm Piceance Creek, and served by Avery Reservir, are replaced by a single diversin dwnstream frm Pwell Park Reservir. Thus, at the single diversin pint remaining upstream frm this reservir, the minimum streamflw requirement f 200 ft 3 /s in the White River wuld nt have been met fr 2 mnths in Dwnstream frm bth Pwell Park (small) and Kenney Reservirs, the minimum streamflw f 200 ft 3 /s wuld have been exceeded fr the entire perid. The 250 ft 3 /s minimum flw requirement dwnstream frm White River Reservir fr August thrugh May was met in this simulatin, but the 500 ft 3 /s requirement fr June and July wuld nt have been met in 9 years (11 mnths ttal). During thse 11 mnths, thugh, the flw was nt less than 250 ft 3 /s in the simulatin. Shrtages in the annual diversin requirements f the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin wuld have ccurred nly in 1977 and The shrtages wuld have been abut 3,000 acre-ft/yr (4 ft 3 /s) in 1977 and 62,000 acre-ft/yr (86 ft 3 /s) in The diversin requirement f this cnfiguratin, nt including evapratin lsses, wuld have been abut 222,000 acre-ft/yr (306 ft 3 /s) s the maximum annual shrtage wuld have been abut 28 percent. Simulated end-f-mnth cntents fr the fur reservirs in this cnfiguratin are shwn in figure 12. The graph fr Avery Reservir shws that its cntents fluctuated mre than in the previus tw simulatins, because f greater dwnstream diversin and streamflw requirements. In this simulatin, and in all ther simulatins, the reservirs were assumed t perate as a cnjunctive system. Hwever, the graphs fr Kenney and White River Reservirs shw that their cntents fluctuated less in this simulatin than in the three-reservir cnfiguratin. The primary reasn fr this is the presence f Pwell Park (small) Reservir upstream, which prvides cnsiderable additinal regulatin f the White River's flw int the tw dwnstream reservirs. The graphs in figure 12 further illustrate that all fur f the reservirs in this cnfiguratin wuld have been cmpletely depleted f usable strage nly in 1977 and Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs The effects f Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs cnfiguratin n streamflw at tw lcatins n the White River are shwn in figure 13. Mnthly average streamflw in the White River upstream frm Pwell Park (large) Reservir was the same as histrical streamflw. Simulated streamflw at White River belw Piceance Creek, and at statin White River at muth near uray, Utah (fig. 13), fr this cnfiguratin was smewhat similar t that f the previus cnfiguratin (fig. 11). Average streamflw depletin at the White River's muth fr the Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs cnfiguratin wuld have been abut 226,000 acre-ft/yr (312 ft 3 /s), which is slightly mre than that fr the previus simulatin with fur reservirs. 38

44 Avery Reservir Maximum Cnservatin Pl U. 111 QC LL C Q 48» 18 Minimum Cnservatin Pl 940-Acre Feet C D X I C Z LLI I CC» > QC UJ 40 C UJ QC 38.Maximum Cnservatin Pl 18 Minimum Cnservatin Pl [ YEAR Figure 12.--Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f fur reservirs fr the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin. 39

45 w I M U a» -^ < c r» r n r n r RESERVIR CNTENTS, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET *- M M - - U A M tt B tt n C 3 " i->i t; CJ i-- n n-?r r c. -J s-^ 0) V3 f n- 3 3 i fc C. i ^-^ l-r, 3 ;*: 303 r* 3 r^ r- 3 3" r - 0. CL) 3 m < r- r l-m 33»- C < n r r r r r < n < r- n l-l n- 3" r

46 20 Kenney Reservir 19 Maximum Cnservatin Pl H 111 HI U. I HI CC < u. C z C D X (I \ Minimum Cnservatin Pl C H Z 111 CC IS > CC HI C UJ 10 Maximum Cnservatin Pl V " Minimum Cnservatin Pl YEAR Figure 12.--Simulated end-f-mnth cntents f fur reservirs fr the Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin--cnt inucd. 41

47 ^» 8 ar *» (D 5 <' 0) n 3} 0) (0 0) «- < C i"6 i-j < s: r r i n r- 1-3 ^3 30 = K) I I C/> 3 c re G. D w r rr 3 P n 3 K p rt> p ft p rt r" P P" p r r z *< n» C. P &J r* p rt> c. P m 5 > 03 * r. RESERVIR CNTENTS, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET > *»**»» i 8 = i ac 0) < s. ' a TJ r r w n n < r-- n i

48 White Rfver belw Pfeanca Creek. Cl. CD Pwell Prk (large) and Kenney Reeervfra CZJ Pr» develpment /q *" 1000 _ 11 12/^ MM 60 3 J 500.^ x^ j * Ullli! ^ rs / \ n CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU6 SEP Q, White RTver at muth near unay. Utah CD Pwell Park Cnge) nd Kenney ReeervaTni Z2 Rne develpment I « CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU6 SEP Figure 13.--Cmparisn f simulated average streamflw with pre-develpment average streamflw at tw lcatins n the White River fr the Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs alternative cnfiguratin. 43

49 The minimum streamflw requirements f 200 ft 3 /s dwnstream frm Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs and 250 ft 3 /s dwnstream frm the diversin in Utah at the prpsed lcatin f White River Reservir, wuld have been cmpletely satisfied with this cnfiguratin. The additinal requirement f 500 ft 3 /s during June and July at the latter lcatin als wuld have been cmpletely satisfied. Shrtages in the annual diversin requirements f the Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs cnfiguratin wuld have ccurred in 1938 and 1978, with shrtages f 10,000 acre-ft/yr (14 ft 3 /s) in 1938 and 61,000 acre-ft/yr (84 ft 3 /s) in The diversin requirement f this cnfiguratin, nt including evapratin lsses, wuld have been 222,000 acre-ft/yr (306 ft 3 /s), s the maximum annual shrtage wuld have been abut 27 percent. Simulated end-f-mnth cntents fr Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs fr this cnfiguratin are shwn in figure 14. The graph fr Pwell Park Reservir shws that its cntents wuld have fluctuated cnsiderably, but the reservir wuld have been depleted f its usable cntents nly in 1938 and Kenney Reservir, thugh, fluctuated less in this simulatin than in either f the tw previus simulatins, primarily because the larger Pwell Park Reservir wuld have prvided mre regulatin f the White River. CMPARISN F ALTERNATIVE CNFIGURATINS The first three streamflw simulatins, with tw (Avery and Kenney), three (Avery, Kenney, and White River), and fur (Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River) reservirs, shw the effect f increasing streamflw depletin in the White River resulting frm increasing reservir develpment. In these three simulatins, average annual streamflw depletins were abut 93,000, 168,000, and 222,000 acre-ft/yr, respectively. The furth simulatin, with Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs, was intended t prvide the same amunt f streamflw depletin as the third - simulatin, but with a single large reservir replacing three smaller nes. Average streamflw depletin simulated fr this last cnfiguratin was abut 226,000 acre-ft/yr. Simulated streamflws at three lcatins n the White River resulting frm these cnfiguratins are cmpared in figure 15; results f the simulatins als are summarized in table 5. Simulated mnthly streamflw at statin White River near Meeker, Cl., was smewhat similar fr all fur cnfiguratins (fig. 15). At White River belw Piceance Creek, simulated streamflw fr the first tw cnfiguratins nearly was the same, but was reduced cnsiderably in the third and furth cnfiguratins because f streamflw depletin by Pwell Park Reservir. At statin White River at muth near uray, Utah, streamflw wuld have been reduced cnsiderably by each f the first three successive cnfiguratins, especially during May and June, first by the additin f White River Reservir and then Pwell Park (small) Reservir. Simulated streamflw at the White River's muth fr the last cnfiguratin is smewhat similar t that fr the fur-reservir cnfiguratin. 44

50 H3 00 C Q C 8 RESERVIR CNTENTS, IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET IW 8 bl 8 8 M 3 3 Q. Q. I 7* <T> r+i 3 I 3 3 (T> v< 3 rr 50 3" (T> M n <T> m > 0)!- 3 n n- c/i» CJ 3 CJ

51 a <D C n -a c RESERVIR CNTENTS. IN THUSANDS F ACRE-FEET M M 00 C "" CJ 7T C N n n a> a n- 3 re re rr v_x Q. H- 3 BJ re C 3 3 re c. a. a. i TS a 3 re 50 cr re w n re n 3 < rr re *- 3 C a 3 fc> > rt, r* re n- n C 3 M. re < M re re ET re

52 White River ner Meeker. Cl. Avery and Kenney Reservirs I 1 Avery, Kenney. and White River Reservirs Avery, Pwell Park (small). Kenney, and White River Reservirs Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs «0 CQ 3 1 e d i_ 5 - fc CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUQ SEP Whfte Rfver belw Pfcence Creek. Cl. Avery and Kenney Reservirs ' I Avery. Kenney. and White River Reservirs I Avery. Pwell Park (small). Kenney. and White Rh/er Reservirs Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs Q e a 5-30 CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AU SEP Figure 15.--Cmparisn f simulated average streamflws at three lcatins n the White River fr fur alternative reservir cnfiguratins. 47

53 , WhTte RTvert muth nar uray. Utah Avery and Kenney Reservirs Avery, Kenney, and White River Reservirs Avery, Pwell Park (small), Kenney, and White River Reservirs Pwell Park (large) and Kenney Reservirs CT NV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Figure Cmparisn f simulated average streamflws at three lcatins n the White River fr fur alternative reservir cnfiguratins --Cntinued. The simulatin with the large versin f Pwell Park Reservir did illustrate that ne large reservir culd prvide the same quantity f water as three smaller reservirs. Results f that simulatin generally indicate that the single, large reservir seems t be able t regulate the White River and t prvide the minimum streamflw requirements thrughut the year mre effectively than the three smaller reservirs. The strage capacity f Pwell Park (large) Reservir was abut 10 percent greater than the cmbined strage f the three smaller reservirs, but this wuld nt have had a significant effect n the results f that simulatin. Hwever, the ecnmic aspect f the single, large reservir versus three smaller reservirs, as well as the ecnmics f any f the reservirs described herein, was nt cnsidered in this study.

54 Statin Table 5. Summary f results f multireservir stream flw simulatins [Streamflw depletins, evapratins, diversin shrtages, and streamflws are in acre-feet per year and cubic feet per secnd (in parentheses); dashes, nt applicable] Number f years with Average annual simulated Average annual Average Reservir Minimum diversin cnfiguratin Streamflw depletin Evapratin streamflw Diversin shrtage Statin shrtage shrtage streamflw at White River belw Piceance Creek Histrical 427,000 (580) Avery and Kenney 93,000 (128) 2,300 (3.2) ,000 (552) Avery, Kenney, 168,000 (232) 6,100 (8.4) ,700 (2.4) 401,000 (553) and White River. Avery, Pwell Park 222,000 (306) 10,000 (14) (small), Kenney, 10 and White River. Pwell Park (large) 226,000 (312) 7,200 (9.9) and Kenney. 466,000 (644) 488,000 (674) 385,000 (532) 396,000 (546) 385,000 (532) 320,000 (442) 1,300 (1.8) 401,000 (553) 333,000 (459) 267,000 (368) 1,400 (2.0) 427,000 (589) 325,000 (448) 262,000 (362)

55 Nt every cnceivable cnfiguratin f the fur reservirs was simulated, but the effect n streamflw f ther cnfiguratins wuld be smewhat similar t sme f the simulatins described herein. Fr example, tw pssible cnfiguratins culd be Avery, Pwell Park (small), and Kenney Reservirs r Kenney and White River Reservirs. Thus, assuming the same water-use requirements fr these reservirs as described in this reprt, streamflw depletin fr the first pssible cnfiguratin wuld be abut 137,000 acre-ft/yr (189 ft 3 /s) at White River belw Piceance Creek and abut 150,000 acre-ft/yr (207 ft 3 /s) at the muth f the White River. Fr the secnd pssible cnfiguratin, streamflw upstream frm Kenney Reservir wuld be equal t histrical streamflw; hwever, at the muth f the White River, depletin wuld be abut 90,000 acre-ft/yr (124 ft 3 /s). Frm table 5, ne can determine which f the fur cnfiguratins simulated herein had apprximately thse amunts f streamflw depletin at the apprpriate lcatins, and then can refer back t the illustratins f that simulatin. This wuld give an apprximate representatin f the streamflw that wuld result frm these ther pssible reservir cnfiguratins. In additin, it is quite pssible that ther reservirs r water-resurce develpments culd be cnstructed in the White River basin; even the reservir cnfiguratins used in this study are cnjectural. Nevertheless, the effect n streamflw in the White River f any f these develpments, regardless f their cnfiguratin, generally shuld be similar t the effects described in this reprt. The primary reasns fr the brad applicatin f these simulatins are: (1) Many f the prpsed water-resurce develpments wuld nly affect streamflw dwnstream frm the Meeker vicinity, even thugh sme f the assciated reservirs, such as Avery Reservir, wuld be upstream frm Meeker; (2) there are very few majr irrigatin diversins and return flws n the White River between a pint a few miles dwnstream frm Meeker and the muth; and (3) the nly tributary cntributing any significant flw dwnstream frm Meeker is Piceance Creek, and its flw is small in cmparisn t that in the White River. Cnsequently, streamflw, and streamflw depletin, are cnsiderabley related frm ne lcatin t the next. RESERVIR ACTIVE CAPACITY VERSUS YIELD A secndary bjective f this reprt was t develp relatins between reservir active capacity and yield applicable t the White River; these were develped fr six different reservir active capacities. The basic assumptins used t develp these relatins were: (1) A single hypthetical reservir, f six different sizes, was used; (2) histrical streamflw at statin White River near Watsn, Utah, fr the water years was used as inflw t the reservir; (3) varius year-rund unifrm diversin rates were assumed, with n return flw; and (4) a year-rund minimum streamflw f 250 ft 3 /s was required in the White River dwnstream frm the reservir. These relatins were develped by numerus streamflw simulatins, using the HEC-3 mdel, but with an abbreviated cntrl pint sequence. 50