My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08927
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08927
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:50:13 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:21:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.600.20
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Studies - Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
10/12/1983
Author
US DoI BoR
Title
Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Colorado
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
260
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Q029 <br /> <br />2.1 <br /> <br />. : ~-, <br />.: ". _>. ~ ' i <br /> <br />II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />This chapter presents the alternatives evaluated in the impact assessment <br /> <br /> <br />process. Eleven alternatives were originally considered in detail in the EA, <br /> <br /> <br />including four sets of objectives. The first objective (No Action Alterna- <br /> <br /> <br />tive) described the present sales and operational conditions for Ruedi <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir. The second set of objectives (Alternatives 2-5 plus Preferred <br /> <br /> <br />Alternative) included maximum sale of water from RUedi Reservoir to meet muni- <br /> <br /> <br />cipal, domestic, and industrial demands. The third set of objectives <br /> <br /> <br />(Alternatives 6-8) included minimization of risk to in stream and recreational <br /> <br /> <br />values. The fourth set of objectives (Alternatives 9 and 10) included <br /> <br /> <br />hydroelectric power generation. Section 2.2 describes alternatives eliminated <br /> <br /> <br />from detailed study. Section 2.3 discusses po~sible mitigation measures which <br /> <br /> <br />are applicable to the alternatives. Section 2.4 compares alternatives in <br /> <br /> <br />detail using tabular and graphic presentations. Appendix H presents the <br /> <br />Record of Decision ,which identifies the Preferred Alternative. <br /> <br />2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail <br />2 .1.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail in this, Supplement <br />preferred Alternative. Maximum Supplemental Supply, With No <br />Sales from a 28,000 AF Replacement Pool, Assuming a 20%/80% <br />Municipal/Industrial Demarid Sp1i~, Respectively <br />The preferred'a1ternative represents a modification of the maximum <br />unconstrained yield of the reservoir capacity (Alternative 2). This modifica- <br />tion was a result of public comment and consultation during the assessment <br />review process. Water sales would be restricted to the available water supply <br />provided by Ruedi Reservoir with 28,000 acre-f,eetbeing available annually for <br />replacement purposes. This conforms with the 'intent of the project authoriza- <br />tion to provide up to 28,000 acre-feet of capacity in Ruedi Reservoir equiva- <br />lent to that which .would have been provided by the proposed Aspen 'Reservoir <br />for replacement and other purposes. Water sales would not be made from the <br />replacement pool until additional operating experience is gained. This alter- <br />native will yield a marketable water supply of up to 58,000 acre~feet under a <br />dry-year condition depending on the demand pattern reflecting shortages of up <br />to 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively, for industrial and municipal and <br />domestic uses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.