WSP09374

• File Number: 8149.911
• Description: PSOP Background
• Basin: Arkansas
• Date: 3/1/2000
• Author: Montgomery Watson
• Title: Envirionmental Issues Prepared for Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment Enterprise
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2360

Environmental Issues

Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment Enterprise

March 2000

Introduction
This report focuses on potential natural resource impacts associated with six water storage
alternatives currently being evaluated by Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) and the Southeastern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (SECWCD). Water development projects have the
potential to affect natural resources by changing the timing and volume of existing streanlflow,
inundating habitat, temporarily disturbing sites for associated pipeline and facility construction,
and by indirectly or cumulatively affecting the environment used by plant and animal species.
This report addresses potential adverse impacts and beneficial effects that may result from the
alternative actions under consideration. Federal, state and local environmental regulations and
permitting requirements that could affect the feasibility of water development projects also are
evaluated.

Information Sources
Information was collected from several sources. A series of meetings were held with
representatives from agencies with jurisdiction, resource management responsibilities, or interest
in the project. Meetings were held with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EP A), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), Colorado State
Parks, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Individual contacts also were made with
agency resource specialists. Secondary information was collected from existing published data
and previous reports. Reconnaissance field reviews were conducted for Pueblo Reservoir, Lake
Meredith, Williams Creek, and several potential gravel lake storage sites. The field review did
not include detailed surveys for species of concern or a jurisdictional wetland delineation.
Professional judgment and experience with other water resource developments were used to
determine potential effects for alternative projects.

I