My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10538
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10538
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:13:28 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:22:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8149.911
Description
Miscellaneous Small Projects and Project Studies - SE Needs Assessment PSOP
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
12/10/1998
Author
GEI Consultants
Title
SECWCD Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
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.
/
273
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 />Og~~ <br /> <br />Water and Storage Needs Assessment <br />SECWCD/Assessment Enterprise <br />December 10, 1998 <br /> <br />The storage need identified above is for the high growth forecast, and could be less <br />under the base forecast. <br /> <br />Additional storage capacity could benefit non-District entities who have water <br />interests in the Arkansas Basin, as weIl as District entities who desire more storage <br />to enhance water management and provide drought protection. Additional East <br />Slope storage also may enable additional Fry-Ark Project imports to be made. <br />Currently, Fry-Ark imports can be curtailed due to unavailable East Slope storage <br />capacity. These "foregone" diversions from the West Slope have totaled <br />approximately 200,000 af since the project began operation. <br /> <br />8. The 31 storage/water management options were subjected to a qualitative <br />evaluation in order to develop a list of 14 options for more-detailed review. These <br />14 options then were evaluated using a decision analysis framework to identify 8 <br />options that appear to have better overaIl performance in terms of cost, operational <br />effectiveness, and environmental/social factors. The evaluation process is <br />preliminary in nature and is not intended to be fuIly compliant with NEPA <br />guidelines. However, the basic structure of the process is designed to be expanded <br />and refined in subsequent more detailed levels of study and evaluation of <br />alternatives. The eight alternatives are summarized in the foIlowing table in the <br />order of their priority ranking in the alternatives analysis: <br /> <br />:I~~~~~,tt?:i*l~S'to'~~';bpti~;;.;~~~ V~ ~~.~ ~;':f~f ~:~',:i.:,>,:-~:;'~;:';Ys"'~&'{';;"i'i ';"~";-"'-~:,'.i.';Yii5;(1-)~~~ <br />:$;'\":~:~~-i*$p~_t8ntial Vo'ume '-~'~~<?\"9'~:' ..' <br />Lake Meredith Enlargement 80,000 <br />Fry-Ark Project Reoperation 90,000(2) <br />Turquoise Lake Enlargement 9,000 <br />Clear Creek Reservoir (New) 100,000 <br />Tennessee Creek Reservoir 28.000 <br />Pueblo Reservoir Enlargement 75,000 <br />Williams Creek Reservoir 16,000 <br />Gravel Lakes Storage 13,000 <br /> <br />(I) Estimated maximum volume of storage based on initial configurations. <br />(2) Estimated potentia] volume available \\ithout consideration of East Slope decrees. <br />Volume may not be available in all years. <br /> <br />97411\FinaU\TEXT.A.WPO <br /> <br />-v- <br /> <br />en GEl Consultants, Inc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.