My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10841
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10841
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:56 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:34:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.760
Description
Yampa River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
1/1/1993
Author
Hydroshpere
Title
Yampa River Basin Alternatives Feasibility Study - Executive Summary - Draft - January 1993
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />000428 <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RESERVOIR SITES <br /> <br />Site Identification and Screening <br /> <br />Past studies of the Yampa River Basin have identified and examined numerous sites for <br />new water storage projects. In the Feasibility Study, sixty-four reservoir sites were identified <br />from an extensive review of documents, through discussions with local water managers and <br />members of the Study Technical Steering. Group (TSG) and by map and field reconnaissance by <br />the consultant team. These sites appeared, from the information initially available, to have <br />some potential to support a reservoir meeting either the near term (2015) or long term (2040) <br />projected deinand requirements. <br /> <br />A two-stage screening process was performed to reduce this list of 64 sites down to eight <br />sites that would be the object of field evaluations. Estimates of inflow hydrology were made <br />based on approximate site drainage area and regional precipitation data or on gaged flow data <br />where available. Those sites which exhibited average annual inflows less than 20,000 af were <br />excluded from further consideration. This inflow criteria was based on the inflow estimated to <br />be necessary to support a reservoir with a minimum capacity of 10,000 acre-feet. For <br />screening purposes, a 10,000 af reservoir was considered the minimum size necessary to meet <br />near and long term demands in the area. Other screening criteria included presence of known <br />fatal geotechnical and environmental flaws, recreation use potential, and the ability of a <br />reservoir at the site to deliver water to meet existing and projected future demands. Project <br />costs were not developed or used as an evaluation criterion at this stage, however factors which <br />could significantly affect the cost of a project, such as relocation of a major road, were noted. <br /> <br />A list of eight potential reservoir sites recommended for field study was reviewed by the <br />TSG and the Study's Public Advisory Group (FAG) and was presented at a public meeting held <br />in Craig on February 21, 1991. Based on substantial public comment received at and <br />subsequent to the public meeting, the TSG determined that the Ralph White. and Mad Creek <br />sites should be deleted from further consideration and that a new site on Fortification Creek, <br />called Cedar Mountain, should be reviewed for fatal flaws. <br /> <br />In addition to the sites identified as near-term storage candidates, it was also determined <br />that alternative long-term storage sites in the upper basin be identified and screened through a <br />review of previous work in the Study. A total of 11 reservoir sites were identified and re- <br />. reviewed for consideration as a long-term storage project. The 11 sites included seven that <br />were previously reviewed, the new site on Fortification Creek (Cedar Mountain), a Yampa <br />River mainstem site near the Mount Harris Mine, and two new sites above Steamboat Springs <br />that had not been previously considered because of their distance from Craig. These eleven <br />sites were then screened using a process similar to short-term site screening process. <br /> <br />Based on these screening and review processes, a total of nine sites were identified for <br />field evaluation. These sites are listed in Table S-2. <br /> <br />S-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.