My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12760
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12760
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:18:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2007 9:40:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8155.915.A.2
Description
Chaffee County RICD- Objectors/ Others Pre-Hearing Statements / Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
12/10/1998
Author
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Title
Pre-Hearing Exhibits Tab 4 - GEI Consultants SECWCD/Arkansas River Water and Storage Needs Assessment
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.
/
13
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 />Water and Storage Needs Assessment <br />SE~CD/~s~smentEn~rprbe <br />, December 10,1998 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The storage need identified above is for the high grO\vth forecast; and could be less <br />under the base for~cast. <br /> <br />Additional storage capacity could benefit non- bistrict entities who h~ye water <br />. interests in the Arkansas Basin. as w~ll as District entities who desire more storage <br />to enhance water management and provide drought protection. 'AdditionarEast <br />Slope storage also may enable additional Fry-Ark ~oject imports to be made. <br />Cwrently, 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,O~O af ~ince :the pr()je~ beganop~ation." .', ':.. <br /> <br />. . . . . <br />. -.. . - <br />8. The 31 storage!waterinatlagement options' were Slibjected- to a: qiJ8.litative <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 aiullysis framework to identify 8 <br />options that appear to have better overall performatice in terms of cost, operational <br />effectiveness, and environmental/social factor$., The evaluation process is <br />preliminary in nature and is not intended to be fully compliant with NEP A <br />guidelines. However, the pasic structure of the process is designed to be ~Jq>anded <br />anq refined in subsequent more ~etailed levels of study and evaluation of <br />alternatives. The eight alternatives are summarized in the' following table in the <br />order of their priority ,rankirig in the alternatives analysis: " <br /> <br />~(@.;~~<._.: :_ ~~![~-=:_,_, ___!r,g~T~\lii'?!.;~'!:,-~~;~:~~_=~ <br /> <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 />(1) Estimated maximum volume of storage based on initial configurations. <br />(2) Estimated potential volume available without consideration of East Stope decrees. <br />Volume may not be available in alt years. <br /> <br />-v- <br /> <br />I GEl Consultants, Ine. <br /> <br />974111F'U1BU\TBXT-A. WPD <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.