Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />developments. For example, enlargements of Pueblo Reservoir were examined for storage <br />increases of25,000, 60,000, and 75,000 af. Results of the technical studies conducted by the <br />consulting team are summarized below. <br /> <br />Engineering and Cost Issues: The storage options are technically feasible to implement. Costs <br />vary depending upon the storage option; however, none of the storage options appears to be <br />prohibitively expensive for municipal water supply. <br /> <br />Hydrologic Issues: Re-operation of the Fry-Ark Project could provide 48,000 to 51,000 af of <br />storage space for municipal non-Project water without causing reductions to Project yield or <br />significant spills of Winter Water. New storage at the identified sites can be operated to <br />effectively meet municipal storage requirements. The effects ofre-operation and new storage <br />on stream flows and reservoir levels were documented in the hydrologic modeling studies <br />through simulation of monthly operations over a 30-year period (1966 - 95). There will be some <br />relatively minor changes in stream flows in the Arkansas River; however, the majority of these <br />changes would occur even if the re-operation and new storage is not developed. River flows will <br />see minor changes as municipal entities use more of their decreed water rights and allocated <br />Project water in the future. Storage at enlarged Pueblo Reservoir and Turquoise Lake is more <br />efficient than storage at an enlarged Lake Meredith or in the enlarged Williams Creek and gravel <br />lakes storage options. This storage efficiency is due mainly to lower evaporation rates, but is <br />offset in part by greater transit losses. <br /> <br />Water Quality Issues: Re-operation and new storage are not predicted to cause significant <br />changes in water quality in either the Arkansas River or in most of the reservoirs being studied. <br />The exception is Lake Meredith, where potentially longer retention times, associated with <br />increased storage capacity, could lead to declining reservoir and release water quality. <br /> <br />Environmental Issues: There are a variety of site-specific and regional environmental issues that. <br />must be considered and evaluated before any storage option could be implemented, particularly <br />recreation, fisheries, instream flows, threatened and endangered species, and wetlands issues. <br />There do not appear to be any environmental fatal flaws that would preclude any of the storage <br />options from being implemented. <br /> <br />Cultural Resource and Socia-Economic Issues: There will be a variety of cultural resource issues <br />and historic/prehistoric sites to be investigated in detail during the environmental compliance <br />phase of implementation. The most significant concentration of cultural sites is expected to be <br />at Pueblo Reservoir. Socio-economic conditions are highly variable within the District and <br />issues surrounding the social and economic impacts of implementing a preferred storage plan <br />will need to be carefully evaluated. The Upper Basin is concerned about the impacts of <br />additional water development on the recreational use of the river and local reservoirs. The <br /> <br />~ GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />IV <br /> <br />1'\PROIECTS\9906I\Reporu\Preferred SOP Final wpd <br />