Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Final Draft - Preferred Storage Options Plan <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District <br />June 8, 2000 <br /> <br />Lower Basin is concerned about the impacts of water development on water quality and the <br />future agricultural economy. There do not appear to be any cultural or socio-economic impacts <br />that might preclude implementation of any storage option studied. <br /> <br />Permitting and Regulatory Issues: There will be significant permitting and regulatory compliance <br />efforts associated with any of the storage options. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation most likely <br />will be the lead agency for compliance activities for re-operation and enlarging Project <br />reservoirs. These actions will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) <br />and permitting/reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A). Likely key issues <br />to be addressed in the EIS are identified in the report and supporting documentation published <br />separately. <br /> <br />The study specialists evaluated the storage options and developed a qualitative a numerical <br />scoring system to assist in evaluating and ranking these options. Results are summarized below <br />(highest score of 10 is best performance in a category; lowest score of I indicates poorer <br />performance). <br /> <br /> 1:- <br /> .. .s <br /> III .. II <br /> l::! -~ '5 <br /> ii ,. -e Cl <br /> ~ - 0 0 III <br /> Cl C .. 0:: <br /> c u '5 III .. C - <br /> 0:: 0 Cl <br /> 't: g, II E u c - <br /> .. 0 a c E w i3 .. <br /> .. e e . Cl <br /> C .. 0 E f! <br /> .! ,. <br /> g, ~ - <l <br /> -g, II '5 .. .. <br />Storage Option c 3: 0 .. ~ Comments <br />w :l: W to) (I) lL <br />Re-operation 10 7 7 9 10 7 6 8.0 Least cost alternative <br />- and fewest issues <br />Pueblo Enlargement 3 8 7 4 1 5 3 4.4 Largest storage <br /> potential <br />Turquoise Enlargement 8 9 9 8 2 3 3 6.0 Least cost for new <br /> storage <br />Lake Meredith Enlargement 2 6 2 2 1 6 5 3.4 Significant water quality <br /> issues <br />Gravel Lakes 6 7 8 8 6 9 8 7.4 Not well suited for a <br /> regional solution <br />Williams Creek 1 6 3 7 1 5 5 4.0 Not well suited for a <br /> regional solution <br /> <br />'" Numerical average of scores in each category. <br /> <br />J:\PROJECTS\9906I\Rqloru\Preferm:l SOP Final. wpd <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />m GEl Consultants, Inc. <br />