Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />_I. <br />I <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />( <br />, <br /> <br />" <br />, <br />\ <br />; <br /> <br />'( <br />.1 <br /> <br />" <br />i <br />.J <br /> <br />-je <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />"j <br />" <br />.) <br /> <br />,., <br />i <br /> <br />...1 <br /> <br />., <br />, <br />\ <br />::.i <br /> <br />i <br />l <br />-! <br /> <br />1 <br />,,, <br /> <br />'i <br />l <br />J <br /> <br />u. <br />1 <br />~l <br /> <br />f <br />,.. <br /> <br />- <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 well 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. <br /> <br />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 reyiew. These <br />14 options then were evaluated using a decision analysis framework to identify 8 <br />options that appear to have better overall 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 fully compliant with NEP A <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 following table in the <br />order of their priority ranking in the alternatives analysis: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />S.t~!:!Ig4!;.QP.t1o_n <br />lake Meredith Enlargement 80,000 <br />Fry-Ark Project Reoperation 90,000~) <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) <br />Estimated maximum volume of storage based on initial configurations. <br />(2) Estimated potential volume available without consideration afEast Slope decrees. <br />Volume may not be available in all years. <br /> <br />97411\FinatI\TEXT-A.WPD <br /> <br />~ GEl Consultants, Inc. <br /> <br />-v- <br />