Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000833 <br /> <br />specifically mentioned target quantity in each option. The system will <br />b" efficient with quantities higher and lower than those specified. <br /> <br />Though these alternatives are energy intensive and are unique by <br />comparison to the aforementioned alternatives, they have been explored <br />because they offer several amenities to both in-basin and out-of-basin <br />users alike. These options do eliminate several points of controversy <br />due to the location of the key elements of the system. <br /> <br />Unlike the other alternatives, the elements composing this pro- <br />posal will all be located outside of the Medicine Bow National Forest. <br />This will eliminate the requirement of an environmental impact statement <br />to address the effects on the National Forest. By virtue of utilizing two <br />lower basin reservoirs to regulate the delivery of water, those small <br />tributaries and headwaters of the basin will remain in a virgin state, <br />while yearlong releases from the reservoirs will enhance streamflows <br />and provide flood protection in Savery Creek and the Little Snake River. <br /> <br />This system has the capability of producing hydroelectric power <br />from both reservoirs as well as from the pipeline on the east side of <br />the Continental Divide. Revenues from the sale of such power could be <br />used to offset the pumping costs associated with the operation of the <br />system. <br /> <br />The management of this type of system will develop a surplus of <br />available water which need not be committed to either in-basin or out- <br />of-basin use until such time as an established need is identified. It <br />is believed that when all aspects of these options are examined that the <br />merits of the system deem it worthy of consideration. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE D-I <br /> <br />This alternative is intended to provide 30,000 acre-feet annually <br />to serve as a means of comparison with Alternatives A, B, and C. The <br />system will generate 115,900 acre-feet per year; 85,500 acre-feet from <br />Three Forks Reservoir and 30,400 acre-feet from Upper Savery Reservoir. <br />After supplying 18,768 acre-feet to supplement permitted agricultural <br />rights and projected municipal growth, 30,000 acre-feet for out-of-basin <br />transfer and 3,000 acre-feet for conveyance losses; there remains 64,132 <br />acre-feet available for use within the drainage. If this alternative <br />was fully developed there would still remain in excess of 20,000 acre- <br />feet of water to be developed by Wyoming appropriators in the Little <br />Snake River drainage at a future time. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE D-II <br /> <br />This options offers the management of 93,146 acre-feet of water <br />annually. The amount is composed of 30,400 acre-feet from Upper Savery <br />Reservoir, 51,400 acre-feet (~ the capacity of Three Forks Reservoir), <br />and a direct flow diversion from the Little Snake River at Baggs during <br />periods of high runoff. <br /> <br />After providing for existing in-basin permits and allowing for <br /> <br />17 <br />