WSPC03188 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002028 This Addendum should be considered a part of the FEIS/SR, providing addi- tional maps, tables, descriptions, and data, and appears as an integral part of the final document. C. State of Colorado - Reconnaissance Report on Cache la Poudre Water Resource Development In 1981, the Colorado General Assembly authorized the Colorado Water Conservation Board to conduct studies of four potential water resources development projects. Among these was the Cache la Poudre Project--an integrated project upstream of the town of Fort Collins on the Cache la Poudre River (Section 7, S.B. 439). The objective of the State's study was to evaluate, at a reconnaissance level of detail, the engineering and economic feasibility of alternative projects which could develop new water supplies, improve the management of already developed water, and provide hydroelectric power production. Con- sistent with legislative intent and the constraints imposed by time and bud- get limitations, the State did not analyze a ". . . non-structural alterna- tive nor evaluate the environmental and recreational impacts of any of the alternative projects under consideration." Rather, the study was limited to addressing the threshold questions of whether there appeared to be any project which may be feasible from an engineering and economic point of view. ThE study, as ordered by the Colorado State Legislature, did not provide the level of analysis envisioned in the FEIS/SR when further investigation was suggested. It does, however, offer adequate information to consider trcde-offs between water development and preservation of the Poudre River. Where necessary, recreation data has been developed by the Forest Service to allow adequate comparison of new alternatives with those of the FEIS/SR. A total of 15 potential project configurations were investigated in the studv conducted for the State by Tudor Engineering. Eight preliminary alternatives were evaluated in Phase I of the study. Four of these alternatives were selected by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for further evaluation dur- ing Phase II of the study. The level of study did not provide precise answers to the absolute magnitude of effects, rather, it is most useful in a compara- tive evaluation of the four alternatives studied in detail. Tudor/State Alternative 1 Alternative 1 would have only one major feature, a 200,000 acre-foot Grey Mountain Reservoir (See Map 3). This reservoir would store flows from the total upper basin for eventual release to the River to serve conservation "uses in the lower basin. A 12.0-megawatt Grey Mountain Dam Power Plant would generate power using these flows. These flows would occur mainly during the irrigation season and would produce some intermittent dependable capacity. A total of 42,500,000 kilowatt-hours of energy would be produced by this alternative. Grey Mountain Feservoir would supply 54,800 acre-feet of water per year for municipal and industrial uses and 218,600 acre-feet of water per year for agricultural uses. It would produce a yield of 16,300 acre-feet of water per year of new water. 2