My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC07680
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC07680
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:12:07 PM
Creation date
10/9/2006 6:36:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.J
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - UCRBRIP - Program Organization-Mission - Environment Studies
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/1/2004
Author
Grand River Consul
Title
Comparison of Water Supply Alternatives Associated with the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program - Draft - 11-01-04
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001083 <br /> <br />1.2 Cost <br /> <br />Annual water delivery costs are estimated to range from a low of approximately $50 per acre foot <br /> <br /> <br />to a high of approximately $240 per acre foot (Table 1.0). Available information suggests that <br /> <br /> <br />OMID Water Management will have the lo.west water delivery cost at $51 per acre foot. However, <br /> <br /> <br />tills alternative may not provide a reliable supply of water to the Recovery Program in critically dry <br /> <br />years. <br /> <br />Webster Hill Reservoir has the second lowest water delivery cost. The low delivery cost of this <br /> <br /> <br />alternative is primarily related to substantial hydroelectric revenues that offset capital expenditures. <br /> <br /> <br />The greatest water delivery costs are associated with Wolcott Reservoir. <br /> <br />1.3 Environmental <br /> <br />OMID Water Management and Wolford Mountain. Reservoir Enhancements would have the <br /> <br /> <br />smallest environmental affects and would be the easiest to permit. These two alternatives do not <br /> <br /> <br />involve the construction of new reservoirs, which reduces their environmental consequences. <br /> <br />Each of the five alternatives would require substantial Federal pernlitting efforts, with the exception <br /> <br /> <br />of OMID Water Management. Previous studies indicate that environmental affects associated with <br /> <br /> <br />each alternative can be mitigated, and that required permits can be successfully obtained. Webster <br /> <br /> <br />Hill Reservoir is a possible exception, as the rcservoir would inundate about five miles of critical <br /> <br /> <br />habitat for endangered fish species. <br /> <br />1.4 Other Considerations <br /> <br />Sulphur Gulch Reservoir and Webster Hill Reservoir are in close proximity to the 15-Mile Reach, <br /> <br /> <br />and water transit issues are minimal. With these reserVoirs, it may be possible to manage and <br /> <br /> <br />fluctuate reservoir releases to manage flow in the IS-Mile Reach and optilnize Recovery Program <br /> <br /> <br />benetils. The other alternatives utilize reservoir storage that is over 100 miles upstream of the 15- <br /> <br />RECOVERY PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES <br />] - 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.