My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01996
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP01996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:33:51 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:47:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8149.911
Description
PSOP Background
Basin
Arkansas
Date
3/1/2000
Author
Montgomery Watson
Title
Permitting and Regulatory Issues Prepared for Arkansas Basin Future Water and Storage Needs Assessment Enterprise
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2331 <br />Permitting of Alternatives <br /> <br />An initial ranking of the project alternatives based on their comparative difficulty with <br />project pennitting is presented below. None of the projects are deemed to have any fatal <br />flaws that would prohibit pennitting. The enclosed ranking is used to show the comparative <br />difficulty anticipated with obtaining the necessary pennits to allow project implementation. <br />The projects are ranked on a 1-10 scale with 10 being the most favorable (least difficult to <br />pennit). The scale rankings are based on the input from the pennitting agencies noted and an <br />understanding of the pennitting issues for other major water projects in Colorado. <br /> <br />Project reoperations was ranked six (6) in tenns of comparative pennitting difficulty. <br />Concerns have been raised with regard to the indirect impacts of project reoperations; <br />however, no construction would occur or inundation as a result of reservoir enlargement. The <br />existing Fry-Ark storage reservoir enlargement projects for Turquoise and Pueblo reservoirs <br />were each ranked three (3), as substantial areas would be newly inundated causing concerns <br />with wetlands, wildlife habitat, and recreational facilities. The Lake Meredith enlargement, in <br />contrast, was ranked five (5) as fewer difficulties were noted. However, as the Lake Meredith <br />enlargement would impact wetlands and wildlife habitat, pennitting issues would still be <br />present. The Gravel Lakes reservoirs were judged as the least difficult to pennit and was <br />ranked eight (8), assuming that they would be a new use of an existing gravel mining facility. <br />The Williams Creek reservoir enlargement was ranked five (5), with issues similar to Lake <br />Meredith, namely with wetlands and wildlife concerns. The pennitting ranks are shown in <br />Table 2. <br /> <br />Table 2. Ranking of Alternatives Based on Permitting Difficulty <br /> <br />Storaoe Project Alternative Permittlna Difficulty'" <br />Proiect Reooerations 6 <br />Pueblo Reservoir EnJaraement 3 <br />Turauoise Reservoir Enlaraement 3 <br />Lake Meredith Enlaroement 5 <br />Gravel Lakes Storaoe 8 <br />Williams Creek Reservoir Enlaraement 5 <br /> <br />Notes: <br />", <br /> <br />Scores noled 10 as least difficult to 1 being most difficult. <br /> <br /><<II> <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.