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 />234~: <br /> <br />5. Construction should take into account the following: <br />The recreation area should not be required to shut down due to construction. <br />The facilities should be relocated before the dam is raised. This ensures that the <br />contractor promptly performs the facilities relocations and that they will remain <br />operational during and after construction. <br />The main access roads need to remain open during construction. <br />High impact construction should be scheduled during the off-season to minimize impacts. <br />Impacts of construction can be minimal if everything is coordinated with Parks. <br />6. Construction at the reservoir may reduce the number of visitors, as well as require additional <br />staffing due to construction related problems. <br />7. The reservoir may extend off Federal property under the railroad tracks at the west end of the <br />reservoir. <br />8. An increased reservoir surface would result in higher operational costs due to the increase in <br />visitors, especially from the Denver metro area. <br />9. In general, the public would like a bigger reservoir. <br />10. As with reoperations, the fluctuation of reservoir levels is a concern. Reservoir levels should <br />remain relati vely constant through the summer months. <br />11. Monetary compensation for non-mitigatable impacts may be possible. <br /> <br />Gravel Lakes Storag.e <br />1. Salida should be considered as a potential site for a gravel lake. <br />2. In general, Parks believes gravel lakes could be nice local amenities. <br />3. A majority of the impacts would be positive. Only a minority would be negative. <br />4. There may be impacts to Parks lands by con veyance from the ri ver to and from the gravel <br />lakes. <br /> <br />Williams Creek Reservoir <br />1. Parks primary concern is with the impacts that exchanges will have on the river. <br />2. Need to make clear that exchanges would only occur to Pueblo Reservoir. <br />3. Rafters would prefer if exchanges during peak flow months are minimized. <br /> <br />Steve Reese handed out a document which shows the recommended Arkansas River instrcam <br />flows between Twin Lakes and Pueblo Reservoir. This document is attached as part of these <br />minutes. <br /> <br />Parks would like to further discuss the issues as the study progresses. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.