WSP02761 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0'376 2.16 .. #'. ... 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed study " , One alternative use of water from the reservoir was considered and elimi- nated from further study, i.e., the constructi~n of a peak load hydroelectric power generating system. The facilities would ,be designed to produce a maxi- mum amount of power during the peak demand houtis of each day, normally 1-1/2 to 2 hours each afternoon. A peaking power facility would be designed to accept the entire daily outflow from the reservoir at a rate equal to the capacity of the outlet works. This is equivalent to 1600 cfs when Ruedi is full (Sheaffer & Roland, Inc. 1982). This alternative would also requ~re the construction of an afterbay darn designed to provide storage and f~ow equalization for each day's releases from Ruedi. The size and capacity of:the afterbay would be dictated by the daily volume of water passing through the hydropower facilities. An afterbay would have to be large enough to contain (as a minimum) minimum stream flows below the darn (currently the mini~um fishery release 100 cfs in the summer, or 200 AF per day). Water would flow through the powerhouse d~ing the peak power production periods into the afterbay and would then be subsequently released to the Fryingpan River at a constant rate on a tWenty-four hour per day basis. In order to avoid flooding the powerhouse, the base of the existing darn. the existing spillway, the existing outlet works, ~nd the existing Rocky Fork bypass, it would be necessary to locate the af~erbay darn several thousand feet , downstream. This would have a severe impact o~ the Fryingpan River below the darn, eliminate most of the spawning areas for brook and brown trout and inun- date a portion of the highest quality fishing segment of the river. This alternative would also require an operating agreement with the Bureau for modifying'the daily release pattern, from the darn. This would i result in a higher operation cost incurred by ~he Bureau for the dam's opera- i tion of the afterbay to control the daily vari~tions in release patterns. , , This alternative would produce a peak power production of approximately 35 megawatts for a period of about 1-1/2 hours per day. The total annual power production would be approximately 20 million kilowatt hours (Sheaffer & Roland, Inc., 1982). A peaking hydropower facility was rejecte~ for several reasons: i 1) Construction of an afterbay would cause sighificant adverse impacts on the Fryingpan River below the darn; 2) the operation and maintenance requirements