Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br />I <br /> <br />,..,,~ <br /> <br />--~,,~."*,.-,-...,- <br /> <br />-.....,...,.~ <br /> <br />- "'--'--~-'-~",",_.""- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />1. William McDonald <br />Director <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />December 12, 1980 <br /> <br />TO: J. William MCDonald, Director <br />Stephen O. Ellis, A-95 Clearing House <br /> <br />FROM: Fred E. Daubert i~tJ <br />Barbe Chambliss ~ <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment - Dallas Creek Project <br />Addition of Hydroelectric Power GeneratJ.on, WPRS <br />November, 1980. <br /> <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------- <br /> <br />The Dallas Creek project is located on the Uncompahgre <br />River about halfway between Ouray and Montrose. The project <br />includes Ridgway Dam and Reservoir which has a capacity of <br />80,000 acre-feet. The objective of this power study on the <br />Dallas Creek Project was to develop the most efficient plan to <br />produce the maximum amount of energy with the water available <br />without significantly interfering with its original purpose. <br />All the water for this power study is discretionary water <br />(spills, minimum releases) which is secondary to the Dallas <br />Creek Project water demand. <br /> <br />Alternative Summary <br /> <br />No. 1 - This alternative follows the same plan that was <br />presented in the definite plan report and does <br />not include any power development. <br /> <br />No. 2 - This alternative would include a single 1.8 MW <br />unit operating year-round on a base-load <br />assignment. It would produce 12,530 MWh annually <br />and the reservoir spills would be reduced from <br />15 to 11 years during the 19-year study period. <br />The average spill would decrease from 45,100 <br />A-F to 34,200 A-F. The outlet works would <br />require some redesign to accomodate a single <br />unit. It would require an average head of 170 <br />feet and would discharge 150 cubic feet of <br />water per second. <br /> <br />No. 3 <br /> <br />- This alternative <br />would operate 60 <br />base-load basis. <br /> <br />includes two 1,8 MW units that <br />percent of the time on a <br />It would produce 17,760 MWh <br />