Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . ~ ~ -, () " .." <br />. GUll".) I <br /> <br />CROSS CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br />1. Historic diversions through the Tunnel No.1 were obtained from the State database <br />and verified with records obtained from the USSR and the USGS. This times series <br />will also reasonably represent the demands at the tunnel for future operational <br />scenarios. <br /> <br />2. For purposes of the CROSS, the Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion <br />Projectcould be represented as two nodes: (1) a demand node at the diversion to <br />the Tunnel No.2 (WOlD 381763), representing the cumulative contributions to the <br />system for the collection facilities in the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River (total <br />tributilrY-.Qrainage area of 18.9 square miles); and (2) a demand node at ,the Tunnel <br />No.1 (WOlD 384617), representing 1212! diversions to the east slope, inclusive of <br />water imported from the Roaring Fork through Tunnel No.2, the water collected <br />under the New York Collection System (WOlD's 1764, 1765 and 1766) and water <br />diverted at Grizzly Reservoir (WOlD 383779). The total drainage area for the <br />Uncoln Gulch portion of the system is about 25.3 square miles and the total <br />drainage area (including the Roaring Fork basin) is 44.2 square miles. <br /> <br />In the alternative, the system could be modeled as a single demand node at the <br />entrance to Tunnel No.1 (WOlD 384617) with a total cumulative tributary area of <br />about 44.2 square miles. Because there are no other modeled water rights on <br />Lincoln Gulch or in the intervening reach of the Roaring Fork River between the <br />diversion to Tunnel No.2 (WOlD 381763) and the confluence with Lincoln Gulch <br />(other than junior instream flow rights), it would be acceptable to aggregate the <br />total diversions and drainage areas to a single trans mountain demand node. <br /> <br />3. It may not be necessary to model the exchange with the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project described in this documentation. It could be assumed that the operation of <br />this agreement is reflected in the historic diversion record. <br />