Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />7) Di versions at Union Park were assumed to be independent of the <br />operation of Blue Mesa Reservoir, although tile inflow to Blue Mesa <br />was adjusted by the diversions at Union Park. <br /> <br />Approach 2 I Scenario 3a <br />1) Includes all of the assumptions described for Scenario 3. <br /> <br />2) A release requirement for Hydropower at Blue Mesa Reservoir was <br />added: <br /> <br />a) If Bl ue Mesa storage cont,!nt is greater than 400,000 <br />ac-ft, the hydro requirement was assumed to be 2,000 cfs. <br /> <br />b) If the Blue Mesa storage content is less than 400,000 <br />ac-ft but greater than 200,000 ac-ft, the hydro <br />requirenent was assumed to be 1,000 cfs. <br /> <br />c) If the Blue ~esa storage content is less than 200,000 <br />ac-ft, there would be no release for hydro and no <br />diversion to Union Park Reservoir. <br /> <br />3) Releases to satisfy the minimum streamflow (300 cfs) and the <br />historic Gunnison Tunnel diversions .>'Iere included as a portion of <br />the hydro requirement. <br /> <br />4) All requirements for hydro were subordinated to diversions at <br />Union Park. <br /> <br />-37- <br />