My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC126
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC126
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:15:52 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:23:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.39.L
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - RIPRAP - CFOPS - General Reports-Maps-Data-Etc
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/31/1999
Author
Unknown
Title
Working List of Assumptions and Ground Rules - Draft - Reviewed Copies with staff comments - 03-31-99
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />. :";1-~:-"-.'.: ;'; "I <" <br />','.- I <br />',.',~ ~:(.~ " \! <br />. ..;J <br /> <br />..,.".," <br />," : <br />'" <br />41 <br />, <br /> <br />UUlJiS~l <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />aUgJIll".nta1inn ofpeaIc flows in the IS-nule reach should be considered for counting toward <br />delivery oftbe 20K?) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Wat.er moved from a period of excess to a period of shortage should be counted towards the <br />20K.~... .5~ <br />r; ~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Water moved from the winter to spring would count in deliveI)" of the 20K on an average <br />annual basis. ~/.]U) <br /> <br />· Water delivered in C;lCCCSS of the flow recommendations would not count. (Does this mean that <br />water delivered in excess of the 20K in an). year will not count? O~ that water delivered in <br />excess of some specifie :Bow rcco.:uLueodarions (e.a,. W3fer in excess of SOOOers during the first_ <br /> <br />weekof~~llOtCOlm'1L ~ I-fl-q- <br /> <br />There obviously needs to be more discussion concerning this matter, but the above represents a start. <br /> <br />6. FloW'Targets. The following is from the Februazy 2 Maddux to Seaholm memo; <br /> <br />· The Service's first priority for delivery of water would be to add to the spring peak during <br />the same IO-day period tllat the coordin::lted reser.roirs operations program is trying to add to <br />the peak. (This }ields sappon to the need for a datly time step model during the Spring peak <br />nmofFperiod.) IfaIl of the 20K c:oWd be provided during the peak, it would not be necessary <br />to provide any water during other periods. <br /> <br />· The Service's second priority is to provide the water in Ma}.-June. <br /> <br />· Third priority is to deliver water between July IS and August 31 when deliveries from other <br />sources are less certain. <br /> <br />· Founh priority is in September and October. <br /> <br />t. Flexibility of Meeting Flow Targets. The following is an interpretation of the Service's February <br />response to Randy's questions concerning aIIowable flexibility.in meeting the .flow targets: <br />" . <br /> <br />· Adaptive management should be employed v..-hereby the .flow target and the flexibility in <br />m~ this 13rget would be identified and implemented on a year to year basis depending.on <br />the h,..drologie conditions in a specific )-ear. Actual deliveries would be made .in a specific <br />year based on established guidelines and general criteria for making water available. These <br />guidelines and criteria would be established as part of the Water Availability Stud,... <br /> <br />· Ranges of permissible water deliveries and timing of deli'\t-enes would be set through <br />agreements and contracts. The ranges and timing of permissible water deliveries would be <br />established in the Water Availability Study and Iarer inCOIporated in contracts and <br />agreements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.