WSPC138 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U" O' ::1 5 ') ."\ U ..., G Ruedi would continue to be operated to store water and limit releases during 2003. If 2003 infl9w to Ruedi is similar to 2002 inflow, Ruedi would be expected to be above 51,800 AF for a part ofthe summer but would be in all likelihood under this volume for a substantial part of the summer season. Flow in the Fryingpan River would be expected to be lower than average, and at times would only be at the minimum releases especially during early summer months. In late summer 2003, endangered fish releases would be expected to increase flows in the Fryingpan River, but would most likely be below 250 cfs. Proposed Action (HUP Releases) This alternative would increase flows in the Fryingpan River by an estimated 66 cfs if released at a constant rate from August 1 through October 15. This would result in Fryingpan River flows of approximately 250-300 cfs during the term of the agreements. The flow would be a combination of releases expected under No Action along with releases made for the HUP under the agreement. Based on past information, this rate of flow is not expected to generate either scour or erosion problems in the Fryingpan River. Ruedi releases are expected to exceed inflows during the term of the agreements, causing a drop in Ruedi content. Projected approximate reservoir storage volumes and elevations are shown in Table 3.3. Table 3.3. Approximate Storage Volume and Elevation of Ruedi Reservoir by Month Under the Proposed Action. DATE STORAGE (AF) ELEVATION (ft) August 1 68,400 7727 September 1 57,000 7712 October 1 43,700 7691 November 1 35,900 7677 Similar to No Action, winter releases are anticipated to be the minimum required release of 39 cfs or inflows to the reservoir, whichever is less. The reservoir is low, so the reservoir will be operated to replenish storage; any flow.s above 39 cfs will be stored. Flows in the Roaring Fork would be expected to continue to decline during the term of the agreement but the HUP releases would be expected to increase overall flow. Under this alternative, Reclamation would continue to make endangered fish releases in accordance with agreements that support the Recovery Program. The Grand Valley irrigation systems are expected to continue to operate with as much efficiency as possible, reducing administrative spills and return flows to the Colorado River. When the irrigators are able to divert their full water supply, total return flows to the Colorado River can reach up to 300 cfs. Lewis Wash, the only drain to enter the 15 Mile Reach, typically varies from 2-30 cfs during the irrigation season. The Proposed Action would contribute to greater return flows and administrative spills to Lewis Wash and thus to the 15 Mile Reach than would occur under the No Action Alternative. At the start of fill in April 2003, storage in Ruedi under this alternative would be approximately 30,800 AF, low in comparison to the average water year beginning storage of approximately 60,000 AF. For this 12