WSPP282 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ODiJG95 Burec A2 Comments COMMENTS ON DRAFT PHASE 2 COORDINATED FACILITIES WATER AVAILABILITY STUDY FOR THE ENDANGERED FISHES OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER DATED JANUARY 2003 . 1) The Executive Summary should clearly acknowledge the limitations ofthe modeling effort. Specifically, that the period of record modeled does not include a long term drought period or even one as long as we are currently experiencing nor does the model accurately depict the exchanges between reservoirs. Additionally, the limitations that using a monthly model, with perfect hind sight and operational response, attempting to analyze an operation that requires changes and responses on a daily basis lends a much more positive picture of what reservoirs could do than reality bears out. In actual practice operators are going to be much more conservative with releasing water for peak flow augmentation and will be looking for assurances from forecasts, and perhaps an insurance pool, that they will be able to recover water released for peak flow augmentation before they do so. As a result of this, the reality is that the estimates in the evaluation of all ofthe different alternatives lead the reader to believe that much more can be done with the existing systems than will be the case. This should also be reflected in the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter. ~1 Time period for study was agreed upon by all involved at the start of the study, as well as the selection of StateMod. We believe that the tools and data used in this analysis adequately determines the feasibility of supplying the 20,000 acre-feet. The final recommendation and "rules" governing CFOPS should have drought provisions, but the findings of this study clearly indicate that enhancement of peak flows, during wet years, is feasible. 2) Executive Summary, page 5, second paragraph under "feasibility of Efficiencies . . ."; "Analysis ofthis alternative indicated that diverting to storage under the Green Mountain refill priority was a more efficient way to replace the 20,000 acre-feet supplied...". It is unclear what measure of "efficiency" is being judged here. 'Suggest the term "efficiency" be replaced with "less costly" or something that more accurately defines a real measureo This comment also applies to the body ofthe report and the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter. Noted. Revision will be made to be more clear about what the measure of efficiency is meant by here. I 3) Section 1.3.1, page lO, second bulleted paragraph, 1 st line: Suggest replacing "occurring" with "accruing". Noted - correction will be made. 4) Section 1.3.1, page 11, first bulleted paragraph, 3rd line: "0. opursuant to the Ruedi Reservoir Round II Water Sales Biological Opinion." Noted - correction will be made. P:\Data\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\Technical Memorandum No. 12\Appendix B"doc 3