My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP282
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP282
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:09 PM
Creation date
4/23/2007 9:57:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.39.C
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - RIPRAP - CFOPS - Water Availability
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/1/2003
Author
Brown and Caldwell
Title
Phase 2 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River - Tech Memo Number 12 - Comments-Responses to 01-01-03 - Draft - 03-01-03
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.
/
67
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 />000701 <br /> <br />Steve Schmitzer's Comments <br /> <br />not within the scope of work to derive iunior yields for specific proiects other than the potential <br />new reservoir sites. <br /> <br />Project Alternatives <br /> <br />For the Webster Hill alternative, the report should clearly state that not only could this option <br />provide 20,000 af or more every year on a firm yield basis, this alternative could also be used to <br />meet the 10,825 af goal for fall releases. The report should also clearly state that only the main <br />stem storage and new tributary storage alternatives can meet the goal of the project sponsors <br />which is "to secure a firm water supply for project purposes" (p. 10) while also meeting the <br />10,825 af RIPRAP goal for late summer and fall base flow releases. We can not guarantee a <br />CFOPS release in every year for this alternative, we did not model this. <br /> <br />Another benefit of the Webster Hill alternative that should be pointed out is that it is relatively <br />close to the 15 Mile Reach and the problem of river travel time is greatly diminished (i.e., the 3- <br />day travel time from Green Mountain Reservoir). It should be noted in the report that the <br />Webster Hill alternative would inundate a few miles of marginal T&E habitat. Noted and will be <br />included. <br /> <br />On page 6 the report states that tributary storage alternatives are all costly and the consultant <br />team recommends that there be "no further consideration" ofthese alternatives. However, <br />tributary storage may be the most practicable, least environmentally damaging alternative to <br />meet the project purpose. Concluding that tributary storage is too expensive ignores the <br />economic realities of what is required to develop water supply for new purposes. There is no <br />171 easy or cheap fix. For example, Colorado water users are pursuing the Sulphur Gulch Reservoir <br />option to develop up to 10,825af of water for late summer and fall base flow releases. While <br />costly, this project is being pursued because it may be the most feasible alternative to meet the <br />project purpose. Another tributary alternative is the Eagle-Colorado Reservoir. Momentum is <br />building between numerous water users to cooperatively developing this multi-purpose reservoir. <br />This project could be sized to accommodate the 20,000 af spring peak water as well as the <br />10,825 af fall base flow water. Noted, <br /> <br />~ <br />= <br /> <br />Use of Existing Reservoirs (i.e., Green Mountain or "Share the Pain" alternatives) <br /> <br />Under real-time operations, the managers of existing reservoirs would need to designate how <br />much water could be available for the spring release based on their ability to forecast that their <br />reservoirs would fill and then spill. In reality, operators of Williams Fork and Wolford <br />reservoirs and the CBT project would not allow releases from those projects until the operators <br />are sure that the facilities' yield will not be impacted, regardless of what the modeling for this <br />study showso For example, in the last several years (prior to 2002) the operators have made <br />limited CROP releases due to imperfect ability to forecast the peak flows, and the uncertainty of <br />filling once releases are made. It should be noted that CROP is voluntary, but it is unknown if <br />CFOPS will be mandatory. This all depends on the participation/operating rules that the USFWS <br />Imposes. <br /> <br />P:\Data\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\Teehnieal Memorandum No. 12\Appendix B.doe <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.