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 />OOJ7d3 <br /> <br />Steve Schmitzer's Comments <br /> <br />drought, not in scope, we used time period agreed to by everyone and (3) STATEMOD is not <br />correctly simulating exchanges and substitution. We do not agree. <br /> <br />Finally, we are concerned that a perception could be constructed that Denver's reservoirs have <br />unused future capacity to accomplish a significant portion of the 20,000 afCFOPS goal. This <br />perception is based upon a monthly model that does not adequately model Denver's substitution <br />with Green Mountain Reservoir, Wolford Mountain Reservoir, and Williams Fork Reservoir, or <br />Denver's exchange operations using Williams Fork Reservoir. While we understand and support <br />the use of STATEMOD, the analysis greatly overestimates the present and future ability of <br />Denver's facilities to assist in the CFOPS solution. The shortcomings of the analysis must be <br />included at numerous locations throughout the report so that the information is clear. Denver <br />would like to review and comment on the qualifying language prior to finalizing the report. If it <br />is decided to not include those qualifiers, Denver would like the time and opportunity to meet <br />and discuss the issue prior to finalizing the report. We believe that the findings in this study <br />support the conclusion that several reservoirs have excess capacity during wet years. This is why <br />many alternatives are feasible for providing the 20,000 acre-feet. <br /> <br />Denver remains willing to explore the use of any flexibility in its system that could be used for <br />the benefit of the fish. However, the amount of flexibility available must be accurately portrayed <br />to assure that expectations remain reasonable. Noted, <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Steve Schmitzer <br />Chief of Water Resource Planning <br /> <br />cc: Leo Eisel <br />Bruce Rindahl <br />Eric Wilkinson <br />Malcolm Wilson <br />George Smith <br />Dan Luecke <br />Ray Tenney <br /> <br />n:@wra\sas\cfops\cfops-2.doc <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />P:\Data\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\Technical Memorandum No. 12\Appendix B.doc <br /> <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.