Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'"j;1 ..17" 6 <br />Uuu ..., <br /> <br />. Including the maintenance periods for the Shoshone Hydropower Plant. <br /> <br />. Turning on the correct operating rules in StateMod to model the reduced U.S.A. <br />Grand Valley Power Plant summer priority call. <br /> <br />. Turning on the correct operating rules in StateMod to model the HUP operation in <br />accordance with the Orchard Mesa Check Settlement. <br /> <br />. Implementing the correct operations of fish pools in Ruedi, Williams Fork and <br />Wolford Mountain Reservoirs. <br /> <br />. Turning on correct operating rules to meet USFWS and CWCB 1S-Mile Reach <br />instream flow demands. <br /> <br />As a result of these modifications, there are five successive C1 Data Sets: <br /> <br />. C1 Data Set: Data Set originally received from CWCB <br /> <br />. C1 Data Set (First Revision): Used in Technical Memoranda 1 through 4 <br /> <br />. C1 Data Set (Second Revision): Used in Technical Memoranda S through 11 and for <br />sensitivity analysis in October 2001 Draft Phase 2 Report <br /> <br />. C1 Data Set (Third Revision): Used in February 2002 Draft Phase 2 Report analysis <br />and sensitivity analysis <br /> <br />. C1 Data Set (Fourth Revision): Used in March 2002 Draft Phase 2 Report analysis <br />and sensitivity analysis. <br /> <br />For each data set revision after the first, StateMod runs were made to compare results obtained with <br />the revised data set with results from the previous data set in order to determine if results had changed <br />sufficiently to affect conclusions which were based onStateMod runs made with previous data sets. <br />As a result of these comparisons of StateModresults, the consultant team concluded that: (1) the <br />effects of the revised data sets were not sufficiently significant to warrant rerunning all of the previous <br />work with the revised data set and (2) conclusions based on StateMod runs using previous C1 Data <br />Sets were valid. <br /> <br />Data Set revisions are further discussed in Table 2 and Appendix M. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Throughout the modeling work, review of the results indicated that exchanges and substitutions <br />among Dillon, Wolford Mountain and Williams Fork Reservoirs were not being realistically modeled. <br />The reason for this situation was determined to be a flaw in StateMod itself, not just the C1 Data Set. <br />The CWCB assumed responsibility for making necessary corrections to StateMod to correct this <br />situation Their efforts produced a Revised StateMod a~d C1 Data Set (Fifth Revision) which were <br />used in the January 2003 Draft Phase 2 Report analysis and sensitivity analysis. Comparison of <br />StateMod results based on the Revised StateMod and C1 Data Set (Fifth Revision) with comparable <br />results using the C1 Data Set (Fourth Revision) indicates that the Revised StateMod results were not <br />sufficiently different to warrant re-running all of the previously studied alternatives. However, several <br />alternatives were re-run with the Revised StateMod and C1 Data Set (Fifth Revision). These results <br /><lre presented in Chapter 3. In addition, comparisons of the exchanges and substitutions calculated <br /> <br />P: \Data \GEN\CWCB\19665\Repon Phase 2\FinalRepon12002\Final_ Draft _ Repon(l-03).doc <br /> <br />19 <br />