Laserfiche WebLink
<br />U00735 <br /> <br />The determinations of outlet capacity are presented in Tables S through 10 for Green Mountain, <br />Ruedi, Williams Fork, W oHord Mountain and Granby Reservoirs respectively. Table 10 presents total <br />available release capacity during the 10-day peak period from the five reservoirs for the study period. <br />Table 11 presents potential CFOPS releases for the Modified Share the Pain alternative for the 10-day <br />peak and Table 12 presents potential total CFOPS and CROP release for the Modified Share the Pain <br />alternative for the 10-day peak. <br /> <br />2.3.17 Sensitivity Analysis Procedures Concerning Potential Shortages to Junior Water <br />Rights <br /> <br />The effects of making CFOPS and CROP releases/bypasses on water rights with junior priorities was <br />estimated by the following: <br /> <br />Shortages to Juniors = (Diversion by Structure X in Month M in Cl Data SetFourth Revision) - (Diversion <br />by Structure X in Month M in Cl Data Set Fourth Revision with CFOPS releases and CROP <br />releases/bypasses) <br /> <br />2.3.18 Sensitivity Analysis Procedures Concerning Effects of General Removal of Shoshone <br />Priority Call on Winter Colorado River Flows <br /> <br />The following procedure was employed to calculate the effect of removing the Shoshone priority call <br />on winter (November through April) Colorado River flows upstream of Shoshone and at the head of <br />the IS-Mile Reach: <br /> <br />. The CI Data Set Fourth Revision monthly flows were obtained for the study period <br />from the CI Data Set for the node at the head of the IS-Mile Reach and immediately <br />upstream of Shoshone. <br /> <br />. The flows for the same nodes and with removal of the Shoshone priority call were <br />calculated for the C1 Data Set Fourth Revision using the same procedure as detailed in <br />Technical Memorandum No.9 (See AppendixD. <br />Flow change = (Cl Data Set Fourth Revision) - (flow with removal of Shoshone call calculated using <br />procedures from Technical Memorandum No.9) <br /> <br />2.3.19 Homestake Reservoir <br /> <br />Analysis in Technical Memorandum No.7 (Appendix H) originally suggested that StateMod and the <br />II C1 Data Set were not adequately characterizing Homestake Reservoir. In subsequent analysis, this <br />apparent problem was determined to result from the operating policy for Homestake Reservoir <br />contained in the C1 Data Set. Contact with Colorado Springs Utilities resulted in confirmation that <br />the operating policy for Homestake Reservoir contained in the CI Data Set is the Colorado Springs <br />Utilities' preferred operating policy for Homestake Reservoir. This operating policy essentially <br />precludes participation in CROP and CFOPS by Colorado Springs Utilities. <br /> <br />P:\Data \GEN\CWCB\19665\Repon Phase 2\FinalRepon12.02\Finat Draft _ Repon(l-03),doc <br /> <br />28 <br />