WSPP283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r'""'" -'770 uuu are not decreed for this new use. Therefore, most of the reservoirs would require new junior refill rights for this new use. The only Expanded CROPS alternative that the study showed was not feasible in its proposed form was Alternative 1 b, Ruedi Reservoir Operations, which was not able to make the full 20,000 acre-feet release/bypass because of: (1) downstream channel constraints and (2) limited physical water availability which prevented the replacement of the 20,000 acre-feet in Ruedi Reservoir under the reservoir's refill righto For these reasons, the consultant team recommends that Ruedi Reservoir's contribution to the 20,000 acre-feet release/bypass be limited to 7,000 acre-feet or less. ' The "Share the Pain" consists of Alternatives 1f and 19. The "Share the Pain" attempts to minimize the risk to individual facilities by placing responsibility on as many facilities as possible for supplying some portion of the 20,000 acre-feet to the lS-Mile Reach. Analysis of this alternative indicates that the 20,000 acre-feet can generally be replaced in the various facilities by diverting to storage under the reservoirs' refill rights or a new refill right. The "Share the Pain" may also be necessary because of the limited release capacity at some of the reservoirs. For example, Green Mountain Reservoir was restricted from making both the estimated CROPS bypasses and the 20,000 acre-feet release in one of the eight years of the study period in which the 20,000 acre-feet release would be required. Technical Memorandum No.7 (Appendix H) utilized both a proportionate release among nine reservoirs, and an equal release among three reservoirs to model the "Share the Pain". A Modified "Share the Pain" was developed in which responsibility for supplying the 20,000 acre-feet release was shared among-Green-Mountain,.Gmnby,-Ruedi,Williams FGrk-and-WolfordMountain Reservoirs. Under this Modified "Share the Pain", as much of the 20,000 acre-feet was released from Green Mountain Reservoir as possible without releasing flows through the turbine bypass and releasing the remainder of the 20,000 acre-feet from other reservoirs. FEASIBILITY OF EFFICIENCIES OF CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ALTERNATIVES Alternatives 3d, Re-analysis of Grand Valley Water Management Alternatives, and 3e, Analysis of GVIC Water Management, were analyzed as components of Alternative la, Green Mountain Reservoir Operations. 'Ibis analysis focused on: (1) making the 20,000 acre-feet release to the lS-Mile Reach from Green Mountain Reservoir and (2) the potential for replacing this 20,000 acre-feet in Green Mountain Reservoir by accruing "savings" to the Historic Users Pool (HUP) through increased GVP and GVIC efficiency. . Analysis of this 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 to the lS-Mile Reach than attempting to make this replacement with reduced demand for releases from the Green Mountain HUP. Furthermore, based on the analysis using StateMod and the C1 Data Set, there was limited reduced demand on the HUP as a result of increased GVP efficiency. Therefore, it appears that this alternative would be a more efficient and effective source of supply for making releases to the 15-iMile Reach during the late summer and early fall than for releases during the spring peak flows. p, \Data \ GEN\ CWCB\ 19665\Reporr Phase 2\FinaIReporr9.03\Final_CFOPS_Reporr(9-03).doc 5