Laserfiche WebLink
<br />u00.788 <br /> <br />As the Phase 2 investigation progressed it was necessary to make further modifications to the Cl Data <br />Set. The modifications are summarized in Table 2 and are further described in Appendix N. These <br />modifications primarily involve: <br /> <br />. Including the reduced demands for diversion resulting from the Grand Valley Project. <br /> <br />. <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 Setdement. . <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 15-Mile Reach <br />instream flow demands. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As a result of these modifications, there are five successive C1 Data Sets: <br /> <br />. <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 5 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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <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 />sufficiendy to affect conclusions which were based on StateMod runs made with previous data sets. <br />As a result of these comparisons of StateMod results, the consultant team concluded that: (1) the <br />effects of the revised data sets were not sufficiendy significant to warrant re-running 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 />I) <br /> <br />Data Set revisions are further discussed in Table 2 and Appendix N. <br /> <br />Throughout the investigation, it was noticed that the exchanges and substitutions among Dillon, <br />Williams Fork, and Wolford Mountain Reservoirs using the C1 Data Set in StateMod differed from <br />the simulations by Denver Water using their daily P ACSIM model. In order to address this issue, the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) modified StateMod and a fifth revision was made to the <br />Cl Data Set. A comparison of the base runs with the Cl Data Set (fourth revision) and the modified <br />StateMod and Cl Data Set (fifth revision) was made to determine if these changes were sufficient to <br />necessitate redoing the previous work with the modified StateMod and C1 Data Set (fifth revision). A <br />comparison of these two base runs indicated that a difference remained, which was increased storage <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />P: \Data \ GEN\ CWCB\ 19665\Repon Phase 2\FinaIRepon9.03\Final_ CFOPS_Repon(9-03).doc <br />