|
t
<br />' Table ES-5
<br />Flow Differences USFWS to Actual Dry Year
<br />
<br />~~
<br />~l
<br /> TOTAL MONTHLY RUNOFF IN ACRE-FEET
<br />Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A r Ma Jun Jul Au Set Total
<br />1989 (850) (8,098) (14,729) (13,875) (13,316) (5,377) (363) (15,464) (30,730) 807 2,254 2,017 (97,725)
<br />1990 (3,438) (13,207) (19,048) (18,513) (18,089) (16,174) (9,328) (17,477) (18,995) 2,490 790 2,221 (128,767)
<br />1991 (636) (10,678) (15,108) (14,680) (13,032) (15,159) (8,769) (17,364) (16,149) 3,109 4,766 5,763 (97,937)
<br />1992 234 (8,874) (14,537) (11,035) (10,056) (11,258) (8,648) (14,905) (32,277) 3,595 1,913 1,680 (104,168)
<br />1993 (2,356) (11,178) (15,246) (15,140) (14,743) (9,212) (3,879) 21,467 (1,180) 3,054 3,991 2,497 (41,925)
<br />1994 5,785 1,077 (2,906) (8596) (8,404) (10,903) (7,194) (16,126) (33,310) 412 90 159 (79,918)
<br /> Th
<br /> e average annual flow deficiency during the period from 1989-1994 is over 91,000
<br /> acre-feet per year, with a peak year in 1990 of approximately 129,000 acre-feet. As can be
<br />' seen from the above table, the flow deficiencies primarily occur in the period from
<br /> November through June. For the November through June period during 1989-1994, the
<br /> flow deficiency is over 103,000 acre-feet with a peak of 134,000 acre-feet in 1990. Of the flow
<br /> deficiency during 1989-1994, an average of approximately 60,000 acre-feet occurs in the
<br />' winter months from November to April. With these deficiencies occurring in the winter
<br /> months, potential sources of water to meet these deficiencies can only come from two
<br /> sources, water in storage or winter flows that are now going into storage in the system. The
<br />' peak flow requirement of 134,000 acre-feet represents 50 percent of the long-term
<br /> (1912-1990) average depletions on the Duchesne River of 270,000 acre-feet.
<br />Determination of Potential Sources of Water
<br />As is the case with the main stem of the Colorado River, water in the Duchesne River has
<br />been diverted and put to beneficial use under state law. The cycle of diversion, use, and
<br />flows returning to the river occurs several times as the river flows down the system. As is
<br />1 very evident from the results of the study, sufficient water to meet the USFWS preliminary
<br />flow recommendations is not available given current use. This is true for both monthly and
<br />annual flows. In this report, we discuss possible sources that could potentially augment
<br />' flows in the river without attempting to match the difference between existing flows and
<br />the USFWS preliminary recommended flows.
<br />e Some of the potential sources of water examined in this report include existing Bonneville
<br />Unit fishery flows, potential Daniels Creek diversions, land purchase and fallow;
<br />conservation projects such as water delivery improvement projects (such as canal lining or
<br />piping), on-farm conservation improvements such as sprinkler systems, and purchase of
<br />water in existing storage facilities. Each of these potential sources are summarized in the
<br />table below.
<br />
<br />0
<br />SLC11341071REPTI.DOC ES - 6
<br />
|