Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />J <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />FEASIBILITY OF NEW TRIBUTARY STORAGE PROJECTS BELOW SHOSHONE <br />The alternatives for building new tributary storage (Alternatives 4f, 4g, 4k, 4n and 4o) are all costly, <br />due primarily to the limited physical supplies of water available from the tributaries and the need to <br />depend on pumping from the mainstem Colorado River to supply water to most of these proposed <br />reservoirs. However these new reservoir sites should be considered further if the reliability and <br />frequency to provide the 20,000 acre-feet of water from existing reservoirs is not sufficient to meet the <br />Programs needs. This alternative should also be considered in coordination with other possible <br />reservoir storage projects that water users need to provide the 10,825 acre-feet of late summer and fall <br />base flow releases for the Program. The economy of scale of building a new reservoir to provide both <br />the 10,825 acre-feet and the 20,000 acre-feet could make a new tributary reservoir more attractive. <br />FEASIBILITY OF NEW MAINSTEM STORAGE PROJECT <br />An additional engineering and economic feasibility investigation of the mainstem Webster Hill site was <br />completed in Technical Memorandum No. 4a (See Appendix E). The cost of reservoir storage at this <br />site for making the 20,000 acre-feet release to the 15-Mile Reach would be partially offset by the <br />generation of hydropower. Net capital costs per acre-foot of yield from the Webster Hill Reservoir <br />would range from $29 to $134/acre-foot of yield per year depending on the assumed value of <br />hydropower produced at the site. Results from this additional investigation further indicate that this <br />site would likely be feasible if. (1) the necessary right-of-way can be obtained at reasonable cost and <br />(2) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would approve construction of a reservoir at the <br />Webster Hill site, which would be located in the upper end of the currently designated critical habitat. <br />The Webster Hill Reservoir would produce a firm yield of 20,000 to 40,000 acre-feet per year. It is <br />important to emphasize that the 20,000 acre-feet release would be available from Webster Hill <br />Reservoir even in dry years when this release would not be required. Therefore, the Webster Hill <br />Reservoir alternative would produce yield with a greater reliability than is required. It makes sense as <br />a next step to analyze the economy of scale of building Webster Hill Reservoir to provide both the <br />10,825 acre-feet committed by the water users and the 20,000 acre-feet that is the subject of this <br />study. <br />FEASIBILITY OF POWER PLANT OPERATIONS AND SCHEDULING <br />1 ALTERNATIVES <br />Alternative 5a, East Slope Power Operations and Scheduling, was investigated as one component of <br />Alternative 1d, CBT West Slope Facilities Operations. This alternative primarily consisted of <br />(1) delaying winter deliveries through the Adams Tunnel, (2) using these delayed winter deliveries to <br />replace the release/bypass of the 20,000 acre-feet from Granby Reservoir to the 15-Mile Reach and <br />' (3) replacing the delayed deliveries to east slope reservoirs by diversions to storage in these reservoirs <br />under the east slope priorities. <br />' Alternative 5a was not modeled because: <br />¦ This alternative cannot be fully investigated using StateMod and the C1 Data Set. <br />' StateMod and the C1 Data Set only cover the Colorado River basin in Colorado and <br />' PAData\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\FinalRepon9.03\Final_CFOPS_Report(9-03).doc 6