9600 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 do not presently extend to east slope facilities and systems. Specifically, StateMod and the C1 Data Set cannot be used to determine the quantity of deliveries through the Adams Tunnel that could be replaced through use of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's (NCWCD) east slope water rights. \ The Bureau of Reclamation in its October 12, 2001 letter to`the Colorado River Water Conservation District (River District) concludes that it is not feasible for a number of reasons to delay winter and early spring deliveries of west slope water to the east slope via the Adams Tunnel in order to keep east slope reservoir storage relatively low. Alternative 1 d was found to be an apparently feasible alternative for supplying the 20,000 acre-feet ' from Granby Reservoir without the possible source of replacement water resulting from Alternative 5a. It should be noted, however, that at certain elevations, the release rate from Granby is not sufficient to release 1,008 cfs (20,000 acre-feet over 10 days) (Don Carlson, NCWCD's March 5, 2003 comment letter on Draft Phase 2 Report). For Granby to participate in releases, a maximum amount should be identified because of outlet capacity restrictions. ' Alternative 5b, Shoshone Power Plant, focused on general, not selective, removal of the Shoshone Power Plant priority call. Analysis of this alternative indicated that general removal of this priority call would result in an increase in stored water in those reservoirs, which could supply the ' 20,000 acre-feet to the 15-Mile Reach; thereby reducing the risk of lower storage and/or lower reservoir yields accruing to those reservoirs. Elimination of the Shoshone priority call decreased the value of Shoshone power production by an average of approximately $116,000 per year. Therefore, it appears that1ilternative 5b could-be an efficient and effective-component-of Alternative 6a, Insurance Pool, discussed below. Further sensitivity analysis of this alternative was completed to determine the effects of removing the Shoshone priority call on November through April Colorado River flows at the head of the 15-Mile Reach. Results of this analysis indicate that the average monthly reduction in flows at the head of the 15-Mile Reach was approximately 6 cfs. ' FEASIBILITY OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES Alternative 6a, Insurance Pool, would establish an insurance pool to reduce the risk of lower storage ' and yields to individual facilities providing all or a portion of the 20,000 acre-feet to the 15-Mile Reach. Two possibilities for establishing an insurance pool were considered and investigated: ¦ Increasing the number of facilities providing a portion of the 20,000 acre-feet to the 15-Mile reach spreads the risk among a larger number of facilities. Allocating responsibility for the 20,000 acre-feet release among several reservoirs is necessary because of limited release capacity in Green Mountain Reservoir, which prohibits Green Mountain Reservoir from making both the CROPS bypass and the 20,000 acre- feet release in six of the eight years of the study period in which the 20,000 acre-feet release would be required. ' Removing the Shoshone priority call in those years in which the 20,000 acre-feet would be supplied to the 15-Mile Reach provides replacement water for storage in ' those facilities supplying the 20,000 acre-feet release. Either of these possibilities, or a combination of the two, might provide the basis for an effective ' insurance pool. I P:\D-\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\FinalReport9.03\Final_CFOPS_Report(9-03).doc