9600

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9600
• Author: Brown and Caldwell.
• Title: Phase 2 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River - Final Report.
• USFW Year: 2003.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

r-,
L
1
I1

1
1

Brief descriptions of the feasibility of each alternative are presented in the sections below.
3.2.2 Alternative 1a: Green Mountain Reservoir Reduced Winter Power Operations
This alternative was investigated in Technical Memorandum No. 1 (see Appendix A) and found to be
feasible from engineering and economic perspectives. Since completion of Technical Memorandum
No.1, it has been determined that those alternatives, such as Reduced Winter Power Operations at
Green Mountain Reservoir, which would "save" water for later release to the 15-Mile Reach were not
as efficient as simply allowing Green Mountain Reservoir to replace the 20,000 acre-feet
bypass/release to the 15-Mile Reach by diverting water to storage under the Green Mountain
Reservoir refill right.
Based on the analysis of this alternative in Technical Memorandum No. 1, there would be little, if any,
effect from implementation of this alternative on:
Storage in west slope reservoirs,
Deliveries through the Adams, Roberts, Boustead and Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnels.
Hydropower revenues would be reduced at Green Mountain Reservoir by an annual average of
$36,000 per year and $174,000 per year at the Shoshone power plant. These decreases in hydropower
revenue would be reduced by eliminating the delayed winter releases from Green Mountain Reservoir
---and-de-pending-o"-eplacement-of- e-20POD acree-fe release--using-Green-Mountain Reservoir's refill
right.
It would be feasible to supply the 20,000 acre-feet to the 15-Mile Reach at a rate of approximately
1,000 cfs over a 10-day period during the eight years of the study period when it could be required.
This release/bypass could be made through existing Green Mountain Reservoir release/bypass
facilities. It would be feasible to supply the 20,000 acre-feet per year to the 15-Mile Reach without
violating downstream channel flow constraints on the Blue and/or Colorado Rivers.
3.2.3 Alternative 1a: Green Mountain Reservoir Conjunctive Pool Operations
This alternative involved supplying the 20,000 acre-feet from Green Mountain Reservoir and replacing
the 20,000 acre-feet from either the HUP pool or the CBT pool depending on which pool had greater
water availability. Modeling results (see Technical Memorandum No. 3 in Appendix C) indicate:

1
I

¦ This alternative was feasible from engineering and economic perspectives.
¦ The conjunctive pool operation was not necessary because Green Mountain Reservoir
replaced the 20,000 acre-feet by diverting to storage under its refill priority.
¦ Because the 20,000 acre-feet release was replaced in the HUP during the eight years of
the study period in which the release was made, there would have been no disruption
to releases from Green Mountain under the Check Settlement.
¦ Storage in other west slope reservoirs and deliveries by the Adams, Roberts, Boustead
and Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnels were generally unaffected by this alternative.
PAData\GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\FinalReport9.03\Final_CFOPS_Report(9-03).doc 33