Laserfiche WebLink
Reach 18 <br />Reach 19 <br />0 <br />Table III -4 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />Reductions in the Amount Delivered On -Farm (ac- <br />Month <br />Reach 10 Reach 14 <br />Reach 15 <br />Reach 16 <br />Reach 17 <br />October <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />November <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />December <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />January <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />February <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />March <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />April <br />10 <br />15 <br />11 <br />11 <br />20 <br />May <br />20 <br />32 <br />24 <br />24 <br />48 <br />June <br />173 <br />218 <br />232 <br />272 <br />535 <br />July <br />410 <br />501 <br />549 <br />670 <br />1551 <br />August <br />3 -68 <br />450 <br />494 <br />616 <br />1251 <br />September <br />30 <br />46 <br />36 <br />48 <br />87 <br />Annual <br />1010 <br />1262 <br />1346 <br />1641 <br />3492 <br />Reach 18 <br />Reach 19 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />16 <br />6 <br />38 <br />14 <br />665 <br />566 <br />1994 <br />1620 <br />1615 <br />1397 <br />91 <br />57 <br />4418 <br />3661 <br />A representative leasing program could reduce on -farm deliveries and consumptive use <br />by about 17,000 ac -ft per year and 8,500 ac -ft per year, respectively. On -farm reductions <br />in consumptive use were based on an on -farm efficiency of 50 percent. <br />The following table shows the average monthly reductions in consumptive use for the <br />1975 -94 period. <br />Table III -5 <br />Reductions in Consumptive Use (ac -ft) <br />Month <br />Reach 10 <br />Reach 14 <br />Reach 15 <br />Reach 16 <br />Reach 17 <br />Reach 18 <br />Reach 19 <br />October <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />November <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />December <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />January <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />February <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />March <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />April <br />5 <br />8 <br />6 <br />6 <br />10 <br />8 <br />3 <br />May <br />10 <br />16 <br />12 <br />12 <br />24 <br />19 <br />7 <br />June <br />87 <br />109 <br />116 <br />136 <br />268 <br />333 <br />283 <br />July <br />205 <br />251 <br />275 <br />335 <br />776 <br />997 <br />810 <br />August <br />184 <br />225 <br />247 <br />308 <br />626 <br />808 <br />699 <br />September <br />15 <br />23 <br />18 <br />24 <br />44 <br />46 <br />29 <br />Annual <br />505 <br />631 <br />673 <br />821 <br />1746 <br />2210 <br />1830 <br />Based on the water budget spreadsheet, a reduction in consumptive use of about 8,400 ac- <br />ft resulted in a yield of 7,000 ac -ft of shortage reductions at the critical habitat without <br />diversion losses. In this case, it is important to note that flows in the critical habitat will <br />only be increased by reductions in consumptive use. Therefore, the amount of leased <br />water is considerably higher to account for historic return flows. The modeling being <br />performed by the EIS team may indicate that the yield associated with 8,400 ac -ft of <br />consumptive use savings is higher or lower than 7,000 ac -ft of reductions to target flow <br />\\DN00 \E- DRIVE \PROJECTS\Platte \Work Products \Task 9 \wapc report (Version 7).doc 18 <br />