My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C153642 Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
C153642 Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:05 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:34:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153642
Contractor Name
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Garfield
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
425
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />summer months. This corresponded to minimum storage of 35,000 af during June, July and <br />August. A recreation pool of 16,400 af was defined at Stagecoach to be consistent with <br />historical operating criteria. <br /> <br />Although there is not a minimum release requirement below the existing Elkhead Dam, a <br />minimum release of 10 cfs or inflow was defined in this Study for the enlarged reservoir. An <br />existing release requirement below Stagecoach of the minimum of 40 cfs or the reservoir <br />inflow was also represented. This Study defined the Juniper Project contemplated draft <br />(adjusted to consider tl1e drafts of existing reservoirs) as an instream flow right at Juniper <br />Canyon. <br /> <br />Water Supply <br /> <br />Several model revisions and sensitivity tests were made which were designed to test the <br />effects of various reservoir operating criteria imposed on the recommended enlargements. The <br />final results of the revised model runs are presented in Tables S-6 through S-8. Table S-5 <br />shows the shortages to demands under the 2015 and 2040 demand conditions with only tl1e <br />development of the 46,500 af Elkhead Reservoir. As shown in Table S-8, with the <br />development of the Stagecoach Reservoir enlargement to 52,000 af, most of the 2040 demand <br />shortages were eliminated. Table SO{; compares the water delivery shortages in these final <br />model runs with those generated in Scenarios III and IV. As can be seen, the imposition of <br />more specific minimum release and recreation pool operations at Elkhead had relatively little <br />effect on modeled shortages. <br /> <br />Table S-6 <br /> <br />Comparison of Delivery Shortages Between Initial and Final Model Runs <br />Assuming Phased Enlargement of Reservoirs <br /> <br />Demand Cate~ory <br /> <br />Scenario III <br /> <br />Scenario IV <br /> <br />Final Runs <br /> <br />Potential 1989 <br />Maximum <br />Average <br /> <br />5,841 * <br />1,955* <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />6,595* <br />1,368* <br /> <br />Projected 2015 <br />Maximum <br />Average <br /> <br />6,413* <br />2,084* <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />7,167* <br />1,532* <br /> <br />Projected 2040 <br />Maximum <br />Average <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />6,629 <br />247 <br /> <br />7,153 <br />255 <br /> <br />* =' With near-term project only <br /> <br />Reservoir Water Levels <br /> <br />Figures S-4 and S-5 show modeled reservoir contents over the study period for the 2015 <br />and 2040 demand conditions, respectively. Under 2015 demand conditions with only the <br />enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir, Elkhead was drawn down an average of approximately <br />10,000 af each year; this drawdown typically occurred in the month of February. Stagecoach <br /> <br />S-26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.