My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FS0025X Feasibility Study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
FS0025X Feasibility Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2014 4:25:13 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:37:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
FS0025X
Contractor Name
Upper Gunnison Uncompahgre Basin CWRPDA 1989
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Archuleta
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.
/
803
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
The three reservoirs modeled in Scenario 2B were able to eliminate <br />shortages to agricultural deptetion demands that were identified in the No- <br />Action Alternative. Enhanced instream flow targets were met or exceeded <br />throughout the 32-year study period (1952-1983) on Ohio and Tomichi Creeks, <br />but not on upper Cochetopa and Pauline Creeks, where insufficient physical <br />supply caused infrequent deficiencies. Tables 6.2 through 6.4 summarize the <br />monthly instream flows predicted by the model in specified locations on Ohio, <br />Tomichi, and Cochetopa Creeks with the three reservoirs in place. <br />The recreation potential of Castleton and Sargents No. 3 reservoirs <br />appear good. As shown on Figures 6.1 and 6.2, these reservoirs fill regularly <br />and are substantially full most of the time. Pauline Reservoir, shown on <br />Figure 6.3, is often very low or near empty because of the lack of physical <br />supply. Blue Mesa Reservoir storage levels under this scenario differ from <br />the No-Action Alternative as depicted in Figure 6.4. <br />The Taylor Park Exchange Agreement stipulates that the UVWUA be given a <br />credit to draw on Blue Mesa storage in direct proportion to Taylor Park <br />Reservoir releases made in excess of Gunnison Tunnel diversions, up to an <br />amount equal to their Taylor Park storage decree. Flows downstream of Taylor <br />Park Dam, Blue Mesa Reservoir inflows, and tunnel diversions were all <br />monitored in the model to keep track of credits and debits to the "exchange <br />account." As mentioned previously, the late season releases from the three <br />reservoirs increase late season inflows to Blue Mesa, which reduces the need <br />for Gunnison Tunnel diversions to draw on Blue Mesa storage duririg the latter <br />part of the growing season. This reduces the draw on UVWUA's storage credit <br />in Blue Mesa and results in the Taylor Park Exchange Account showing a higher <br />average storage credit than in the No-Action Alternative. The average <br />monthly exchange credit under Scenario 26 is 5228 af/mo, compared to 4857 <br />af/mo in the No-Action Alternative. This indicates that construction of the <br />three in-basin reservoirs increases the dependability of the UVWUA water <br />supply from Taylor Park Reservoir. <br />6-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.