PROJ00229

• Contract/PO #: C153512
• Contractor Name: Summit County
• Water District: 0
• County: Summit
• Bill Number: XB 99-999
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Contract Documents

.

.

Small Reservoir Feasibility Study

5-4

EVAWATION SCENARIOS

,

The basin model was run to evaluate a nUll1ber of scenarios. The first two scenarios
simulated basin hydrologic conditions under current and ultimate in-basin demands,
assuming no new facilities or water management ll1easures were implemented by in-basin
users but with maximum development of Denver's diversion capability. These baseline
scenarios thus quantified the need for in-basin facilities or measures.

Later scenarios incorporated selected faciUties and measures to evaluate their ability
to meet needs identified by the baseline runs, S~tem performance under each scenario was
evaluated in terms of water deliveries to in-basin llsers, instream flow conditions, reservoir
levels, and export deliveries.

..

..

..

Baseline Scenari06

~

Water Deliveries

..

Two baseline scenarios were evaluated to determine the need for new facilities or
water management measures in the basin. The first of these scenarios examined conditions
under current in-basin demand levels, The second examined conditions under ultimate
demand levels. Table S-4 summarizes water delivery shortages to in-basin users under these
two scenarios. The apparent reasons for the shortages are given in the foomote to each user.

'"

'l

CO'

~

Table S-4
Annual Water Delivery Shortages to In-basin Users
(values in acre-feet)
Current Dem'Ulds Ultimate Demands
Scenario I Scenario II
Water User Number A veta2e Maximum Number Avera2e Maximum
Blue River Water District1 0 0 0 3 69 69
Breckenridge Snowmaking1 0 0 0 2 52 70
Climax Mine 7 8 711 1730 8 711 1730
Copper Mm Snowmaking1,2,5 1 30 30 31 56 219
Eagles Nest GoIP 0 0 0 31 9 9
Frisco Gou4 0 0 0 31 5 5
Keystone Municipal 1,2 0 0 0 31 13 52
Keystone Snowmaking1,5 1 60 60 5 138 383
Mesa Cortina6 4 2 2 4 65 69
Town of Dillon8 0 0 0 2 32 47

-

.
II

I

.

I
I
I

Notes: 1. Green Mountain contents at or below minimum target.
2. Insufficient Sales Pool allocation.
3. Decree limit less than demand
4. CWCB annual volumetric limit on diversions.
5. Diversions curtailed for instream flow maintenance.
6. Historic User Pool (HUP) releases at maximum annual limit.
7. Direct flow rights out of priority and insullident storage.
8. Insufficient physical supply.

.

.
I