Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,J <br /> <br />Task <br /> <br />Subtask <br /> <br />IDS Completion <br /> <br />Provided to State <br /> <br />Received from State <br /> <br />Implemented Changes <br /> <br />2,09 <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />18 July 1995 <br /> <br />Commellts all COllsumptive Use Model- Irrigatioll COllsumptive Uses alld Losses ill the Sail Juall River Basill <br />Task Memo 2.09-01 <br /> <br />I. Page I - "CU estimates do not include the Dolores Project" should be modified to reflect only the full service rather <br />than supplemental service lands were not considered such as "CU estimates do not include fulls service lands of the <br />Dolores Project in the San Juan River Basin," <br /> <br />, <br />2, "These include subareas are:" is awkward, <br /> <br />3. It seems that "IWR" and "use" are used interchangably on page 2. Let's use IWR instead of use, Also on page 3, we <br />reference "IWR" for water short areas but are we really talking about "estimated water use," <br /> <br />4. Page 2, It is unclear in the last paragraph on this page which reports are being referenced (USBR, CROSS), <br /> <br />5, Page 2. The assumptions on length of growing season, specified planting and cutoff dates should be provided as <br />backup to the water short calculations, <br /> <br />6, Page 3, Since we will enhance the water short consumptive use estimates in the future througha tie to water resource <br />planning model results, we should make it clear that the water short calculations in this memo are based on a USBR <br />method, Reference to the water resource planning model in the conclusions and recommendations would be helpful. <br /> <br />7. Page 3, The statements about several different data sets can be prepared with smaller subareas chosen seems open <br />ended, Can you give examples of the smaller subareas and how the user would perform the setup of the model. <br /> <br />8. The section called "Supporting Materials" seems to be more appropriately named "CU Analysis with Monthly Soil <br />Moisture Budget." Statement "methodology in which it includes" is awkward, replace with "Methodology which <br />includes, " <br /> <br />9, On tables, it would seem that "IWR" should replace the "Predicted CU" in the table headings for the not water short <br />calculations and "Estimated" should replace the word "Predicted" in the water short calculation tables, <br /> <br />I 0, Footer missing on Table 5b. <br /> <br />I I, Figure titles should include reference to San Juan Basin. The figure titles are somewhat confusing for the water short <br />area computations. Instead of "Irrigation water requirement" isn't the title "Estimated Water Use considering water <br />short areas" more consistent with the water short calculations. <br /> <br />Follow Up <br /> <br />I. Implemented. <br />2 Implemented. <br />3. Implemented. <br />4. The following statement added in the task memo should help clarify which reports are being referred to. <br /> <br />"This is accomplished by adopting the average cutoff date of the 5 year period from 198 I - I 985 for each subarea in the <br />USBR report to obtain equivalent numbers for 1985- I 990 required in this task memorandum." <br /> <br />5, Table 3 is modified to include cutoff dates. <br />6. Implemented. <br />7. The statements are rephrased. Advantages of using smaller subareas are pointed out. <br />8. New section title is "Estimating Consumptive Use with a Soil Moisture Budget." <br />9, Implemented. <br />I 0, Footer Included, <br />I I. Implemented. <br /> <br />16'79 <br />