Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002990 <br /> <br />flow enhancement. Identification of downstream channel restrictions should be a part of <br />this analysis. For example, do specific channel restrictions drive the liability concerns <br />and, if so, can those restrictions be relaxed or removed? The analysis should reflect that <br />releases of the 20,000 acre-feet will be made only in years when flows at the IS-Mile <br />Reach are anticipated to be less than 26,600 cfs, which are not extremely wet years. <br />Thus, releases may be possible while keeping within flood channel constraints. Also, the <br />study must look at the risk to facilities operators associated with delaying preemptive <br />releases, then having to make those releases during high runoff. <br /> <br />. Yield Impairment. Expanding Coordinated Reservoir Operations to include releases from <br />storage may impair existing project yields by reducing the ability to fill in priority, or <br />reducing the ability to fill under water rights administration accounting principles. <br /> <br />. Fill Accounting. The ability of participating facilities to fill under existing decrees will <br />need to be examined. If inflow bypasses are counted against first fill decrees then some <br />facilities may not be able to physically fill under their first fill decrees. If storage releases <br />are made for peak enhancement, this vacated storage space may not be later filled except <br />during free river conditions under current administrative practices. New or expanded <br />refill rights may be required to provide the fill flexibility needed by the reservoir <br />operators. The administrative accounting policies of the State Engineer's office may need <br />to be clarified. <br /> <br />. Potential impacts to power generation revenues and costs. <br /> <br />Opportunities for Expanded Coordinated Reservoir Operations at Ruedi Reservoir, Green <br />Mountain Reservoir, and Granby Reservoir are discussed below. <br /> <br />~'\ <br /> <br />3.2.1 Alternative Ia: Green Mountain Reservoir Operations <br /> <br />Several options for revising Green Mountain Reservoir operations to produce flows contributing <br />to the average annual 20,000 acre-feet target are presented below. An alternative involving <br />Green Mountain Reservoir operations would probably contain some combination of the <br />following alternatives. The exact composition of some of these alternatives is not known at this <br />time; for example the "saved" water which would aHow a preemptive release to be made from <br />Green Mountain Reservoir (see Section 3.2.1.3) or a release from storage (see Section 3.2.1.4) <br />could come from a number of different sources. (In the case of Green Mountain Reservoir <br />operations, "saved" water refers to the water primarily stored in the HUP that without the <br />alternative would have been released to replace an otherwise out-of-priority depletion.) The <br />yield, dependability of yield, project costs and other project effects will be determined in large <br />part by the components of each alternative. Consequently, it is not possible at this point in the <br />Phase 1 investigation to provide definite estimates for project yields, certainty of yield, effects on <br />other projects' yields, capital and operating costs, required permits and other parameters useful in <br />project evaluation. Much of this information will be developed in the course of the Phase 2 <br />investigation. <br /> <br />p: \data\gen\Ocwcb\ 18133 \report\phase.j \chap- 3. doc <br /> <br />3-4 <br />