Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Uu2991 <br /> <br />It is expected that up to 20,000 acre-feet of average annual yield could be developed from a <br />combination of the following options. The yield from Green Mountain Reservoir Preemptive <br />Release and Release of Green Mountain Reservoir Water Carried Over in Green Mountain <br />Reservoir (see Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.2.1.4) is dependent on the water "saved" which in turn <br />determines the yield of these alternatives. More precise yield estimates can be developed on the <br />basis of modeling analyses which will be completed in Phase 2. <br /> <br />Capital costs will vary from negligible costs for revising internal operating policies to significant <br />investments if major amounts of replacement storage are necessary for replacing lost yield from <br />other projects. Replacing lost project yield could have capital costs of $5,000 to $10,000 per <br />acre-foot of yield replaced. Necessary construction to eliminate downstream channel flow <br />conveyance constraints could significantly affect capital costs for this alternative. <br /> <br />--I Operation and maintenance costs could likewise vary from negligible costs for revising internal <br />1 operating policies to significant amounts ($250 per acre-foot) if there were significant pumping <br />costs associated with replacement storage. Power interference charges could increase O&M <br />costs significantly. <br /> <br />All of these projects will have potential effects on other projects' yields and flexibility of <br />operations depending on the configuration of a Green Mountain Reservoir Operations alternative. <br />The effects of a Green Mountain Reservoir Operations alternative will be better quantified <br />through modeling in Phase 2. An effort is made below to detail some of these potential effects. <br /> <br />I-j <br /> <br />Potential legal and permitting problems exist with the options detailed below. These involve <br />fundamental concerns involving whether the United States has the discretionary authority under <br />1"'1 the water rights decree for Green Mountain Reservoir, held by the United States, and the manner <br />of operations described in Senate Document No. 80, to allow releases for the recovery of the <br />endangered fishes. <br /> <br />Water rights administration concerns include whether flows released for recovery of the <br />endangered fishes during July to October require administrative protection to IDsure <br />administrative and delivery ofthese releases to the head of the IS-Mile Reach. <br /> <br />There may be institutional issues involving the options detailed below. For example, the <br />Preference Power customers (including Platte River Power Authority, Tri-State, Poudre Valley <br />REA, and Union REAl may oppose the reduced winter power operations and demand power <br />Iii interference charges be paid. <br /> <br />Green Mountain Reservoir operations constraints may seriously restrict feasibility of this <br />alternative. For example, current reluctance to bypass releases through the turbines (present <br />actual turbine capacity is approximately 1,500 cfs; decreed capacity is 1726 cfs) would prohibit <br />making large releases for the recovery of the endangered fishes. The effect of this 1,500 cfs limit <br />will have to be determined through modeling or other analysis in Phase 2. <br /> <br />p:\data\gen\Ocwcb\18133\report\phase.1 'chap.) .doc <br /> <br />3-5 <br />