Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Month Reach 10 Reach 14 Reach 15 Reach 16 Reach 17 Reach 18 Reach 19 <br />October 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />November 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />December 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />April 10 15 11 11 20 16 6 <br />May 20 32 24 24 48 38 14 <br />June 173 218 232 272 535 665 566 <br />July 410 501 549 670 1551 1994 1620 <br />August 368 450 494 616 1251 1615 1397 <br />September 30 46 36 48 87 91 57 <br />Annual 1010 1262 1346 1641 3492 4418 3661 <br /> <br />Table II1-4 <br />Reductions in the Amount Delivered On-Farm (ac-ft) <br /> <br />A representative leasing program could reduce on-farm deliveries and consumptive use <br />by about 17,000 ac-ft per year and 8,500 ac-ft per year, respectively. On-farm reductions <br />in consumptive use were based on an on-farm efficiency of 50 percent. <br /> <br />The following table shows the average monthly reductions in consumptive use for the <br />1975-94 period, <br /> <br /> e ucbons In onsumutive se ac- t <br />Month Reach 10 Reach 14 Reach 15 Reach 16 Reach 17 Reach 18 Reach 19 <br />October 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />November 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />December 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />February 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />March 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <br />April 5 8 6 6 10 8 3 <br />May 10 16 12 12 24 19 7 <br />June 87 109 116 136 268 333 283 <br />July 205 251 275 335 776 997 810 <br />August 184 225 247 308 626 808 699 <br />September 15 23 18 24 44 46 29 <br />Annual 505 631 673 821 1746 2210 1830 <br /> <br />Table II1-S <br />Rd C U ( f) <br /> <br />Based on the water budget spreadsheet, a reduction in consumptive use of about 8,400 ac- <br />ft resulted in a yield of 7,000 ac-ft of shortage reductions at the critical habitat without <br />diversion losses. In this case, it is important to note that flows in the critical habitat will <br />only be increased by reductions in consumptive use. Therefore, the amount of leased <br />water is considerably higher to account for historic return flows. The modeling being <br />performed by the EIS team may indicate that the yield associated with 8,400 ac-ft of <br />consumptive use savings is higher or lower than 7,000 ac-ft of reductions to target flow <br /> <br />C:\Draft Water Action Plan (May 30, 2000)\wupc report (Version 6 BND2)-.doe <br /> <br />19 <br />