Laserfiche WebLink
<br />L <br />L <br />t <br />t <br />L <br />L <br />L <br />L <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />\ ! <br /> <br />\ <br />-.J <br /> <br />J <br />J <br />J <br />I <br /> <br />(.. 0.''1;;'; <br /> <br />Project planning model to perfonn the previous review, the District requested the model be <br /> <br /> <br />expanded to include the additional data and make identical comparisons as the previous review. <br /> <br /> <br />Kansas asked that in addition, the model should be expanded to not only evaluate the impacts to <br /> <br /> <br />John Martin Reservoir, but also on useable Stateline flows. <br /> <br />At the November 21, 1995 scoping meeting, it was agreed, after considerable discussion, <br /> <br /> <br />that the review should cover the 10 year period Colorado Water Years 1985 through 1994 since <br /> <br /> <br />the previous review covered the period 1979 through 1984. Reclamation declined Kansas request <br /> <br /> <br />to evaluate Project operation effects on useable Stateline flows as the Project had no control of <br /> <br /> <br />flows at the State line. Reclamation did not commit to an identical simulated model study <br /> <br /> <br />compared to the pre-Project planning model as was done for the previous review. Reclamation <br /> <br /> <br />selected this method for the previous review because there were only five years of Project <br /> <br /> <br />operations data with nearly full irrigation for only two of those five years. The Project has been <br /> <br /> <br />operated continuously with full irrigation for the review period 1985 through 1994 and Project <br /> <br /> <br />operations cyclic patterns of storage, releases and return flows have now developed and <br /> <br /> <br />stabilized. At the scoping meeting Reclamation proposed that a Project area depletion analysis <br /> <br /> <br />compared to historic depletions of the Project area may be more appropriate based on the <br /> <br /> <br />assumption that if the Project area depletions do not change, then there were no downstream <br /> <br /> <br />effects of Project operations. There was no agreement at the meeting that Reclamation's <br /> <br />proposed depletion analysis was appropriate for the review. Reclamation proposed to review <br /> <br /> <br />Project operations data and Project development documents to detennine if a depletion analysis <br /> <br /> <br />was sufficient to meet the requirements of the reviews. <br /> <br /> <br />The Decree for changing the place of storage under the Model right from Model Reservoir <br /> <br />10 <br />