My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01713
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01713
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:32:24 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:37:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.101.09
Description
Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell
State
AZ
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
9/1/1987
Title
Comments re: GCES Draft Technical Integration Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Paqe <br /> <br />eomments <br /> <br />10 Western would agree and strongly support the reduction andlor <br />elimination of flood control releases from Glen eanyon, and as such, <br />have supported USBR in their efforts to prepare required annual <br />operation plans. However, no mention has been made in the report of <br />the recent efforts by the USBR to evaluate and improve past operational <br />philosphies in an effort to minimize the risk of future flood releases. <br /> <br />It should be noted in the last paragraph that the filling of Lake <br />Powell coincided with some extremely wet hydrological years. Flood <br />releases may be far less common in more normal or dry years, and also <br />as more experience is gained in operating the dam with a full <br />reservoir. Western agrees that flows above plant capaCity should be <br />avoided if at all possible. <br /> <br />11 Was the powerplant bypassed prior to the filling of Lake Powell, as <br />stated? <br /> <br />We understand that flows above 33,000 cfs were extremely rare, and may. <br />in fact, have not occurred at all. <br /> <br />13 Table II-I, missing flow distribution data during filling period. <br /> <br />14 Resource "protection" is again referred to. See comment 6. <br /> <br />17 Dollar figures for benefits are presented without source or <br />derivation. Where did they come from, and why should they be relied <br />upon? <br /> <br />ZO The pre-dam discussion needs to relate the conditions present at that <br />time to the recreational resources in question. How good was the <br />situation then? <br /> <br />The last sentence on the page is true if Qualified by stating that over <br />the long term, sediment carried by the river would eventually restore <br />scoured beaches. <br /> <br />22 2nd para. 4th sentence. Representative post-dam, low-runoff year <br />(1982, 8.3 maf) is a release, not inflow. Unregulated inflow was <br />12.5 maf. Regulated inflow was 10.9 maf. <br /> <br />2nd paragraph. "eontrast" between High and Low Water '<ears in <br />Figure IV - is not obvious, as stated in text. <br /> <br />3rd paragraph. 1st sentence. High-water year of 1986, unregulated <br />inflow 18.2 maf, regulated inflow equal to 17.8 maf. The number <br />16.6 maf refers to releases, rather than inflow. <br /> <br />"All" used in the last paragraph is incorrect. Some suspended sediment <br />does. of course, get through. <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.