WSP02006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U') ':'\j C) '-.] the, b,ase run. The amount by which the shortage is reduced over that observed for the base run is the benefit or, yield generated by that project configuration" This yield,. is th.e basis for "valuating the effectiveness of various project features and configuratioos., . .-" More' than 90 'operation stud'ies ,were performed. A' review oj th.e results of the first few runs guided the focus, of the, subsequent" studies. When project features were tound. to have little implict on the yield of the overall project, they were dropped from" further consideration. Features which produced a substantial increase in yield Were. combined with other: features which also increased yield. This process was continued until the most efficient pt'9ject ,features were ,identified. A summary of the most significant findings is ',pro,- vided below: 1. Lower Kendig and Upper Kendig reservoirs are the most efficient storage sites because, they ,control the greatest, drainage areas while they are above the maJor diversion ,canals_ For both UpP'er, and Lower Kendig each acre-foot of storage would generate about 1 acre-foot of yield (100% efficiency for reservoirs Jess than, about 8000 acre'-foottotal). This ratio drops gradually with increasing reservoir size; for a 25,000 acre-foot, reservoir the yield is about 0.55 (55% efficiency) acre~feet of yield per acre-foot of storage. " ~ 2. have a much above it. acre-feet. storage (3% acre-foot) . Dry Hollow Reservoir is smaller service area and The efficiency is 24%' This drops, sharply to efficiency) for larger less efficient becaus,e it would there is little natural; drainage for reservoirs' of about 2500 .03 acre-foot yield/acre-foot reservoirs (for example 8000 3. Haystack reservoir while providing benefits similar to Upper Kendig and Lower Kendig re.servoirs, is, less efficient than either Upper - or Lower Kendig reservoirs because it has a, smaller drainage area. 4. The proposed canals in the West Divide Creek and, Mamm Creek basins would substantially improve project yield. ,The most beneficial improvements are the Porter Ditch enlargement and extension to Mamm Creek and the Hunter Mesa Canal. The Porter Ditch extension would allow water from Lower Kendig Reservoir to reach Hunter Mesa, and the Hunter Mesa Canal would permit delivery of west Divide Creek water to upper Hunter Mesa. The Dry Hollow Canal would allow water stored in Dry Hollow Reservoir to be delivered to the lower half of Hunter Mesa. " J , , ~ ;', 1-10