|
<br />:.,-,:::,-,':.:.::.,.,,:,:.::=-:
<br />:>:;:,:":,:,:",:,,,,';..,:
<br />'!i1
<br />
<br />A.O
<br />
<br />-.J.
<br />
<br />Table 2 -" Analysis of Recreational Use Improvement Options
<br />
<br />
<br />No Action
<br />
<br />Do nothing to changa Silt
<br />Project operations. Do not
<br />try to maet Colorado State
<br />Parks' goal to maintain Aifle
<br />Gap Reservoir water levels 5
<br />ft. above bottom of boat
<br />ramp thru Labor Day.
<br />
<br />A."
<br />
<br />Water management
<br />
<br />(1) Schedule deliveriss of
<br />water to USers to reduce the
<br />amount of water lost to
<br />seepage. Reduction in
<br />diversion requirement from
<br />East Alfie Creek would allow
<br />additional water to be
<br />retained in RG.
<br />
<br />(1) Water
<br />Scheduling
<br />
<br />(2) Dry land
<br />Options
<br />
<br />(2) Pay land owners to
<br />remove water from parcels of
<br />land in alternating years or
<br />tor some longer term.
<br />
<br />,:,:,:,:,:,::,:":,,,,:,,:,,:"':'-':':"'::':':""",::::-,-:::.:::-:,:.:-:,:.:.:..:,...,.::,.
<br />1~..II\'Jll;
<br />
<br />Under this no action
<br />option, recreational
<br />needs are not addressed.
<br />
<br />SWCD is alraady doing
<br />this & believes there is
<br />limited additional
<br />potential.
<br />
<br />. Would depend on
<br />participation rate. If
<br />20% of the 5.915
<br />presently irrigated acres
<br />were fallowed in anyone
<br />year, could save up to
<br />4.100 af per year. With
<br />5% participation, could
<br />sava about 1,000 af per
<br />year.
<br />
<br />
<br />Without sufficient water
<br />levels, public enjoyment
<br />of soon to be updated
<br />recreation facilities will be
<br />lim~ed, and the full
<br />benefit to the local tourist
<br />economy will not be
<br />realized.
<br />
<br />Unable to estimate
<br />without more information.
<br />Coste should be mostly
<br />administrative anel/or
<br />operational. USBR has
<br />scheduling program
<br />available.
<br />
<br />Estimated to range from
<br />$70 to $80 per af per
<br />year assuming current
<br />usage is 3.5 af/acre.
<br />
<br />19
<br />
<br />- Users could call for water only when
<br />needed making more efficient use of limited
<br />supplies.
<br />- Some ditches maV be dry at times -- are
<br />there any problems in re-wettlng &
<br />increases in initial seepage? May be some
<br />loss to bank storage.
<br />- May need to modify canals to maintain
<br />head for lower flows.
<br />
<br />. Cost estimate is based On value of crops
<br />per acre and doesn't account for saved
<br />labor, fuel and machinery.
<br />- A bidding system so used in tho ASCS
<br />Conservation Reserve Program (CRPJ may
<br />lower this cost. Annual program objectives
<br />could be based on watsr supply conditions.
<br />- Not good for cropo like alfa~a, unless
<br />sams ground is fallowed for several
<br />consecutive years.
<br />- Ma affect users of return flow.
<br />
|