DOCSLIB.ORG

Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study 2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study 2006 NAVAJO RESERVOIR AND SAN JUAN RIVER TEMPERATURE STUDY NAVAJO RESERVOIR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 125 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84138 Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page ii NAVAJO RESERVOIR AND SAN JUAN RIVER TEMPERATURE STUDY PREPARED FOR: SAN JUAN RIVER ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAM BY: Amy Cutler U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Regional Office FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 ii Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................3 2. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................5 3. MODELING OVERVIEW .......................................................................................6 4. RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE MODELING ......................................................7 5. RIVER TEMPERATURE MODELING...............................................................14 6. UNSTEADY RIVER TEMPERATURE MODELING........................................18 7. ADDRESSING RESERVOIR SCENARIOS USING CE-QUAL-W2................23 7.1 Base Case Scenario............................................................................................23 7.2 TCD Scenarios...................................................................................................23 7.3 Navajo Reservoir Heat Budget ..........................................................................26 8. ADDRESSING RIVER SCENARIOS USING QUAL2K....................................28 9. ADDRESSING RIVER SCENARIOS USING GEMSS ......................................31 10. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................37 11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................38 11. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................40 12. APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................42 13. APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................50 iii Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Inflows, percent of average, and average reservoir elevations for the model period of 1995 to 2000. ....................................................8 Table 2. Ranges of available Navajo Reservoir release water temperatures from May to October........................................................................29 iv Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. San Juan River Basin, NM.................................................................3 Figure 2. Total inflow, release, reservoir elevation and max elevation at Navajo Reservoir, NM from January 1995 to December 2001........8 Figure 3. W2 model input geometry with longitudinal segments and vertical layers for Navajo Reservoir, NM.......................................................9 Figure 4. Comparison of observed water temperature at San Juan River Near Carracas, CO to modeled temperature. ................................10 Figure 5. Comparison of observed water temperature at Piedra River Near Arboles, CO to modeled temperature. ...........................................11 Figure 6. Comparison of observed water temperature at Los Pinos River at La Boca, CO to modeled temperature............................................11 Figure 7. Comparison of W2 model output and actual observed reservoir elevations on Navajo Reservoir, NM. (WSE = water surface elevation)..........................................................................................12 Figure 8. Comparison of W2 model output and actual observed release water temperature from Navajo Reservoir, NM. ............................13 Figure 6. Longitudinal river profile of water temperatures. The points represent observed water temperature data locations (from left to right: below Navajo Dam, Archuleta, Farmington and Shiprock, NM) in the San Juan River, NM. ......................................................15 Figure 7. The 2000 observed release hydrograph from Navajo Reservoir, NM. ....................................................................................................16 Figure 8. Observed and modeled diurnal water temperature on June 5, 2000 at Shiprock, NM.......................................................................16 Figure 9. Comparison of GEMSS model estimate and actual observed flows on the San Juan River at Shiprock, NM (USGS, gauging station)..............................................................................................19 Figure 10. Comparison of GEMSS model’s hourly estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Archuleta, NM. ....................................................................................................19 Figure 11. Comparison of GEMSS model’s daily average estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Archuleta, NM...................................................................................20 Figure 12. Comparison of GEMSS model’s hourly estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Farmington, NM. Hourly observed data from Farmington were unavailable after September, 2001. ................................................20 v Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page vi Figure 13. Comparison of GEMSS model’s daily average estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Farmington, NM. Observed data from Farmington were unavailable after September, 2001. ................................................21 Figure 14. Comparison of GEMSS model’s hourly estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Shiprock, NM. ....................................................................................................21 Figure 15. Comparison of GEMSS model’s daily average estimate and actual observed water temperatures on the San Juan River at Shiprock, NM....................................................................................22 Figure 18. Water temperature released from Navajo Reservoir with three scenarios 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD and multiple-level TCD.25 Figure 19. The comparison of in-reservoir water temperature of normal operations and the use of a multiple-level TCD at 100 ft (30.5m) below water surface elevation at Navajo Reservoir, NM. .............26 Figure 20. The comparison of time-series water temperature profiles for normal operations and with a multiple-level TCD at Navajo Reservoir, NM...................................................................................27 Figure 21. A scenario representing longitudinal water temperature in the San Juan River downstream of Navajo Reservoir, NM with normal releases and both fixed-level and multiple-level TCDs. ...............28 Figure 22. Longitudinal temperature profile in the San Juan River downstream of Navajo Reservoir, NM using average flow and meteorological conditions. This scenario shows potential water temperatures for the month of July with and without the use of a TCD. Colored lines show four release temperature scenarios and the respected increase downstream from the dam. Doted line show flow volume from the dam to Shiprock................................30 Figure 23. Comparison of equilibrium temperature model output and observed water temperatures on the Animas River near Farmington, NM. ..............................................................................31 Figure 24. Water temperatures below Navajo Reservoir with three scenarios: 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD.32 Figure 25. Water temperatures at Archuleta, NM with three scenarios: 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD and multiple-level TCD. ..........................32 Figure 26. Water temperatures above the Animas River with three scenarios: 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD.33 Figure 27. Water temperatures below the Animas River with three scenarios: 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD.33 Figure 28. Water temperatures at Shiprock, NM with three scenarios: 1995 to 2000, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD. .........................34 vi Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page vii Figure 29: Water temperatures comparisons at Farmington, NM during 1997 descending hydrograph with three scenarios: June 5th through July 17th, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD. .......34 Figure 30: Water temperatures comparisons at Shiprock, NM during 1997 descending hydrograph with three scenarios: June 5th through July 17th, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD. .......35 Figure 31. Water temperatures comparisons at Farmington, NM during 2000 descending hydrograph with three scenarios: June 5th through 13th, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD.................35 Figure 32. Water temperatures comparisons at Shiprock, NM during 2000 descending hydrograph with three scenarios: June 5th through 13th, fixed-level TCD, and multiple-level TCD. ..............................36 vii Navajo Reservoir and San Juan River Temperature Study Page viii LIST OF KEY WORDS San Juan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Record of Decision Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement I. Summary of Action and Background The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam. The EIS describes the potential effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The four endangered fish species are Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), and bonytail (Gila elegans). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program). Reclamation’s goal is to implement the proposed action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the Colorado River Storage Project. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), including those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. As the Federal agency responsible for the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS. Eight cooperating agencies also participated in preparing this EIS: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Utah Department of Natural Resources, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau
    I NVENTORY & M ONITORING N ETWORK Big-River Monitoring on the Colorado Plateau Dustin Perkins1, Mike Scott2, Greg Auble2, Mark Wondzell3, Chris Holmquist-Johnson2, Eric Wahlig2, Helen Thomas1, and Aneth Wight1; 1Northern Colorado Plateau Network, P.O. Box 848, Bldg. 11, Arches National Park, Moab, UT 84532 2U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, FORT Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave., Building C, Fort Collins, CO 80526; 3National Park Service, Water Resources Division, 1201 Oakridge Dr., Ste. 150, Fort Collins, CO 80525 Introduction and Green rivers in Canyonlands National Park. The Yampa River is the longest relatively free-flowing river Water has always been in short supply in the western reach remaining in the Colorado River basin. The U.S., making it a consistent source of conflict. In Green River is highly regulated by Flaming Gorge Dam the Colorado River drainage, an increasing human but is partially restored below its confluence with the population fuels increased demands for water from Yampa River. There have been large-scale changes the river and its tributaries. As a result, streamflow to the Green River since Flaming Gorge Dam was in virtually all of these systems has been altered by completed in 1962. reservoirs and other water-development projects. In most cases, reduced flows have significantly altered Monitoring of these rivers and their riparian peak flows and increased base flows that structure vegetation focuses on processes that affect the river floodplain vegetation, stream-channel morphology, channel, active bars, and riparian floodplains. To get and water quality (e.g., temperature, suspended a complete picture of river conditions, the NCPN sediment, nutrients).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders
    The Bottom Line: The Impact of the Endangered Species Act on Glen Canyon Dam Operations and Stakeholders By Leslie James he Endangered Species Act (ESA) is arguably the most powerful environmental law ever enacted. Since its passage in 1973, it has had far-reaching Timpacts on power production from federally owned multiple-purpose projects, such as the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). Operational changes resulting from efforts to address ESA issues impact not only power production but repayment of the federal investment in the project. While differing approaches and programs have been established in an attempt to address ESA issues at Glen Canyon Dam, operations have proved to be significant and costly. Background: Colorado River Storage Project In 1956, Congress passed the Colorado River Storage Glen Canyon Dam. Project Act to provide storage facilities for the Upper Basin states so that they could meet Colorado River Compact needs. Operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, the CRSP of total CRSP generation. Flaming Gorge Dam is on the consists of multipurpose dams that release water to meet Green River, a major tributary of the Colorado River, and Colorado River Compact, municipal and industrial (M&I), has three units producing about 132 MW of generation. and irrigation requirements. As the water is released, electric power and energy are produced to help pay for ESA Impacts on Glen Canyon Dam Operations the projects. The Western Area Power Administration The Glen Canyon Dam power plant generates power (WAPA) markets and transmits that electricity to for municipal, industrial, irrigation pumping, and other preference power entities pursuant to federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • River Flow Advisory
    River Flow Advisory Bureau . of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol. 15, No. 1 September 1984 River flows in the Upper Colorado River drainage, still high for this time of year, are not expected to decrease much for several weeks: While the daily update of operations and releases has been discontinued, the toll-free numbers now provide updates on Bureau of Reclamation activities and projects. Utah residents may call 1-800-624-1094 and out-of-Utah residents may call 1-800-624-5099. Colorado River at Westwater Canyon The flow of the Colorado River on September 10 was 7, 000 cfs, and is expected to decrease slightly over the next few weeks. Cataract Canyon Includin2 the Green- River The flow was 11,500 cfs on September 10 and will continue to decrease slightly. Lake Powell Lake Powell's elevation on September 10 was 3,699. Assuming normal inflow for this time of year, the lake should continue to go down slowly to elevation 3,682 by next spring. Colorado River through Grand Canyon . Releases through Glen Canyon Dam remain at 25,000 cfs. These releases are expected to be maintained with no daily fluctuations in river flows. Upper Green River - Fontenelle Reservoir Fontenelle Reservoir is now at elevation 6,482 feet. Releases through the dam will be reduced to about 600 cfs starting on September 17 for about 2 weeks during powerplant maintenance. Green River Flows Below Flaming Gorge Dam On September 10 Flaming Gorge Reservoir was at elevation 6,039.9 feet. Releases from the dam are expected to average 2, 500 cfs in September and October with usual daily fluctuations.
    [Show full text]
  • Floating the Green River
    Green River Campsites How to get to the Green River All established campgrounds include a table, fire ring, tent pads and benches. River mileages are given beginning at Flaming Gorge Dam. For availability and reservations go to www.reserveUSA.com. All other From Wyoming campsites are on a first come basis. From I-80 just west of Rock The Green River from Little Hole to the Springs, WY, take US-191 to exit 99, travel south to the Utah/Colorado state line is a quiet stretch of major access points at Clay Basin or Dutch John, UT. 1. Stonefly I & II 10. Big Pine Camp I & II 18. Bridge Port Camp 27. Pipeline Camp river surrounded by beautiful scenery, wildlife (FS) North side (river left) (FS) North side (river left) (State) North side (river left) (BLM) East side (river left) Green River Camping From Salt Lake City Mile 8.2. Mile 10.5. Mile 17.3. Mile 22. Take I-80 to exit 34, follow Camping between Little Hole and Indian Crossing and outstanding opportunities for recreation the signs from Fort Bridger to 11. Pugmire Pocket Camp is restricted to designated float-in or hike-in campsites. Manila, UT, then take UT-44 2. Sand Camp 19. River Bend Camp 28. Little Swallow Camp and adventure. Whether you’re interested in (FS) North side (river left) (BLM) South side (river right) (BLM) South side (river right) (BLM) East side (river left) Campers must pack-in/pack-out all trash and build fires to the intersection with US-191. US-191 leads to Mile 8.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison River
    final environmental statement wild and scenic river study september 1979 GUNNISON RIVER COLORADO SPECIAL NOTE This environmental statement was initiated by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in January, 1976. On January 30, 1978, a reorganization within the U.S. Department of the Interior resulted in BOR being restructured and renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS). On March 27, 1978, study responsibility was transferred from HCRS to the National Park Service. The draft environmental statement was prepared by HCRS and cleared by the U.S. Department of the Interior prior to March 27, 1978. Final revisions and publication of both the draft environmental statement, as well as this document have been the responstbility of the National Park Service. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GUNNISON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY Prepared by United States Department of the Interior I National Park Service in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources represented by the Water Conservation Board staff Director National Par!< Service SUMMARY ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1. Type of action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Brief description of action: The Gunnison Wild and Scenic River Study recommends inclusion of a 26-mile (41.8-km) segment of the Gunnison River, Colorado, and 12,900 acres (S,200 ha) of adjacent land to be classified as wild in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the administration of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. D. I. This river segment extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) below the confluence with the Smith Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary U.S
    Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement PUBLIC DRAFT Executive Summary U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region National Park Service, Intermountain Region December 2015 Cover photo credits: Title bar: Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam: T.R. Reeve High-flow experimental release: T.R. Reeve Fisherman: T. Gunn Humpback chub: Arizona Game and Fish Department Rafters: Grand Canyon National Park Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan December 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1 CONTENTS 2 3 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. vii 5 6 ES.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 7 ES.2 Proposed Federal Action ........................................................................................ 2 8 ES.2.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .............................................................. 2 9 ES.2.2 Objectives and Resource Goals of the LTEMP ....................................... 3 10 ES.3 Scope of the DEIS .................................................................................................. 6 11 ES.3.1 Affected Region and Resources .............................................................. 6 12 ES.3.2 Impact Topics Selected for Detailed Analysis ........................................ 6 13 ES.4
    [Show full text]
  • Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role
    Management of the Colorado River: Water Allocations, Drought, and the Federal Role Updated March 21, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45546 SUMMARY R45546 Management of the Colorado River: Water March 21, 2019 Allocation, Drought, and the Federal Role Charles V. Stern The Colorado River Basin covers more than 246,000 square miles in seven U.S. states Specialist in Natural (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California) and Resources Policy Mexico. Pursuant to federal law, the Bureau of Reclamation (part of the Department of the Interior) manages much of the basin’s water supplies. Colorado River water is used Pervaze A. Sheikh primarily for agricultural irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses, but it also Specialist in Natural is important for power production, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. Resources Policy In recent years, consumptive uses of Colorado River water have exceeded natural flows. This causes an imbalance in the basin’s available supplies and competing demands. A drought in the basin dating to 2000 has raised the prospect of water delivery curtailments and decreased hydropower production, among other things. In the future, observers expect that increasing demand for supplies, coupled with the effects of climate change, will further increase the strain on the basin’s limited water supplies. River Management The Law of the River is the commonly used shorthand for the multiple laws, court decisions, and other documents governing Colorado River operations. The foundational document of the Law of the River is the Colorado River Compact of 1922. Pursuant to the compact, the basin states established a framework to apportion the water supplies between the Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River, with the dividing line between the two basins at Lee Ferry, AZ (near the Utah border).
    [Show full text]
  • Cogjm.Pre Film 1963-09-24.Pdf (216.9Kb)
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR * * * * * * * * * * * * * ********news release BUREAU OF RECLPJ.AATION Peterson - Interior 4662 WATE For Release SEPTEMBER 24, 1963 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO PREMIERE NEW~~IN NEVADA DURING PRESIDENT'S VISIT The world premiere of the Bureau ~lamation's new documentary motion held in- Las-Vegas, Nev .. -,--durin President Kennedy's visit there September 28, the Department of the Interior announced today. The 13!-minute 16 mm. color-and-sound film will be shown on a large screen in the Las Vegas Convention Center rotunda immediately preceding the President's address. On his way to Las Vegas during his conservation tour, the President will fly over nearby Hoover Dam, pioneer Reclamation multipurpose structure, and its reservoir, Lake Mead, for an aerial inspection. The dam and reservoir, along with Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell, 370 miles upstream, are featured in the film. "Clear Water on the Colorado 11 presents spectacular scenes of the once-muddy and almost inaccessible Colorado River in the canyons of Arizona and southern Utah, now desilted and cleared by Glen Canyon Dam which began storing water March 13, 1963. The film portrays the miracle of a silt-free Colorado River between the headwaters of Lake Mead and the headwaters of Lake Powell. The film points out that Glen Canyon Dam--topped out September 13, 1963, has desilted and cleared the Colorado River just as did Hoover Dam downstream 28 years ago. A tremendous load of sediment, varying from 24 to 270 million tons in different years, has been deposited at the head of Lake Mead since Hoover Dam was closed in 1935.
    [Show full text]
  • Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 Through April 2022
    Flaming Gorge Operation Plan - May 2021 through April 2022 Concurrence by Kathleen Callister, Resources Management Division Manager Kent Kofford, Provo Area Office Manager Nicholas Williams, Upper Colorado Basin Power Manager Approved by Wayne Pullan, Upper Colorado Basin Regional Director U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation • Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin • Power Office Salt Lake City, Utah May 2021 Purpose This Flaming Gorge Operation Plan (FG-Ops) fulfills the 2006 Flaming Gorge Record of Decision (ROD) requirement for May 2021 through April 2022. The FG-Ops also completes the 4-step process outlined in the Flaming Gorge Standard Operation Procedures. The Upper Colorado Basin Power Office (UCPO) operators will fulfil the operation plan and may alter from FG-Ops due to day to day conditions, although we will attempt to stay within the boundaries of the operations defined below. Listed below are proposed operation plans for four different scenarios: moderately dry, average (above median), average (below median), and moderately wet. As of the publishing of this document, the most likely scenario is the moderately dry, however actual operations will vary with hydrologic conditions. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program), the Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group (FGTWG), Flaming Gorge Working Group (FG WG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provided input that was considered in the development of this report. The FG-Ops describes the current hydrologic classification of the Green River Basin and the hydrologic conditions in the Yampa River Basin. The FG-Ops identifies the most likely Reach 2 peak flow magnitude and duration that is to be targeted for the upcoming spring flows.
    [Show full text]
  • 1976 Link Is to a PDF File
    t • I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 125 SCALE OF MILES Annual Report Operation of the Colorado· River Basin 1976 Projected Operations 1977 u.s. Department of the Interior Thomas S. Kleppe, Secretary Bureau of Reclamation Gilbert G. Stamm, Commissioner January 1977 Table·of Contents Introduction ii Authority for ·Report ii Actual .Operations under Criteria-Water Year 1976 1 Upper Basin Reservoirs 2 Lo~er Bas1nReservoirs __ ------------------------------~------------ 14 River Regulations 20 Beneficial Consumptive Uses 21 Upper Basin Uses 21 Lo~er Basin Uses and· Losses 21 Water Quality Control 22 Water Quality Operations during Water Year 1976 22 Enhancement of Fish and Wildlife 23 Upper Basin 23 Lo~erBasin 23 Preservation· of Environment 24 Projected Plan of Operation under Criteria for Current Year ~------------------------------------------__ 26 Determination Storage" 26 Lower Basin Requirements 27 Plan of Operation-Water Year 1977 29 Upper Basin Reservoirs 30 Lo~er Basin Reservoirs 31 (Prepared pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968, Public Law 90-537) Intr cti The operation of the Colorado River Basin during the past year and the projected operation for the current year reflect domestic use, irrigation, hydro­ electric power generation, water quality control, fish and wi Idl ife propagation, recreation, flood control, and Colorado River Compact require­ ments. Storage and release of water from the Upper Basin reservoirs recognize all applicable laws and relevant factors governing the Colorado River, in­ cluding the impoundment of water in the Upper Basin required by section 602(a) of Public Law 90-537. The operation of the Lower Basin reser­ voirs reflects Mexican Treaty obligations and Lower Basin contractual commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • River Flow Advisory Bureau of ·Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol 17 No
    - River Flow Advisory Bureau of ·Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Salt Lake City, Utah Vol 17 No. 5 July 1987 The snowmelt runoff has been greater than previously forecasted. Inflow into Lake Powell for April-July period will be 98 percent of average, rather than 88 percent as forecasted in June. Colorado River at Westwater Canyon The flow of the Colorado is 4.700 cubic feet per second (cfs). It will continue to recede slowly. Cataract Canyon including the Green River The flow of the Colorado River through the canyon is 9,000 cfs, and receding slowly. lake Powell Lake Powell is at elevation 3,698 feet. The peak elevation of 3,698.47 feet, 1.53 feet below full. was reached on June 25 this year. Colorado River through Grand Canyon The July rP.lease fran Glen Canyon is expected to average 18,000 cfs. Releases are expected to rise to 21,000 cfs in August, and drop to 18,000 cfs in September. Flows wi 11 fluctuate from 3 ,000 cfs at night to 31,000 cfs during the day. Upper Green River - Fontenelle Reservoir Fontenelle Reservoir is at elevation 6,442. Present releases of 1.200 cfs will decreasP. as inflow into the reservoir decreases. The flow will be bypassed through the dam, and the reservoir's water level will remain low while work on the diaphragm wall continues. Green River Flows below Flaming Gorge Dam Flaming Gorge is at elevation 6,034 feet. 6 feet below full. It is not expected to rise beyond this point this year.
    [Show full text]