Difference between revisions of "TCD Learning Page"
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
Cellsworth (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
The total bypassed volume to date (July 9 - 18, 2024) is approximately 150,000 acre-feet or ~30% of the total daily release volume. Approximately 1°C of cooling is being observed at Lees Ferry (RM 0). Full effects of bypass at RM61 are still being evaluated. Water temperatures at RM 61 are estimated to remain over the 15.5°C threshold until November 1 and thus, bypass would be required for most of the summer and fall, a period of 16 weeks. | The total bypassed volume to date (July 9 - 18, 2024) is approximately 150,000 acre-feet or ~30% of the total daily release volume. Approximately 1°C of cooling is being observed at Lees Ferry (RM 0). Full effects of bypass at RM61 are still being evaluated. Water temperatures at RM 61 are estimated to remain over the 15.5°C threshold until November 1 and thus, bypass would be required for most of the summer and fall, a period of 16 weeks. | ||
| − | The SEIS estimated an average hydropower impact from the Cool Mix alternative of $61.73 million (226.29 GWh) over a 45-month period (tables 3-12 and 3-17 in Bureau of Reclamation, 2024). Bypassed water does not produce hydropower and replacement costs are estimated to be ~$1 to $2 million per week (WAPA 2024, personal communication). Observed costs are tracking estimates presented in the SEIS. | + | The SEIS estimated an average hydropower impact from the Cool Mix alternative of $61.73 million (226.29 GWh) over a 45-month period or $15.43 million (56.57 GWh) per year (tables 3-12 and 3-17 in Bureau of Reclamation, 2024). Bypassed water does not produce hydropower and replacement costs are estimated to be ~$1 to $2 million per week (WAPA 2024, personal communication). Observed costs are tracking estimates presented in the SEIS. |
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 10:44, 14 October 2025
 |
Temperature ControlBefore Glen Canyon Dam was constructed, the natural flow cycle of the Colorado River included a seasonal warming trend in the late summer as the water temperature would increase from the near freezing winter temperature to approximately 85 degrees. Once the dam was constructed, the temperature of the water released downstream became relatively steady at between 45-50 degrees as water was drawn year round from the deep, fixed level penstock intakes (used for power production). Near the dam, these cold releases are tolerated by the trout fishery, but as this water moves downstream, it only warms to about 60 degrees which is not warm enough to allow endangered, native, warm water fish, such as the humpback chub, to reproduce in the mainstem of the Colorado River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion in 1994, that recommended that temperature control modifications to the existing intake structures at the dam, be investigated by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Temperature control modifications would allow for water to be drawn from different depths of the reservoir. Instead of only drawing water from the existing intake openings which are fairly deep and cold, the temperature control modifications would allow for water to be drawn from closer to the reservoir surface, which is much warmer. The goal would be to determine the right temperature combination of the cold and warmer water withdrawals to benefit the native endangered fish, while avoiding the possibility of encouraging competitors (non-native, warm-water fish) into the system. [1] |
| |
|
|
|---|
|
|
