Please wait for the process to complete.
Checking for non-preferred file/folder path names (may take a long time depending on the number of files/folders) ...
This resource contains some files/folders that have non-preferred characters in their name. Show non-conforming files/folders.
Going with the (Fish) Flow: Contrasting Implementation of Additional Environmental Fish Flows and Natural Flows in Select Reservoirs of the Upper Colorado River Basin
||This resource does not have an owner who is an active HydroShare user. Contact CUAHSI (firstname.lastname@example.org) for information on this resource.|
|Storage:||The size of this resource is 64.6 MB|
|Created:||Apr 23, 2020 at 12:59 a.m.|
|Last updated:|| Apr 23, 2020 at 6:27 p.m.
|Citation:||See how to cite this resource|
|+1 Votes:||Be the first one to this.|
|Comments:||No comments (yet)|
The Green River is the Colorado River’s largest tributary, contributing a substantial volume of water to the Colorado River Basin that may be retained in reservoirs and utilized to generate hydroelectric power while maintaining important riparian and ecological habitat. Recently, two environmental fish flows for Flaming Gorge Dam along the Upper Green River have been proposed. The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of these proposed environmental fish flows, in addition to a “run-of-the-river" alternative, on reservoir storage and hydropower generation at Fontenelle, Flaming Gorge, and Lake Powell Reseroirs. Results obtained from Colorado River Simulation Software (CRSS) multi-run simulation models reveal that, for the years 2020-2060, implementation of both proposed environmental fish flows at Flaming Gorge Dam will decrease average monthly storage by 1.6% and increase annual hydropower generation by 0.1%. The environmental fish flow promoting elevated summer baseflows to advantage native Colorado pikeminnow had greater influence on these findings than did the environmental fish flow aimed to disadvantage non-native smallmouth bass. Over the same time period, the “run-of-the-river” alternative will decrease average monthly storage 2.2% and decrease annual hydropower generation 2.7%. These results provide Colorado River Basin water managers, scientists, and stakeholders with additional context regarding the potential future implementation these alternatives.
See readme.txt for explanation of resource contents.
Going with the (Fish) Flow: Contrasting Implementation of Additional Environmental Fish Flows and Natural Flows in Select Reservoirs of the Upper Colorado River Basin A Hydroshare Resource By: Luke Gommermann Contact: email@example.com Contents: readme.txt - explanation of Hydroshare resource Gommermann_Jukes_WATS6330_FinalPaper.docx - final written report GommermannJukes_WATS6330_Assessing Management Alternatives for Select Reservoirs of the Upper Colorado River Basin.pptx - final oral presentation powerpoint FinalResults_updatedMR.xlsx - data summaries obtained from CRSS models to create figures and tables used in final written report and oral presentation powerpoint CRSSinstructions.txt - explanation of how to run the models in CRSS CRSS model - CRSS.V188.8.131.520.Aug2019.mdl CRSS rulesets - i. CRSS.Baseline.2017IGDCP_GroupProject.v4.2.0_Alt1.rls ii. CRSS.Baseline.2017IGDCP_GroupProject.v4.2.0_Alt2a.rls iii. CRSS.Baseline.2017IGDCP_GroupProject.v4.2.0_Alt2b.rls iv. CRSS.Baseline.2017IGDCP_GroupProject.v4.2.0_Alt2c.rls v. CRSS.Baseline.2017IGDCP_GroupProject.v4.2.0_Alt3.rls CRSS control files - i. OutputGroupProject.control ii. OutputGroupProject2a.control iii. OutputGroupProject2b.control iv. OutputGroupProject2c.control v. OutputGroupProject3.control DirectionsToInstallRiverwareCRSSv2.docx - explanation of Riverware installation by Dr. David E. Rosenberg, Utah State University