Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />000442 <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />August. A recreation pool of 16,400 af was defined at Stagecoach to be consistent with <br />historical operating criteria. <br /> <br />Although there is not a minimum release requirement below the existing Elkhead Darn, a <br />minimum release of 10 cfs or inflow was defined in this Study for the enlarged reservoir. An <br />existing release requirement below Stagecoach of the minimum of 40 cfs or the reservoir <br />inflow was also represented. This Study defined the Juniper Project contemplated draft <br />(adjusted to consider the drafts of existing reservoirs) as an instream flow right at Juniper <br />. . Canyon. <br /> <br />Water Supply <br /> <br />Several model revisions and sensitivity tests were made which were designed to test the <br />effects of various reservoir operating criteria imposed on the recommended enlargements. The <br />final results of the revised model runs are presented in Tables S-6 through S-8. Table S-5 <br />shows the shortages to demands under the 2015 and 2040 demand conditions with only the <br />development of the 46,500 af Elkhead Reservoir. As shown in Table S-8, with the <br />development of the Stagecoach Reservoir enlargement to 52,000 af, most of the 2040 demand <br />shortages were eliminated. Table S-6 compares the water delivery shortages in these final <br />model runs with those generated in Scenarios 1I1 and IV. As can be seen, the imposition of <br />more specific minimum release and recreation pool operations at Elkhead had relatively little <br />effect on modeled shortages. . <br /> <br />Table 8-6 <br /> <br />Comparison of Delivery shortages Between Initial and Final Model Runs <br />Assuring Phased Enlargement of Reservoirs <br /> <br />Demand Categorv <br /> <br />Scenario 1I1 <br /> <br />Scenario IV <br /> <br />Final Runs <br /> <br />Potential 1989 <br />Maxirimm <br />Average <br /> <br />5841 <br />1955 <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />6595 <br />1368 <br /> <br />Projected 2015 <br />Maximum <br />Average <br /> <br />572 <br />129 <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />572 <br />164 <br /> <br />Projected 2040 <br />Maximum <br />Average <br /> <br />n.a. <br /> <br />5807 <br />180 <br /> <br />4040 <br />139 <br /> <br />Reservoir Water Levels <br /> <br />Figures S-4 and S-5 show modeled reservoir contents over the study ,period for the 2015 <br />and 2040 demand conditions, respectively. Under 2015 demand conditions with only the <br />enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir, Elkhead was drawn down an average of approximately <br />10,000 af each year; this drawdown typically occurred in the month of February. Stagecoach <br />Reservoir was drawn down each year due to hydropower operations in an arnount of <br />approximately 7,000 af. Under 2015 demand conditions the storage in Stagecoach was used <br />infrequently. <br /> <br />S-21 <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />'!. ;-." <br />