7738 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Executive Summary In addition to investigating the effect of near- and long-term project development on instream flows, a second quantitative measure was evaluated to establish the net depletions associated with the near-term and long-term project. Net stream depletions were calculated as the difference in average annual flow at Deerlodge Park under the No Action scenario and near- and long-term development scenarios. This analysis showed that the additional average annual depletions associated with the development of the recommended near and long-term projects would be on the order of 200 and 2,500 of per year, respectively. These depletion values represent the net average annual depletion and do not reveal seasonal patterns. It is important to keep in mind that the No Action scenario includes demand growth just as the other scenarios do; "no action" simply means that no Juniper-based instream flow is in place and no additional storage is constructed. In the absence of an instream flow right, future demand growth (at least that already surviving Section 7 consultation) would continue to deplete the river, most notably in the late summer period. The unsubordinated instream flow right, in combination with increased reservoir storage, tends to offset these future depletions in the late summer while slightly depressing early runoff-period flows. Development Plan The schedule for water resource development projects is generally determined first by estimating when the facility is needed to commence operations (i.e. water delivery, power production, etc), then by examining the time associated with the key elements of project development. The schedule of project development is usually controlled by permitting activities. In the recommended plan another controlling element would be the negotiations relative to the disposition of the Juniper - Cross Mountain Project water rights. At the time the Detailed Feasibility Study for the Elkhead enlargement begins (February, 1993) other key feasibility elements would also need to proceed with the expectation that by the middle of 1994 all primary feasibility limitations have been resolved and the necessary implementation agreements have been reached. Presuming these feasibility issues are successfully resolved, physical implementation can proceed. In order to enter EIS phase of work by the middle of 1994, the natural resource inventory of the selected project and the development of a fish management plan need to proceed at the same time as the Detailed Feasibility Study. This would begin with scoping studies in February of 1993. Upon completion of both the Detailed Feasibility Study and the resource inventories, preliminary project permit applications could be made to initiate the EIS phase. EIS scoping would be scheduled to begin in January of 1994 and continue with preparation of the statement itself and the associated mitigation plan by the time final design would begin in 1997. Final design related reviews and completion of permitting would occur to the year 2000 when construction could begin. Construction would occur in stages described as follows: Stage I Road and Utilities Relocation Development of Material Sources Mobilization/Construction Staging Stage II De-watering Abutment/Foundation Preparation Primary Outlet Construction F_ Lli S-32 I