Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />Representation of the release of contract storage pools in existing reservoirs was based <br />on information provided by current operators of EI lchead , Steamboat and Stagecoach <br />reservoirs. Generally speaking, users holding existing contracts for storage water were the <br />only demands allowed to have access to those storage pools. Thus the only demands having <br />access to the existing EIlchead Reservoir were the City of Craig and the Craig generating <br />station. The Craig station was pennitted access to supplies from Stagecoach Reservoir only <br />after its Ellchead supplies were exhausted. Existing Stagecoach water supplies not delivered to <br />users outside the boundaries of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District (UYWCD). <br />Steamboat Lake supplies were only accessible to the Hayden generating station and then only if <br />the station's Stagecoach supplies were exhausted. <br /> <br />EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Definition of Alternatives <br /> <br />In defining alternative development projects and corresponding model evaluation <br />scenarios, particular attention was given to the relative priorities of the existing direct flow <br />rights, the proposed instream flow right, existing and future storage rights and future water <br />demands; The structure of the scenarios was chosen to help answer the following fundamental <br />questions: I) is there a sufficient legal and physical supply to meet all future demands?, 2) if <br />there is an insufficient legal supply, can the general Juniper subordination make up the <br />shortages?, and 3) if there is an insufficient physical supply, can reservoir releases (from <br />existing and/or proposed projects) make up the shortages? These questions were addressed by <br />the careful selection of priorities assigned to the proposed instream flow right, to storage in <br />reservoirs and to future demand increments. <br /> <br />Model scenarios were defined to evaluate alternative administrative and/or <br />developmental strategies to meet various demand levels in the basin. Each model scenario <br />evaluated three possible demand levels, the potential 1989 level maximum, and the projected <br />2015 and 2040 demand levels. Several administrative strategies were also investigated and <br />included examining the utility of subordination of the Juniper rights to all existing demands <br />and possibly to 2015 and/or 2040 level demands. Scenarios were arranged to facilitate <br />comparison of the strategies of meeting future demands through subordination of the instream <br />flow for endangered fish and meeting future demands by making releases from storage accrued <br />under rights considered senior to the instream flow. The scenarios evaluated using the basin <br />model are described generally in Table S-4. <br /> <br />Table 5-4 <br /> <br />Model Evaluation Scenarios <br /> <br />Scenario I - Baseline (No Action) <br />(same as subordination only) <br /> <br />. no new storage facilities <br />. no instream flow for endangered species <br />. same as full subordination of Juniper rights <br /> <br />Scenario II - Conversion Only <br />(no subordination) <br /> <br />. no new storage facilities <br />. Juniper rights converted to instream flow <br />. no subordination of Juniper rights except to <br />storage in existing reservoirs <br /> <br />S-18 <br />