Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-1 <br /> <br />Executive Summary <br /> <br />In addition to investigating the effect of near- and long-term project development on <br />instream flows, a second quantitative measure was evaluated to establish the net depletions <br />associated with the near-term and long-term project. Net stream depletions were calculated as <br />the difference in average annual flow at Deerlodge Park under the No Action scenario and <br />near- and long-term development scenarios. This analysis showed that the additional average <br />annual depletions associated with the development of the recommended near and long-term <br />projects would be on the order of 200 and 2,500 afper year, respectively. These depletion <br />values represent the net average annual depletion and do not reveal seasonal patterns. <br /> <br />It is important to keep in mind that the No Action scenario includes demand growth just <br />as the other scenarios do; "no action" simply means that no Juniper-based instream flow is in <br />place and no additional storage is constructed. In the absence of an instream flow right, future <br />demand growth (at least that already surviving Section 7 consultation) would continue to <br />deplete the river, most notably in the late summer period. The unsubordinated instream flow <br />right, in combination with increased reservoir storage, tends to offset these future depletions in <br />the late summer while slightly depressing early runoff-period flows. <br /> <br />Development Plan <br /> <br />The schedule for water resource development projects is generally determined first by <br />estimating when the facility is needed to commence operations (i.e. water delivery, power <br />production, etc), then by examining the time associated with the key elements of project <br />development. The schedule of project development is usually controlled by permitting <br />activities. In the recommended plan another controlling element would be the negotiations <br />relative to the disposition of the Juniper - Cross Mountain Project water rights. <br /> <br />At the time the Detailed Feasibility Study for the Elkhead enlargement begins (February, <br />1993) other key feasibility elements would also need to proceed with the expectation that by <br />the middle of 1994 all primary feasibility limitations have been resolved and the necessary <br />implementation agreements have been reached. Presuming these feasibility issues are <br />successfully resolved, physical implementation can proceed. <br /> <br />In order to enter EIS phase of work by the middle of 1994, the natural resource <br />inventory of the selecte.:1 project and the development of a fish management plan need to <br />proceed at the sarne time as the Detailed Feasibility Study. This would begin with scoping <br />studies in February of 1993. Upon completion of both the Detailed Feasibility Study and the <br />resource inventories, preliminary project permit applications could be made to initiate the EIS <br />phase. EIS scoping would be scheduled to begin in January of 1994 and continue with <br />preparation of the statement itself and the associated mitigation plan by the time final design <br />would begin in 1997. Final design related reviews and completion of permitting would occur <br />to the year 2000 when construction could begin. Construction would occur in stages described <br />as follows: <br /> <br />Stage I <br /> <br />Road and Utilities Relocation <br />Development of Material Sources <br />Mobilization/Construction Staging <br /> <br />Stage II <br /> <br />De-watering <br />Abutment/Foundation Preparation <br />Primary Outlet Construction <br /> <br />S-32 <br />