Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 000923 <br /> <br />November 4, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />. Big picture plots of the differences listed in Exhibits 2 and 3 were not included in the memo because <br />the database does nol hold localion information for some of the instream flow sites. It was decided <br />lhat withom more complete location data, the plot was misleading. <br /> <br />. The model enhancement had no impacl to any of the diversion supplies for bolh scenarios. The <br />model enhancement resulted in the instream flow supplies being the same as Phase II or slightly less <br />than the Phase II resuIls for both scenarios. (Structure 582404 is special because its demand was <br />changed in the enhanced model. See Special Case above.) We attribute the differences to lhe facl <br />that in the enhanced model, the instream flow righl in the vicinity of a diversion slruclure does not <br />have access to return flows from lhat diversion. This result is consistenl with resulls in the White <br />River basin. <br /> <br />Comments and concerns <br /> <br />See the discussion Special Case above. The instream flow right was handled for the purpose of this <br />subtask in a way that would most closely replicate what was done in the Phase II model. The mosl <br />correct implementation would have two instream flow structures in the model, one representing the <br />reach from Stillwater Reservoir 10 Yamcolo Reservoir, and the second representing Yamcolo Reservoir <br />10 Phillips Creek_ The correction was considered out of scope at lhis lime but may be desirable when <br />improvements to the model are undertaken in the future. <br /> <br />DN-C72-101-02/ <br /> <br />TASK30LDOC <br />