Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002479 <br /> <br />Structural alternatives <br /> <br />Single-source options <br /> <br />Alternative 4: This altemative relies entirely on Steamboat Lake for the full 7,000-AF augmentation <br />requirement. No enlargement of the reservoir would be nec.essary. The volume would be taken <br />from the existing 3,300-AF instream flow pool, plus an additional 3,700 AF to be leased from Parks <br />out of its existing I 8,000-AF recreation pool. Current priorities were used for modeling. <br /> <br />Alternative 5: This alternative relies exclusively on Elkhead Reservoir for 7,000 AF of <br />augmentation. It involves a 3,700-AF enlargement of the reservoir with the balance (3,300 AF) to <br />be derived via an exchange with Steamboat Lake. Under this exchange, 3,300 AF would be <br />reallocated from the 8,31 O-AF industrial pool to a fish augmentation pool at Elkhead in exchange <br />for reallocating a like volume from the instream flow pool in Steamboat Lake for industrial <br />purposes. This reallocation would reduce the industrial pool in Elkhead to Reservoir 5,010 AF and <br />increase the industrial pool in Steamboat Lake to 8,300 AF. Because transit losses from Steamboat <br />are likely to be greater than from Elkhead, the owner of industrial storage would be compensated <br />for the difference in losses. For modeling purposes, the Steamboat exchange would retain its <br />priority, and the enlargement ofElkhead would be assigned a new priority, junior to all current water <br />rights but senior to all future water rights. <br /> <br />Alternative 6: This alternative involves a 7,000-AF enlargement ofElkhead Reservoir to meet the <br />instream flow requirement. This pool would be assigned a new priority, junior to all current water <br />rights but senior to all future water rights. <br /> <br />Alternative 7: This alternative would assign the entire 7,000 AF of augmentation to Stagecoach <br />Reservoir. However, no reservoir enlargement would be necessary. Under this alternative, 3,300 <br />AF would be exchanged between the Steamboat instream flow pool and the Stagecoach industrial <br />pool. In addition, 3,700 AF would be leased from Tri-State's industrial pool in Stagecoach. These <br />pools would retain their respective priorities for modeling purposes. <br /> <br />Muliple-source options <br /> <br />Alternative 8: Under this alternative, the Recovery Program would draw water first from Steamboat <br />Lake, up to 2,000 AF from the existing pool adjudicated for instream use. When the total volume <br />of releases from Steamboat Lake reaches 2,000 AF, the Recovery Program would begin drawing <br />water from a 3,700-AF pool in Elkhead Reservoir created by an enlargement of the reservoir. This <br />pool would be assigned a new priority, junior to all current water rights but senior to all future water <br />rights. Once this pool is exhausted, the Recovery Program would return to Steamboat Lake to <br />release the 1,300-AF balance of the adjudicated instream flow pool. <br /> <br />Alternative 9: This altemative is identical to Alternative 8, except that it requires a 3,700-AF <br />enlargement of Stagecoach Reservoir, rather than Elkhead. This pool would be assigned a new <br />priority, junior to all current water rights but senior to all future water rights. <br /> <br />Alternative 10: Like Alternatives 8 and 9, this altemative first releases up to 2,000 AF from <br />Steamboat Lake. However, the balance of releases would be made from a 5,000-AF enlargement <br />ofElkbead Reservoir. This pool would be assigned a new priority, junior to all current water rights <br />but senior to all future water rights. <br /> <br />Management Plan for Endangered Fishes in the Yampa River Basin <br /> <br />46 <br />