Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Executive Summary <br />DEIS - Navajo Reservoir Operations <br /> <br />S-11 <br /> <br /> <br />The r.1ngc of tlltemuti7".es developed was fOliHulat.::d and j{ll:.lcp~lIJellily evaiudteu utiin~ <br />information from the following: <br /> <br />o Authorized purposes of the Navajo Unit <br /> <br />o Goals of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (SJRBRlP) <br /> <br />o The Flow Recommendations for the San Juan River (Flow Recommendations) (Holden, <br />1999) <br /> <br />o Public scoping meetings and informal public contacts <br /> <br />o Coordination with cooperating agencies and interagency consultations <br /> <br />o Flood control procedures for Navajo Dam established with the Corps of Engineers <br />(Corps) to provide flood protection for areas along the San Juan River from the <br />dam to Farmington, New Mexico <br /> <br />o Authorized and potential American Indian (Indian) and non-Indian water uses, <br />including those pursuant to Indian water rights and Federal trust responsibilities <br />to Tribes and Tribal nations, water contracts with the Secretary of the Interior for <br />delivery of the Navajo Reservoir water supply, and compact apportionments <br /> <br />o Applicable water rights, laws, treaties, interstate compacts, court decrees, Indian <br />trust responsibilities, and various rules, regulations, policies, and directives <br /> <br />Also taken into account in formulating the alternatives were such issues as water user <br />concerns that high releases could wash out existing water diversion structures, while low <br />releases might make it difficult to divert water. Other concerns centered on water quality, <br />erosion, and minimizing adverse impacts of alternative dam operations on fish and wildlife, <br />recreation, and hydropower generation benefits. A summary of the alternatives and the <br />evaluation process is shown in table 5-2. <br /> <br />Alternatives Considered but Eliminated <br /> <br />During the alternatives formulation and evaluation process, some of the alternatives were <br />found to have serious flaws either in meeting the project purpose and need or in technical! <br />physical constraints. Accordingly, they were eliminated from further consideration and <br />were not carried over for full evaluation. <br /> <br />00577 <br />