WSPC126 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

000324 , e e 5,000 acft (available 4 out of 5)years to the 15-mile reach. · 10,825 acre-feet Agreement water (5412.5 acre-feet from Williams Fork Reservoir and 5412.5 from Wolford Mountain Reservoir). · Priority of use of various reservoir storage accounts in deliveries to the 15-mile reach: 1. Ruedi 5,000 acft pool 2. Ruedi 26,650 acft pool 3. Wolford Mountain 6000 acft pool 4. Green Mountain HUP Surplus account. Are these alternatives out of bounds for us and cannot be further considered? Or can we include these to see if we can wring more water out of each of these? In response to a question from Randy Seaholm concerning this matter, the Service responded (memo from Henry Maddux to Randy Seaholm, February 2, 1999) that: "...most RIPRAP items have been modeled by CWCB except for the 10,825 acre-feet of permanent water and current reservoir operations. We need to be sure that the 20,000 acre-feet and the water provided under the current coordinated reservoir operations are not the same water." I would interpret this to mean yes, we can seek to wring additional water out of the same project, if this wringing does not reduce the amount of water that results from a RIPRAP project COMMENTS: 1. General consensus from the meeting was that we should not treat the water yield numbers in the Biological Opinion as hard numbers. 2. General consensus that if we take a discrete action that produces more water, we could count this water. For example, if the GVP puts in six check structures in the canal and if we added two more, then we could count the yield from these two additional structures. 5. Measurement. The following is a preliminary interpretation of the Service's position on this important matter (based on Henry Maddux to Randy Seaholm memo of February 2, 1999): · Any type flow year will benefit from augmentation. "Therefore all peak flow recommendations in the 15-mile reach should be considered." (Does this mean that all augmentation of peak flows in the 15-mile reach should be considered for counting toward delivery of the 20K?) · Water moved from a period of excess to a period of shortage should be counted towards the 20K. · Water moved from the winter to spring would count in delivery of the 20K on an average annual basis. · Water delivered in excess of the flow recommendations would not count. (Does this mean that water delivered in excess of the 20K in any year will not count? Or, that water delivered in excess of some specific flow recommendations (e.g. water in excess of 5000 cfs during the first week of April would not count?) · Use April-July targets from page 8, Appendix D, Preliminary Biological Opinion.