WSPC126 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'~;.:'~~~;K':~/' ~1-..;.a:_.-.:I.:t,1 , '0.:7- ~". <'1 ',1 ';~< " # I OOll31.4 tit e efficient daiIytime step model. 4." Are the Alternatives Included In Prf'liminvy Biololical Opinion out of Bounds? The following altematives were included in the Preliminary Biological Opinion: · Grand Valley Water Management components which include a reduction in inigaation demand under the Gland Valley Project and an operational bypass of 9.000 acre-feeT/year at the OVP headgate. · GVP power demand with a junior priority during summer months. (This is interpreted to mean that lire GJIP would not call during the summer months.) · Orchard Mesa Check operated to only benefit the Grand Valley systems (This is interpreted to mean that the Orchard Mesa Check would be operated to reduce the amounl of Green Mountain Water required to make replacement and the check would not be operated to benefit upstream demands.) · IRJp smplus deliveries to the 15-miJe reach. (This is interpreted to mean a surplus account would be established in Green MounTain Reservoir, and ifit was determined that there would be su'P1us water not needed to maintain historic users in priority, this water could he hooked over to the sul"plus account where it could he used for the fish.) · Wolford Mountain Reservoir releases from the 6000 acft fish pool to the lS.mile reach · Rnedi Reservoir releases from storage accounts of 26.850 acft (available ever)" year) and S.ooO acft (available 4 out of Shears to the lS-mile reach. · Priorit). ofuse ofvarious reservoir storage accounts in deliveries to the IS-mile reach: 1. Ruedi S.ooO acft pool 2. Ruedi 26,8S0 acft pool 3. Wolford MounWn 6000 acft pool 4. Green MOwrtain HUP Surplus account. Are these a1tcmatives out of bounds for us and cannot be :further considered? Or can we include these to see ifwe 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 Hem). Maddux to Randy Seaholm. Febnwy 2, 1999) that: ";'...most RlPRAP items have been modeled by CWCB except for the 10,825 acre.feet of pennanent water and cumm .reservoir operations. We need to be sure that the 20.000 acre-feet and the water provided under the cwnm coordinated resavoir operations are DOt the same water." I would interpret this to mean )1::5. 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 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 reconunendaIions in the lS""IIliIe reach should be considered." (Does this mean that all