WSPP282 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00871.5 Fish and Wildlife Comments peak flows, the Service, in cooperation with the Recovery Program, will determine if the proposal satisfies the requirements ofthe PBOo Although the Service can provide technical assistance to the Executive Committee, it would be inappropriate for the Service to specify which alternative(s) should be selected for detailed analysiso . Absent specific guidance from the study, I offer some suggestions for completing the CFOPS study process and developing an adaptive-management process to implement the best features of selected alternatives. The following suggestions should be considered only as the beginning of a negotiation process. EO'" II 1) The Phase 2 Report should be finalized by the consultant, incorporating appropriate comments from the Executive Committee and the Recovery Program Water Acquisition Committee. 2) The Executive Committee is the appropriate forum for an interdisciplinary review of the study's results and subsequent identification and formulation of an augmentation proposal. The Committee should follow an adaptive-management process similar to the current coordinated reservoir operations (CROS) process to monitor river flows and coordinate reservoir releases to augment flows. Using this model, some combination of the "Share the Pain"/Modified "Share the Pain" and "Insurance Pool" alternatives appear to provide the best solutions to meet short-term objectives. However, no reasonable alternative should be eliminated before the Committee has adequately assessed its individual merits and evaluated it against other options. For example, the proposal set forth by the Ray Tenney on behalf of the west slope water users appears to have merit and should be considered by the Executive Committee. 3) The Executive Committee should begin discussions and hold several work sessions to identify the most feasible alternatives or portions ofthese alternatives and use them as sideboards for an adaptive-management process. Once identified, an agreement should be negotiated among affected parties to implement the alternative(s) identified. 4) Any new projects (including all feasibility studies, engineering design and construction) would be funded outside the Recovery Program, similar to that which East Slope water users are carrying out on Sulfur Gulch Reservoir. 5) The Service recognizes that providing 20,000 acre-feet of water for peak augmentation will be difficult and will take a great deal of cooperation and trust, which has been demonstrated so far in the existing CROS and late summer flow augmentation efforts undertaken by the Recovery Program. We have all learned hard lessons during the current drought, which were expressed at the last Executive Committee meeting. A major concern that was not addressed in the Phase 2 Report is a situation where an above -average water year occurs after a period of drought. A situation could occur where un- augmented flows in the target range of 12,900 to 26,000 cfs would trigger peak-flow augmentation. However, reservoir operators would be reluctant to bypass inflow because reservoir levels are low due to the preceding drought. I believe that the Service would P:\Data\GEN\CWCB\19665\Repon Phase 2\Technical Memorandum No. 12\Appendix B.doc 23