WSPC12679 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. I j,. - ~.,;,,- I J e 002170 e PREFACE In January 1995, a Draft Environmental Assessment addressing the potential effects of a proposal to modify the operation of McPhee Reservoir and to acquire additional water for downstream fish and wildlife purposes was distnbuted for public review and comment. 'Ibis assessment evaluated the effects of four alternatives. Numerous comments were received from state and federa.lagencies, public and private entities, and individuals, Since that time, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has considered the comments received and continued to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the various alternatives. 1brough this process, Reclamation has refined the proposed action and determined that some of the alternatives considered are either not desirable or not feasible for implementation. Reclamation has identified a provider for 3,900 acre-feet (AF) of the additional water required for implementation of the proposed action and secured funding for the acquisition of this water. This document addresses the effects of only two alternatives, the proposed action and no action. Two alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) evaluated in the original Draft Environmental Assessment have been eliminated from consideration. Alternative 2 was similar to the proposed action except the pool of storage established in McPhee Reservoir for dO\lo.'DStream fish and wildlife purposes did not share shortages with other project water users. This alternative was eliminated because it would cause unacceptable adverse impacts to the other project water users during drought periods. Alternative 3 was similar to the proposed action except the volume of additional water acquired was limited to 3,900 AF resulting in a total pool of water established in McPhee Reservoir for downstream fish and wildlife purposes of 33,200 AF including the water for senior downstream water rights. This alternative was eliminated because it would not provide the desired benefits to the downstream cold water fishery. Since lanWiI)', 1995, Reclamation has been involved in negotiations with three pr1ma."')' Dolores Projec~ comra=ru.a} beneficiaries, Dolores Water Conservancy District (DWCD), Montezuma Valley h'rigation Company (MVIC) and the Ule Mountain Ute Tnbe, concerning completion of the Project. Tnese negotiations have included the acquisiuoD of water for dO\lo.'DStream fish and wildlife jx1rposes in addition to completion of construction of work items. With limited funding, Reclamation has negotia.ted for the completion of work items through cooperative agreements and grams with each entity as opposed to traditional Reciamation construction methods. Tne cost saving from this approach will be used for- the acquisition of additional water. Grants andio:: agreements have been approved by MYIC, DWCD and tne Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The DWCD agreements include the acquisition of :;,900 N of water for aO\lo.'DStream purposes upon payment and toe Ute Mountain Ute Tribe agreement includes the lease of 3.300 AF of water for up to 5 years. A draft of this document was distributed for public review in JanWiI)', 1996. Numerous comments were receiveC and the draft was modified as appropriate to incorporate the comments. The major areas of concern were the cost sharing requirement for pennanent acquisition of the 3.300 AF portion of the additional water for dO'WllStrean:: fish and wildlife purposes and possible adverse affect to white water boating opportunities. The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Trout Unlimited were opposed to the cost sharing requirement. Tilese entities expressed concern that this requirement may impede the acquisition of water and preferred that Reclamation fully fund the acquisition. However, these entities preferred the proposed action to the no action alternative and the cost sharing requirement remains as part of the proposed action. Tile white water boating interests were concerned that acquisition of the additional water for downstream fish and wildlife purposes may adversely affect white water boating opportunities. It was determined that boating opportunities under full Project development would not be significantly affected by implementation of the proposed action as compared to the no action alternative.