9582 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 Volume III - Comments and Responses FEIS - Navajo Reservoir Operations . would include losses of revenue from crops and jobs-was determined based on long-term impacts resulting from the nonrealization of full project development. It is recognized in the FEIS that this would lead to the problems identified in the comment. - Comments received suggested that the 500-cfs minimum release from Navajo Dam should be maintained. This would not be possible if Flow Recommendations and Navajo Unit 0 authorized purposes are to be met and maintained; thus, the 50015000 Alternative was not selected as the Preferred Alternative. It is recognized in the EIS that a minimum release of - 500 cfs would better support the existing trout fishery and certain other resources as compared to the Preferred Alternative. However, Reclamation believes that the Flow Recommendations contain a certain amount of flexibility in dam releases that can be used to reduce impacts projected under the Preferred Alternative. See General Comment No. 11 for • information on flexibility. e General Comment 4: Little, if any, difference appears to exist between the 250/5000 and the 250 Variable/5000 Alternatives and the 500/5000 and No Action Alternatives. Response: Under the 250 Variable/5000 Alternative, future flows could be above 250 cfs more frequently than under the 250/5000 Alternative, even after full development occurred, in an effort to minimize impacts to downstream water users (i.e., minimum releases of 300, 350, 400, 450 cfs, etc., could be maintained). The 250/5000 Alternative meets Flow Recommendations; however, Flow Recommendations in the lower reaches of the San Juan River could not be met consistently under the 250 Variable/5000 Alternative, making that alternative not feasible. The No Action Alternative is defined as representing, as nearly as possible, the historic operation of the dam after initial filling in 1973 until the beginning of test releases in 1991. Under this alternative, Navajo Dam and Reservoir would be operated with minimum releases of at least 500 cfs and maximum controlled releases up to about 5,000 cfs. There would be no allowances made for significant spring peak releases or spike releases at other times of the year. The operation goals between 1973 and 1991 were to store as much water in the reservoir as possible and to maintain uniform flows downstream from the dam. This is depicted in figure II-3 of the FEIS. Figure II-1 also illustrates the differences in release patterns between these alternatives. Consequently, this alternative does not represent a continuation of existing conditions. Unlike the No Action Alternative, the 500/5000 Alternative does provide for higher spring peak releases and spike releases in an effort to mimic pre-dam riverflows and to comply with the ESA. Consequently, depletions under this alternative are greater than those realized under the No Action Alternative and represent another distinction between alternatives. For example, table H-1 in the FEIS shows the differences between annual depletions for these alternatives in the Basin. Total New Mexico depletions for the