Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(}378 <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />2.18 <br /> <br />Month <br /> <br />Target Reservoir Volume (acre-feet) <br /> <br />october <br />No vember <br />December <br />January <br />February <br />March <br />April <br /> <br />100,000 <br />92,500 <br />85,000 <br />77,500 <br />70,000 <br />62,500 <br />55,000 <br /> <br />The maximum firm yield of the reservoir is not' affected by use of this opera- <br /> <br /> <br />tion rule. The magnitude of inf19ws which exceed the reservoir capacity in <br /> <br /> <br />the spring and summer decline when the rule is' in effect. Winter flows also <br /> <br />improve using the rule. <br /> <br /> <br />The present operation of Ruedi Reservoir lnciudes consideration of snow <br /> <br /> <br />course measurements which allow the Bureau to predict approximately spring <br /> <br /> <br />runoff volumes. Use of this information allows reservoir operations to anti- <br /> <br /> <br />cipate the reservoir level necessary to provide adequate flood control. The <br /> <br /> <br />operation rule used for mitigation is simplifi~din that this predictive <br /> <br />information could not be included. The operation rule is characteristic of <br /> <br /> <br />expected operations. In dry or wet years, actual early summer flows could <br /> <br /> <br />vary compared to the flows generated with the pperation rule. The generated <br /> <br />flows show abrupt changes in monthly flows, especially when the reservoir <br /> <br /> <br />fills and the excess flow is spilled to the river. In actual operation, this <br /> <br />condition would be anticipated and the excess ,flow could be released in anti-' <br /> <br /> <br />cipation of spills. In general, the operatio~ rule will be conservative in <br /> <br />, <br />assessing impact since the actual operation w~ll be able to anticipate and <br /> <br /> <br />absorb extreme variations in,reservoir inf1ow~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />2.4 Summary of Impacts for Alternatives Considered in Detail <br /> <br /> <br />The following tables summarize the iIt'pac1js and issues associated with the <br /> <br /> <br />alternatives. Table 2.1 contains both quanti~ative and qualitative data <br /> <br />derived from the text in Chapter IV, Environm~nta1 Consequences, and from <br />i <br /> <br />appendix material. Table 2.2 presents a qua1~tative assessment of whether and <br /> <br /> <br />how well the public issues and concerns are addressed by the alternatives. <br /> <br /> <br />The various environmental effects of the ,different alternatives are due <br /> <br />to differences in the amount of water sold from Ruedi, and differences in the <br /> <br />i <br />timing of the release of water from the reser~oir. These differences were <br /> <br />illustrated in Figures 2.1 through 2.9. <br /> <br />Alternatives 2 and 3 would produce <br />! <br />