Laserfiche WebLink
<br />regional demands. The depletion supplied by Lemon Reservoir to the uses ranges from zero to 1,500 afY, <br />with an average annual depletion of approximately 500 af. More detailed water operation modeling <br />studies would need to be completed to verifY the yield from enlarging Lemon Reservoir. <br /> <br />A water acquisition component of Refined Alternative 6 was developed that would be commensurate <br />with the non-structural component of Refined Alternative 4 for the purchase of agricultural lands to <br />obtain 13,000 afY depletions. Under this component the water would be left on the land. A summary of <br />the lands purchased under this component are as foIlows: <br /> <br />o Animas and Florida River Basins - Acreage sufficient to provide a firm yield depletion of <br />6,500 af would be purchased in the Animas and Florida River Basins as an equivalent to the non- <br />structural component of Refmed Alternative 4. The water would remain on the land as described <br />in Ref'med Alternative 4. With a depletion factor of 1.4 af per acre, 4,643 acres would be <br />required. <br /> <br />o McElmo Creek Basin (Montezuma County) - Approximately 4,062 acres, an amount sufficient to <br />provide an annual firm yield depletion of 6,500 af, would be purchased in the Montezuma <br />Valley, either within the Montezuma Valley Company or elsewhere in the Dolores Project <br />service area as an equivalent to the non-structural component of Refined Alternative 4. The <br />water would remain on the land. <br /> <br />SEIS Conclusions and Recommendations <br /> <br />The initial 10 alternatives, additional structural and non-structural components, and Refined Alternatives <br />4 and 6 were thoroughly evaluated in the SEIS. The analysis is included in Chapters, Volume 1 of the <br />FSEIS for the full range of alternatives. Additional analysis for Refined Alternatives 4 and 6 is included <br />in Chapters 3 and 4 of this FSEIS, Volume I. In Chapter 5, additional analysis to test the ability of the <br />refined alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the project. <br /> <br />Project alternatives would affect resources such as streamflows, fish and wildlife, vegetation and <br />wetlands, cultural resources, and recreation as described in Chapter 3. Chapters 3 and 5 describe <br />mitigation measures and environmental commitments to reduce these impacts. <br /> <br />The evaluation of several factors reveals that implementation ofRefmed Alternative 6 presents a number <br />of problems: <br /> <br />o It would impose significant risks on the ability of the project to provide an assured water supply <br />commensurate with the water rights established in the settlernent; <br /> <br />o The wholesale purchase of land and transfer of water may be opposed by the local community, <br />thereby impacting completion of the settlement; <br /> <br />o It would require an extended and uncertain time frame to secure the settlement benefits, which <br />would affect the ability to finalize the settlement; and <br /> <br />o It would substantially impact Indian trust water rights by using the remaining capacity of the <br />Navajo Reservoir, a facility designed to supply these demands, thus creating a likely conflict <br />with the Navajo Nation and Jicarilla Apache Tribe. <br /> <br />On the basis of this overall evaluation, it was determined that Refined Alternative 4 would best meet the <br />ALP Project purpose and need. Accordingly, Refined Alternative 4 was designated as Reclamation's <br />Preferred Alternative. <br /> <br />ES-I0 <br />