Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--. <br /> <br />.- .- <br />~-- <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE 2 . l1\e fact that the pool would not share shortages with other Project users during <br />Jry years would effectively provide use of more available water of a suitable temperature for Ihe downslream <br />fishery. 111e resull would be benetits similar to those under ^Ilernative I, and ill dry years adequate flows could <br />be provided 10 maintain waler temperatures suitable to sustain the fishery through the summer. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE 3 - Implementation of this alternative would negatively affect the water temperature <br />of the downstream trout fishery. While fluctuating the flows would ameliorate some of the harshest conditions <br />found in both summer and wimer, the amount of water necessary to maintain suitable water temperatures during <br />lhe summer of years withoul a spill would not be available. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE 4 (No Action) - This alternative would affect water temperatures during the summer <br />during "dry" years, as detennined by the DPRlFES criteria. In 1990, when a "dry" year was declared and <br />releases were reduced to 20 cfs, water temperacures downstream from the dam reached levels high enough to <br />stress the trout population. The long duration of these high temperatures caused a decline in the trout population <br />over the following year due to higher than nonnal mortality and reduced reproduction. Ice fonnation in winter <br />also may occur at these flows. This may cause a problem to fish populations if streamflow is diverted over the <br />ice shelf and spread to the adjacent floodplain. The water may then cool and freeze outside the channel. This <br />alternative may also have a detrimental effect on the downstream trout fishery during "normal" years, as <br />detennined by the DPR criteria. The interagency biology committee has stated that the minimum flow <br />necessary to sustain the fishery during the summer is 70 cfs. While the negative effects of providing 50 cfs <br />during this period may not appear immediately, the stress caused by wann temperatures and overcrowding may <br />weaken individuals to the point they may not endure normally survivable events which cccur later. <br /> <br />G. WATER SUPPLY <br /> <br />1. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT <br /> <br />PROJECT WATER USERS <br /> <br />The Dolores Project supplies an annual average of 90,900 AF of water for the irrigation of 61,600 acres <br />of land. An annual average of 13,700 AF is supplied to 26,300 ac of supplemental service (previously irrigated) <br />land within the MVIC system (Figure I), 54,300 AF is supplied to 27,800 ac. of full service (previously <br />unirrigated) land in the Dove Creek area and 22,900 AF is supplied to 7,500 ae of full service land on the Ute <br />Mountain Ute Reservation. A guaranteed annual supply of 8,700 AF is provided for municipal and industrial <br />use: 6,200 AF to Cortez, 600 AF to Dove Creek, 600 AF to rural areas of Dolores Counry, 300 AF reserved for <br />use by DWCD, and 1000 AF to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. An annual average of 27,000 AF of water is <br />reserved for fish and wildlife use and has been allocated as follows: 25,400 AF for release to the Dolores River, <br />800 AF for fish and wildlife purposes (Totten Reservoir) within the area under the jurisdiction of DWCD, and <br />800 AF for fish and wildlife purposes within the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. <br /> <br />NON-PROJECf WATER USERS <br /> <br />Water from the Dolores River is used to iITigate approximately 2,300 acres of land in the Dolores Basin <br />above McPhee Reservoir, and transbasin diversions deliver water to iITigate approximately 42,100 acres of land <br />in the San Juan Basin. The major transbasin irrigation divrnions consist of MVIC's diversion of up to 153,400 <br />AF annually from the Delores river for the iITigation of 37,500 acres of land and for stock watering purposes, <br />and Summit lITigation Company's diversion from Lost Canyon to supply iITigation water to approximately 4,600 <br />ac of land. Both are senior to the project. There arc other smaller transbasin water users senior to the Project <br />including municipal, industrial and domestic water rights held by the City of Cortez and Montezuma Water <br />Company. According 10 Colorado Depanment of Waler Resource, figures there are waler rights totaling 3,880 <br />AI' (rounded 10 3,900 AF) senior to the Dolores Project downstream from the McPhee Dam (Beegles, 1994). <br /> <br />33 <br />