Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />The operation study model did not simulate managed water releases (as <br />the dam is really operated) but allowed the reservoir to fill and spill <br />in an uncontrolled manner. This resulted in the model showing shorter <br />spill periods with higher flows than actually happens. As a result, the <br />operation study did not simulate releases of 78 cfs during "wet" years, <br />but released 50 cfs and assumed the extra water needed for.the higher <br />flows would be offset by the longer periods of managed spills (longer <br />periods when no project water was required to be released downstream) . <br />This assumption was not valid (see page 31, Appendix B, 1977 FES) and <br />resulted in a discrepancy of 3,900 AF (25,400 AF vs. 29,300 AF) in the <br />volume of water needed to satisfy the DPR/FES release criteria. <br /> <br />D. SCOPE OF PROPOSAL <br /> <br />The scope of this proposed action is limited to two proposals: (1) the <br />proposal to modify the operation of McPhee Reservoir for release of <br />water for fish and wildlife purposes and (2) acquisition of additional <br />water for release to the Dolores River to benefit fish and wildlife <br />resources. <br /> <br />Reclamation has developed and evaluated a range of reasonable <br />alternatives to the proposed action. The most reasonable ones presented <br />below. <br /> <br />B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL <br /> <br />Reclamation developed and evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives <br />to the proposed action. Reclamation applied the following criteria <br />early in the alternative consideration process to determine if an <br />alternative merited detailed study: <br /> <br />. Implementation of an alternative would not harm the Project water <br />users, primarily as demonstrated through maintenance of the future <br />available water supply for agricultural and municipal and <br />industrial water use. <br />. Additional water for a fish and wildlife managed pool would be <br />acquired from willing seller(s}. <br />. The alternative would be consistent with federal and state laws <br />and the Project repayment, water service, and salinity contracts. <br /> <br />The alternatives considered in detail are described first. They are <br />followed by a brief description of other alternatives that were <br />considered, along with a brief discussion as to why each was eliminated <br />from further consideration at this time. <br /> <br />l. ALTERNATIVE 1: <br /> <br />THE PROPOSED ACTION- <br /> <br />a) MODIFY RESERVOIR OPERATION <br />b) ACQUIRE AT LEAST 7,200 AF ADDITIONAL WATER FOR <br />MANAGED POOL <br />c) FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGED POOL WATER YEAR CHANGED <br />d) MANAGED POOL NOT COUNTED AGAINST DURING SPILLS <br /> <br />a) Modify the operation of McPhee Reservoir - Reclamation proposes to <br />modify the operation of McPhee Reservoir by changing. from the 1977 <br />DPR/FES water release criteria of 78, 50, or 20 cfs !Q a managed pool of <br />water available for downstream release for fish and wildlife purposes. <br />An interagency team of biologists would provide direction on use of the <br />pool to provide seasonally fluctuating downstream releases for <br />conservation df downstream fish and wildlife resources. The CDOW would <br /> <br />4 <br />