Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />,...... <br />-.J <br />w::.. 9. <br />UI <br /> <br />Reach <br /> <br />Activities <br /> <br />White R. below Meeker, CO Piceance- <br />Yellow Cks. reach <br /> <br />Canoeing and kayaking; <br />rowing, rafting, and drift- <br />ing; and fishing while wading <br /> <br />Fishing while wading; low- <br />power and non-power boat <br />fishing; drifting. Small <br />amount of use. <br /> <br />10. <br /> <br />San Juan R. in vicinity of Farmington, <br />NM <br /> <br />11. <br /> <br />. <br />Colorado R. in vicinity of CO/UT <br />State line <br /> <br />Canoeing and kayaking; <br />rowing, rafting, and drifting; <br />and low-power boating. <br /> <br />Canoeing and kayaking; rowing, <br />rafting, and drifting, and <br />low-power boating. <br /> <br />12. <br /> <br />Green R. below Green R. UT, through <br />whi tewater <br /> <br />G. Sources and Kinds of Physical Data Used in Addition to Cross-sections <br /> <br />. 1. Historic Flow Records - USGS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The implementation of the CIFSG i nstream flow methodology in the <br />t/CR8 <br />~ section 13(a) ~ssessment (along with a similar undertaking in <br />Mi""50ijI'L <br />the Upper ~v,u;t..,..j River Basin), was a "first". As indicated in <br /> <br />attachment 0, not even all the response curves for which data were <br /> <br />available had been drafted when the assessment was initiated. There <br /> <br />was an obvious need to check the operation of the CIFSG model before <br /> <br /> <br />the time actually came to use it in appraising impacts. A realistic <br /> <br /> <br />check could be made, using available hydrologic data to appraise <br /> <br /> <br />present conditions by means of the methodology model and comparing <br /> <br /> <br />results with expert biological knowledge. <br /> <br />33 <br />