My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8089
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8089
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 3:24:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8089
Author
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Title
Final Environmental Assessment Gunnison River Activities, Passageway Around the Redlands Diversion Dam and Interim Agreement to Provide Water for Endangered Fish.
USFW Year
1995.
USFW - Doc Type
Grand Junction, Colorado.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
interim agreement alternatives would have no effect on reservoir levels when supplies of water <br />are adequate. In a dry year such as 1990, Alternatives A and B would reduce the reservoir <br />content compared to No Action and Alternative C, as illustrated by the bar graph in Figure 6. <br />The reduction in storage levels is caused by the provision of flows to water users and the fish <br />under Alternatives A and B. In very dry years such as 1977, large drawdowns occur under all <br />alternatives, including No Action. <br />Use of the 148,000 acre-feet of storage in Blue Mesa Reservoir reserved for endangered fish <br />would ensure that water released under the interim agreement for endangered fish would not be <br />removed from other possible uses. <br />River Administration -- Impacts of the agreement alternatives on water users are seen through <br />calls for river administration being placed by senior water rights, which result in curtailment of <br />use by upstream junior rights. Table 5 summarizes the number of months shortages or river <br />administration (calls) would occur under the alternatives. It predicts that implementation of <br />Alternatives A or B would succeed in protecting water users in the basin from calls to levels <br />similar to those of No Action conditions. <br />Table 5 <br />Comparison of River Administration Occurrences <br /> Number of Months River Percentage of Months River <br />Alternative Administration Occurs in a Administration Occurs ' <br /> 22-year Period ' <br />No Action <br />January - December 13 5% <br />July - October 3 3% <br />A and B <br />January - December 12 5% <br />July - October 4 5% <br />C <br />January - December 23 9% <br />July - October 13 15% <br />' Based on the_22:year.period of study. as shown. in. Appendix E. <br />In summary, providing for passage and maintaining habitat for endangered fish would cause <br />changes in river flows, water use, storage, and river administration when water shortages occur. <br />The impacts do not differ between Alternatives A and B. Releasing water stored in Blue Mesa <br />Reservoir would cause storage levels to decrease under dry year conditions such as occurred in <br />25
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.