Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />IMPACT ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />Alternative 4 - Maximum Water Sales (28,800 ac. ft.) <br /> <br />FISH <br /> <br />Colorado Squawfish <br />Flow depl etion in the Colorado River has been a major factor in the <br />past decline of Colorado squawfish (Holden 1983, Holden and Wick 1982). <br />The Green Mountain Water Sales project would alter the flow of the <br />Colorado River by augmenting the flow at times, and depl eting it at <br />other times. Tables 3 shows the monthly flow depletions with sales for <br />Cameo and Statel ine for wet, dry and average years. During the average <br />year, flow reductions during late fall and winter are generally 20-35 <br />cfs, or about a 1-2 percent change at Cameo. Flow augmentation of 5-10 <br />cfs would occur in May, June, August and September. July shows a 53 cfs <br />reduction in flow, which would only be a 1.5 percent change. During the <br />dry year (1978), flows would be altered by 2-4 percent, with the largest <br />depletion (132 cfs) occurring in July. These small depletions by them- <br />selves would not affect Colorado squawfish, even though they would <br />sl ight1y decrease flows all the way downstream to Lake Powell. The <br />exception to this would be the July 132 cfs withdrawal during the dry <br />year. This withdrawal would affect the 15-mi1e reach of the river just <br />above the Gunnison River which is presently nearly dry during low flow <br />periods. The Green Mountain depletions would increase the intensity and <br />duration of dryness in this 15-mile reach. Since that would only occur <br />every 20-30 years, the squawfish population would probably not be <br />significantly affected. <br /> <br />- 35 - <br />