1006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'thi s area, as would other cumul ative upstream depl etions. Projects listed in Table 4 below Ridges Subdivision would all affect this reach. Therefore, monthly depletions in this reach would range from 187.2 cfs in September to 957 cfs in June based on the 20-year average (Tab1 e 4). Flows at the Cameo gage, which is above this section and also above the major Grand Valley diversions, are shown in Table 5. A comparison of the last line in Table 4, with Cameo monthly flows (Table 5), indicates depletions of from 8 percent in April, July and September, to 18 percent in January. Percent depletions in the 15-mile reach would be expected to be considerably higher than at Cameo due to the diversions occurring between these two locations. Therefore, cumu1 ative dep1 etions from the projects used in Table 4 may reduce the flow in the IS-mile reach by 20-50 percent on the average, and would probably increase the likelihood of completely drying the stream. Therefore, even though the Green Mountain Water Sales project is relatively small in relation to many other depletions, it still contri- butes to the cumulative impact and, therefore, may affect Colorado squawfish. The cumu1 ative depl etion of these 15 projects, p1 us other p1 anned projects, may also alter temperature and sediment transport mechanisms, especially during low flow periods, because rather large portions of the flow may be depl eted. Humpback Chub Operation of the Green Mountain Water Sales by itsel f would not affect humpback chub for the same reasons as discussed for Colorado squawfi sh. Known popul ations are too far downstream to be d irect1 y affected and the depl etion is too small to affect humpback chub by itself. - 40 -