Laserfiche WebLink
• ~ . 11 <br />PART VI. Generalized Mitigation Formula <br />It should be evident from the previous discussions that the Service must <br />develop standard mitigation formulas for the Upper Colorado River Basin, <br />if this procedure is to have any chance of success. The following pro- <br />posals should be considered: <br />a. Have one formula for the main stem Colorado River and another <br />for the Green River, Select one gage in each river system as <br />a "key". This will minimize confusion and inconsistency. <br />Also, since the mitigation formula deals with the impact of a <br />project on a broad basin-wide conservation (recovery) effort, <br />it is doubtful that moving the reference gages around would <br />lend any more credibility to the concept. <br />b. The recommended "key" or reference gages are the Colorado River <br />at Cisco, Utah, gage for main stem Colorado River projects and <br />the gage at Green River, Utah, for Green River projects. Both <br />gages are far enough downstream in their respective basins that <br />they would be below., almost any proposed project. both gages <br />also have long periods of record, and have had predevelopment <br />flows computed by WPRS. <br />c. For Main Stem Colorado River Projects - Use Cisco Ga e <br />(1) Predevelopment Flows = 6,758,400 acre-feet per year, obtained <br />from WPRS computer studies for the years 1906-197$. <br />(2) To get an idea of the "wetness" of the hydrologic cycle for <br />various time periods, the average predevelopment flows at <br />