My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8169a
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8169a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 4:48:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
8169a
Author
Brookshire, D. S., M. McKee and G. Watts.
Title
Draft Economic Analysis of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation in the Colorado River Basin for the Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, Colorado Squawfish, and Bonytail.
USFW Year
1993.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
1. Hydroelectric Impacts <br />Hydroelectric modeling required a cooperative effort among the USFWS, the Bureau of <br />Reclamation, the Western Area Power Authority (Western), and Stone and Webster <br />Consultants, Inc. Utilizing the hydrographs and taking into consideration the alternative <br />depletion frameworks, the Bureau of Reclamation modeled the potential effects of flow <br />requirements for the endangered fishes on monthly hydroelectric generating capacity in the <br />Upper Basin. Western used the data generated by the models to estimate the changes in the <br />amount of marketable power. Finally, Stone and Webster Consultants, Inc. input the data into <br />a model framework that yields the net effects of the change in the power system. <br />2. Recreation Impacts <br />A recreation survey was developed that also relied upon the hydrographs. Outdoor planners <br />in the seven States and a variety of Federal agencies were asked to assess the impacts of <br />potentially modified operating plans on recreational activities. Three versions of the survey <br />were generated to meet the needs of different recreation units along the rivers. These were: <br />(a) units outside critical habitat areas but impacted by flow changes; (b) units including <br />critical habitat areas that may be impacted by flow changes; and, (c) units including critical <br />habitat areas that may not be impacted by flow changes. <br />3. Agricultural Impacts <br />To assess whether current and future planned agricultural depletions could be met with <br />existing water resources in the relevant scenario, existing State agricultural data and the <br />biological flow recommendations were determined. In cases where adequate flows could not <br />be achieved, the purchase of Upper Basin agricultural water rights was assumed. <br />4. Municipal and Industrial Impacts <br />The flow recommendations may, in isolated cases, affect future municipal water acquisitions. <br />However, it was assumed that municipalities would, in fact, acquire the needed water through <br />the acquisition of agricultural water rights. Thus, the impacts appear as foregone agricultural <br />production. <br />I-24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.