Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J. -~ 'k '".;t. " .f\fl <br />!' r'i ~ ~ !. I Affected Environment & Consequences <br />u..................'t <br /> <br />3-32 <br /> <br />Table 3-16. Average River Flows for Various Life Stages of Brown and Rainbow <br />Trout <br /> <br />Species! Critical time period" Minimum Optimum Average flow during period <br />Life stage flow flow A E-l E-2 E-3 <br />Brown <br />Spawning Oct 15 to Nov 15 300 1,200 938 464 501 542 <br />Incubating Nov 01 to Apr 01 300 1,200 1,266 585 642 704 <br />Hatching Mar 15 to May 15 300 1,200 1,144 837 863 896 <br />Fry May 01 to Jun 01 300 300 1,341 1,155 1,155 1,177 <br />Juvenile Jun 15 to Oct 15 300 300 999 865 871 875 <br />Adult Apr 01 to Sep 30 300 500 1,117 953 962 973 <br /> Oct 01 to Mar 31 300 500 1,183 546 597 652 <br />Rainbow <br />Spawning Apr 01 to Jun 15 300 1.000 1,196 971 984 1,010 <br />Incubating Apr 15 to Jun 15 300 1,000 1,270 1,075 1,079 1,102 <br />Hatching Jun 01 to Jull 300 1,000 1,569 1,343 1,344 1,361 <br />Fry Jun 15 to Jul 15 300 300 1.310 1,187 1,189 1,196 <br />Juvenile Jul15 to Oct 15 300 300 784 674 681 680 <br />Adult Apr 01 to Sep 30 300 500 1,117 953 962 973 <br /> Oct 01 to Mar 31 300 500 1.183 561 611 667 <br /> <br />"Source: Nehring, 1988. <br /> <br />These tables based on average flow indicate water flows are adequate to maintain <br />fisheries. On the negative side, there would be less water during certain summers to <br />dilute flash floods and low flow periods would be more frequent (see Table 3-9). <br /> <br />Reclamation consulted with the FWS on the potential effect of project operations on the <br />endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Of concern since issuance of <br />the FEIS was the newly "occupied" status of the Gunnison River between the Hartland <br />Dam and the Gunnison's confluence with the Uncompahgre River, as well as water <br />quality associated with erosion-related sediment from the Uncompahgre. The FWS <br />issued a "no adverse effect" ruling, with conservation measures recommended (see <br />Section 3.6 for additional detail). High winter velocities may restrict use of the river or <br />expansion of the fishery, <br /> <br />3.7.2.3 Uncompahgre River <br /> <br />Each of the alternatives would decrease the amount of water entering the Uncompahgre <br />Ri ver from the South Canal and increase the amount of water entering the Uncompahgre <br />River from the tailrace. <br /> <br />Trout habitat between the South Canal and the proposed tailrace would be affected by <br />hydropower development. Under the No Action alternative, summer flows on the 2-mile <br /> <br />-~i <br /> <br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project <br /> <br />July 2000 <br /> <br />~_:,\ '0" <br /> <br />,'h...,; <br /> <br />