Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:"!'I~ r~o <br />OJ ,-'..:)... <br />Affected Environment & Consequences <br /> <br />3-8 <br /> <br />i-,I- <br />'1 <br /> <br />Table 3-8. Average Flow in Uncompahgre River at Delta (cfs) <br /> <br /> Alternative <br />Month A E-l E-2 E.3 <br />Jan 172 930 874 811 <br />Feb 160 864 813 755 <br />Mar 37 638 591 534 <br />Apr 201 502 470 432 <br />May 358 551 551 528 <br />Jun 323 585 585 565 <br />Jul 268 413 413 405 <br />Aug 234 272 272 272 <br />Sep 323 482 481 473 <br />Oct 360 698 682 653 <br />Nov 160 758 702 644 <br />Dec 179 921 848 775 <br />Annual 231 633 606 570 <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br />'); <br /> <br />The principal impact of the proposed Project is to decrease the amount of flow in the <br />Uncompahgre River upstream of Montrose while substantiaJly increasing the amount of <br />flow in the river downstream of Montrose. The majority of the flow increases occurs <br />during the winter and spring months. During the summer and fall months, the proposed <br />Project would increase Uncompahgre River flows but by a lesser percentage due to the <br />presence of irrigation flows. <br /> <br />The proposed Project would decrease the amount of water entering the Black Canyon of <br />the Gunnison downstream from the Gunnison Tunnel. Table 3-9 presents the mean <br />monthly flows entering the Black Canyon for the No Action and with Project alternatives. <br />It should be noted that the impact shown in Table 3-9 is substantiaJly less than the impact <br />that would have occurred should a larger project have been developed, as was considered <br />in the PElS, The discharges shown in Table 3-9 for Alternatives E-2 and E-3 would have <br />fewer impacts to Gunnison River resources than those reported in the PElS. <br /> <br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project <br /> <br />July 2000 <br /> <br />'4' <br />, <br /> <br />'~H <br /> <br />" . ~"",' ~,,,. <br /> <br />I :al <br /> <br />~ ,"_>-,;;:.-,~il--1: ~_,,, <br />