Laserfiche WebLink
<br />;.~- <br /> <br />horseback riding which is related to lishing. 111e reduction in tlows to 20 cis associated wilhthis alternative <br />would kssen the scenic quality o( the river corridor. Md may negatively a(fect the aClivities o( photography and <br />enjoyment o( nature. <br /> <br />ALL ALTERNATIVES - Implemetation of allY oC the alternatives would provide more carryover <br />storage during nonnal Md wet years: this would increase the \'olume of water spilled in successive years. <br />However. the average volume of additional water available in a. given year (about 1000 AF) is considered too <br />small 10 significMtly affect the flows uscable by whitewater boaters. <br /> <br />None of the areas of special designation listed above would be affected by any of the alternatives. <br /> <br />K. CULTURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />1. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT - Cultural resources are present along the Dolores River and ill the <br />canyon. Evidence of Archaic, Anasazi, Ute, Navaho and historic Euro-American occupations is documented. <br /> <br />2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br /> <br />ALL ALTERNATIVES - No additional effects on these resources would occur as a result of the <br />Alternative I (Proposed Action) or Alternatives 2 or 3 because upland areas would not be affected. The flows <br />released under Alternative 4 (No Action) would remain unchanged. The Dolores River Instream Flow <br />Assessment (p. 48) raised the possibility that n ...flow levels which optimize river use ...n may increase damage <br />to sites from vandalism or heavy use. The relatively small quantities of water to be acquired in Alternatives L 2 <br />or 3 would have a negligible effect on floatable days on the Dolores River; river use would certainly not be <br />optimized through the addition of these flows. <br /> <br />41 <br />