My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07295
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07295
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:26:41 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:14:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.45.J
Description
Redlands Fish Ladder
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1998
Author
USDOI/BOR
Title
Final Environmental Assessment - Passageway Around the Redlands Diversion Dam
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
<br />interim agreement alternatives would have no effect on reservoir levels when supplies of water <br />are adequate. In a dry year such as 1990, Alternatives A and B would reduce the reservoir <br />content compared to No Action and Alternative C, as illustrated by the bar graph in Figure 6. <br />The reduction in storage levels is caused by the provision of flows to water users and the fish <br />under Alternatives A and B. In very dry years such as 1977, large drawdowns occur under all <br />alternatives, including No Action. <br /> <br />Use of the 148,000 acre-feet of storage in Blue Mesa Reservoir reserved for endangered fish <br />would ensure that water released under the interim agreement for endangered fish would not be <br />removed from other possible uses. <br /> <br />River AlImini~ration - Impacts of the agreement alternatives on water users are seen through <br />calls for river administration being placed by senior water rights, which result in curtailment of <br />use by upstream junior rights. Table 5 summarizes the number of months shortages or river <br />administration (calls) would occur under the alternatives. It predicts that implementation of <br />Alternatives A or B would succeed in protecting water users in the basin from calls to levels <br />similar to those of No Action conditions. <br /> <br /> Number of Months River Percentage of Months River <br />Alternative Administration Occurs in a Administration Occurs I <br /> 22-year Period I <br />No Action <br />January - December 13 5% <br />July - October 3 3% <br />AandB <br />January - December 12 5% <br />July - October 4 5% <br />C <br />January - December 23 9% <br />July - October 13 15% <br /> <br />Table 5 <br />Comparison of River Administration Occurrences <br /> <br />I Bued on the 22-y... period of study os shown in Appendix E. <br /> <br />In summary, providing for passage and maintaining habitat for endangered fish would cause <br />changes in river flows, water use, storage, and river administration when water shortages occur. <br />The impacts do not differ between Alternatives A and B. Releasing water stored in Blue Mesa <br />Reservoir would cause storage levels to decrease under dry year conditions such as occurred in <br /> <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.