Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0033 <br /> <br />'"'- ,...... . ~ <br />,..:- i'f i.,\ t i <br /> <br />2.5 <br /> <br />The first-round water sales of 7,850 acre-feet included 1,850 acre-feet <br /> <br /> <br />of augmented water sales for municipal and domestic uses and 6,000 acre-feet <br /> <br /> <br />of augmented water sales for industrial use. The sales level of 7,850 acre- <br /> <br />feet represents the maximum amount of water whi'ch would be sold from Ruedi <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir during an extremely dry year. Operatiional modeling conducted during <br /> <br /> <br />this study indicated a maximum augmented sale of 7,200 acre-feet during the <br /> <br /> <br />period of study 1948 to 1980. Figure 2.2 shows a graph typical of reservoir <br /> <br /> <br />levels and instream flow in the Fryingpan River below Rocky Fork for dry, <br /> <br /> <br />average and wet years. These correspond to years in the record to 1977, 1974 <br /> <br /> <br />and 1957, respectively, <br /> <br /> <br />A discussion of the impacts of ,the No Action Alternative is not presented <br /> <br /> <br />like a normal impact evaluation because the No Action Alternative essentially <br /> <br /> <br />constitutes the baseline against which all other alternatives are judged. The <br /> <br />No Action Alternative has a maximum sales level of 7,200 acre-feet, and Ruedi <br /> <br /> <br />Reservoir usually has over 100,000 acre-feet of: volume each year on September <br /> <br /> <br />1, and the drawdown during the summer averages only four feet. There is only <br /> <br /> <br />a three percent chance that the reservoir will be below 85,000' acre-feet on <br /> <br /> <br />September 1 of any year. <br />" <br /> <br />The No Action Alternative was not chosen as the preferred alternative for <br /> <br /> <br />two reasons: one, the low level of sales is not in accordance with the <br /> <br /> <br />Operating principles in that revenues are not being generated to repay <br /> <br /> <br />construction costs; and two, present operations! do not meet the terms of the <br /> <br /> <br />authorizing legislation requiring the water to ~e used for replacement pur- <br /> <br /> <br />poses and other purposes. <br /> <br />2.1.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail in the Environmental Assessment <br /> <br /> <br />Alternative 2. Municipal/lndustria~ Water Sales, Supplemental <br /> <br />Supply' <br /> <br />This alternative developed the maximum amo~nt of water which could be <br /> <br /> <br />delivered by Ruedi Reservoir to augffient junior ~ater rights. The maximum <br /> <br /> <br />level of water sales which could be achieved under this alternative was 74,300 <br /> <br /> <br />acre-feet in a dry year. The level of sales in an average year would be <br /> <br />34,600 acre-feet. Sales of water from Ruedi Reservoir would occur primarily <br /> <br /> <br />in late summer and early fall when flows in the,Colorado River are lowest. <br /> <br /> <br />Alternative 2 was judged to have significa~t environmental impacts. <br /> <br /> <br />Chief among them were nine months out of each average year when flow rates in <br /> <br />the Fryingpan River would be more than 10 percent greater or less than current <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />