WSP08927

• File Number: 8141.600.20
• Description: Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Studies - Environmental Studies
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 10/12/1983
• Author: US DoI BoR
• Title: Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement Fryingpan-Arkansas Project Colorado
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

0036

2.8

""
~ '..':
: ~., ~''''

,

single fill restriction in water administration is to allow development of

junior water rights in the basin.

This alternative was identical to the second alternative except that the

single fill restriction was imposed. The maximum level of water sales which

could be achieved under this alternative was 50,800 acre-feet, which would

occur in a dry year. The level of sales in an average year would be 24,700

acre-feet. Sales of water would occur in late summer and early fall when

Colorado River flows are lowest.

,

Alternative 4 had some significant impacts primarily resulting from the

single fill limitation causing water releases when they were unnecessary, and

in amounts much in excess of the demand. The alternative altered stream flows

by 10 percent or more in 11 months out of the dry and average year, and con-

sequently reduced available trout habitat in seven months each year. Drawdown

in Ruedi Reservoir each year averaged 22 feet, the most of any alternative.

The resulting volume in the reservoir was next to lowest of all alternatives.

The pool in Ruedi Reservoir would always be below 85,000 acre-feet on

September 1, and there would be a 15 percent chance the pool would be below

52,000 acre-feet on that date. The alternative was eliminated because of the

large environmental impacts associated with this operation and the inability

to meet seasonal demand for water.

Alternative 5. Municipal/Industrial Water, Full Supply, Single

Fill Limitation on Ruedi Reservoir '

This alternative is identical to the third alternative exc~t that a

single fill restriction has been imposed. The maximum level of water sales

which could be achieved under this alternative is 50,000 acre-feet per year.

Impacts from Alternative 5 were quite similar to those of Alternative 4,

especially in changing stream flows by more than 10 percent, and trout habitat

losses. But two items essentially eliminated this alternative, i.e., it had

the least amount of water in the reservoir on September 1 of all alternatives,

and it had a 30 percent chance of being below 52,000 acre-feet on that date in

any year. Also, being a full supply alternative, it did not meet the requests

of any of the potential round two water users.