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

,

.

0038

.. .,
,-.... ~
. -

~ _ 1Ll

:-l,

Alternative 7 had intermediate impacts more severe than Alternative 6/9,

but less so than Alternatives 4 and 5. The alternative would alter Fryingpan

stream flows in six months of an average year, but would have a high reservoir

volume (97,700 acre-feet) on September 1. Trout habitat would be reduced four

months out of each average year. There was a 15 percent chance of the reser-

voir being below 85,000 acre-feet on September 1 of any year. The major

problem with Alternative 7 that eliminated it from consideration is the fact

that it produced the lowest water yield of all alternatives. The alternative

was deemed inadequate to meet the payback criteria of the authorizing

legislation. It was felt that imposing the above described restrictions in

light of the volume of water for which requests had been received was not

practical.

Alternative 8. Modifi~d Municipal/Industrial Sales Minimizing
Risk to Fish, Wildlife and Recreation to provide Full Supply
This alternative encouraged the winter distribution of Ruedi Reservoir
water sale using a full supply schedule. This alternative decreased the
overall level of sales by 29 percent from the level of sales in Alternative 3
and then imposed a 25 percent reduction on the sales during the month of April
through August. The result was an annual sale of 44,200 acre-feet which was a
37 percent reduction compared to the maximum possible full supply sales level
in Alternative 3. The August through October sales level was 11,900 acre-feet
or 27 percent of the total yearly sale.
The impacts of Alternative 8 are most similar to those of Alternative
6/9, in that 44,200 acre-feet of water would be sold annually on a full supply
schedule. Stream flows and trout habitat would be altered slightly less than
for Alternative 6/9, and reservoir volumes would be slightly greater. The
main reason this alternative was eliminated is the full supply schedule of

delivery of water which simply does not meet the requests of the potential

water users.

Alternative 10. MuniCipal/Industrial Sales Minimizing Risk to
Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Including Augmentation of
Hydropower

This alternative improved conditions for hydroelectric power generation

by augmenting winter releases. Increased winter releases also benefit the

fishery but may lead to decreased reservoir levels in summer months. Winter