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

, 0(14'7

2.19

N
<I' ',' . ,
Effects on recreation usage were considered to result f,om the tim~ng(.pa

degree of drawdown of the reservoir during the peak season, effects on the

physical recreation facilities, and number of months with either greatly

reduced or greatly increased streamflows which,would hamper fishing. Reser-

voir drawdown during the summer recreation mont.hs 'in an average year also

showed the alternatives grouped into two groups; one, Alternatives 2, 4, and 5

with 14 to 22 feet of drawdown, and two, Alternatives 3 and 6, through 10 plus

the Preferred, with less than 8 feet of drawdown. The corresponding decrease

in surface area as a result of the drawdown is 64 to 85 acres for group one

and 37 to 50 acres for group two. The alt.ernatives' fell into three groups

when evaluating the probability that pool levets would be at or below certain

levels, i.e., either 85,000 acre-feet or 52,000 acre-feet which were optimal

and minimal levels for'recreation recommended by the Forest Service, respec~

tively. The probability of 'being below those pool levels was highest for

Alternatives 4 and 5, intermediate for Alternatives 2 and 3, and lowest for

Alternatives 6 through 10 plus the Preferred. ; The same pattern, of groups of

alternatives occurred when evaluating
reduced (less than 50 ~fs) or greatly

the number of months
,
increased (more t.han

with either greatly
250, 'cfs ~ stream

flows. Again Alternatives 4 and 5 had the mOat months with these extreme

stream jlows, closely followed by Alternatives 2, 3 and the Preferred, and

with Alternatives 6 through 10 having the fewe~t months of extreme stream

flows. summarizing all the recreation evaluat~ons, it was determined that

Alternatives 4 and 5 could caUSe a major
area, Alternatives 2,and,3 could cause a

'decre~se in recreation ,usage, in the
, -!. , '
minor decrease, and all other alter-

natives would' have no significant, change.

.'!:.', ~,
Effects ~n sali~ity in the colorado"'Ri~~r were felt to be insignificant

for all alternat'lves because the flow ch<!-nges :at Cameo were so small (approxi-

mately 1 to 2 percent ,of Colorado River flows);. This same reasoning was the

rationale behind the determination that any p~oject eff~cta on the continued

survival of the threatened 9r endangered fish iin the Colorado River would not

be significant. (A separate biological asses$ment will be prepared for the

preferred alternative,which'will examine ,J.n detail the effects of flow changes

on threatened and endangered fishes at selected points in the Colorado River.)

None of the alternatives would have any signi~icant effects on riparian vege-

tation or on wildlife, or on the bald eagle o~ peregrine falcon.

;