7401

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7401
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Title: Ruedi Reservoir, Colorado Round II Water Marketing Program, Final Supplement to the Environmental Statement, Fryingpan - Arkansas Projects, Colorado.
• USFW Year: 1989.
• USFW - Doc Type: Billings, Montana.
• Copyright Material: NO

1.9
water sales. Reclamation and its contractors prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) of 11 alternative water sale scenarios.
The scope of the EA was determined from several processes, the most
important of which were communications between Reclamation and prospective
customers for Ruedi water, and public scoping sessions. The communications and
the scoping sessions raised questions and identified issues that needed to be
addressed before Reclamation could define the procedures for future water sales.
(Details of the scoping process are presented in Chapter VII.)
Work in several disciplines was considered necessary to address the issues
and concerns. The subject areas included in the EA were hydrology, aquatic
biology, terrestrial biology, threatened and endangered species, and recreation.
The major issues addressed were as follows:
1. Physical and chemical effects on fisheries in the reservoir and
streams.
2. Salinity effects in the Colorado River.
3. Potential increases in scouring and erosion of stream banks.
4. Effects on threatened and endangered species.
5. Effects on terrestrial wildlife and vegetation.
6. Effects on area recreation usage.
7. Degree of reservoir drawdown and minimum pool level.
8. Use of winter sales of water to preserve a high summer reservoir level.
9. Capability to deliver water during the winter months.
10. Compliance with authorizing legislation.
11. Effects of conservation measures releases on habitat and recreation.
The EA was published in June 1983, distributed to the public, and comments
were solicited. Using the evaluations in the EA and the public comments,
Reclamation identified a Preferred Alternative. The next step in the process
was to prepare a Draft Supplement to the FES on the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project.
However, since the EA which discussed all alternatives had previously been
distributed to the public, the Draft Supplement did not repeat the analyses of
all alternatives, but only evaluated the No Action Alternative (which represents
current conditions including the Round I water sale) and the Preferred