9609

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9609
• Author: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
• Title: Ruedi Reservoir 2012 Agreement Final Environmental Assessment Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
• USFW Year: 2002.
• USFW - Doc Type: Loveland, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

Ruedi 2012 Agreement Final EA Page 2-6 1

Ruedi, and that Aspen may benefit from these releases. Using the potential impacts on a private
facility to determine Ruedi's operation and imposing a release constraint of 250 cfs would not be
consistent with the nature of the FERC program. While the releases under the alternatives
analyzed here may have an impact to power production at the Aspen power plant, all of these
releases are considered to be beneficial to the Aspen plant under its FERC licensed program.
h
l
c
i
Anot
er re
ease con
ern
nvolves the loss of fisherman wading access when releases are made
for endangered fish. Specifically, comments indicate that flows greater than or equal to 250 cfs
reduce fishing access along the Fryingpan River below Ruedi Dam. ,
Reclamation considered developing an alternative that limited releases from Ruedi Reservoir to
less than 250 cfs. However, it is important to recognize that, at any given time, releases from
Ruedi Reservoir are composed of a variety of release quantities for operational and contractual
purposes. These purposes alone may cause Fryingpan River flows to exceed 250 cfs. Thus,
development of an alternative that limits endangered fish releases to 250 cfs would not
necessarily keep flows in the Fryingpan River below 250 cfs. Therefore, for an alternative to be
effective in addressing this concern, it must limit the total quantity of releases from Ruedi
Reservoir to less than 250 cfs. If a cumulative limit of 250 cfs were imposed on releases from
Ruedi, it would be necessary to develop a method to curtail endangered fish, operational and
contractual releases once flows reach 250 cfs. Curtailing releases would unduly constrain
'
reservoir operations and compromise Reclamation
s ability to meet authorized Project purposes
and Reclamation's obligations in the PBO.
Development of such an alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action:
to enhance endangered fish habitat, ensure continued progress towards recovery of the
endangered fish, and thereby protect continued water development in the Colorado River Basin
upstream of the 15 Mile Reach. Alternatives which do not meet the purpose and need are outside
the scope of analysis and not appropriate for alternative development. Consequently, the above-
described alternative was dropped from further consideration. I

u

1