Laserfiche WebLink
<br />L ',.1 If <br />~J.lL~ <br /> <br />I-C. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />The operating procedures adopted by the FAP to divert water <br />f~om the west slope and maintain minimum bypass flows might require <br />some updating to minimize water quality and recreational degrada- <br />tion. The enabling legislation authorizing the FAP requires mini- <br />mum winter and summer flows for the Frying Pan River to be 15 and 30 <br />cfs respectively. Further, the minimum bypass flows for each tributary <br />are to be in proportion to their natural 'flows. Perhaps with the <br />cooperation of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, a new system could <br />be arranged that could both increase minimum flows for the entire <br />system and set up a non-proqortional bypass flow for the stream <br />tributaries. A non-proporttonal diversion could allow for larger <br />flows on primary fishery streams at the expense of less productive <br />streams. Also such small winter flows as 0.6 cfs that are proposed <br />for several streams could be reduced to zero and the quantity added <br />to larger flows since such small flows may freeze upon discharge. <br />These minimum flows are only established for the North Side Collec- <br />tion System at present. Proposed minimum flows for the three South <br />Side streams should be included in the final statement. Monitoring <br />stations should be set as close as possible to the diversion sites <br />to assure minimum bypass flows are achieved at the site and not <br />augmented by subsequent flow which enters the stream between the <br />diversion site and the monitoring station. Finally, since the <br />Colorado Division of Wildlife supports larger bypass flows to main- <br />tain the aquatic habitat and larger flows would reduce the salinity <br />problem, we endorse a procedure to re-evaluate the operating princi- <br />ples regarding bypass flows in light of these new priorities. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Comments on Project Features <br /> <br />Access roads for construction of the collection systems on <br />the west slope will have a significant effect on the local environ- <br />ment if allowed to remain open. Permitting only authorized per- <br />sonnel to use them is recommended on all remaining roads. The <br />closing of certain roads as outlined in the report is commended. The <br />road along North Cunningham Creek should be closed or have res- <br />tricted access to protect the native trout species which is on <br />the endangered list. <br /> <br />At the Ruedi Reservoir site, the problem of landslides of <br />the "nuisance variety" has been identified. The size of these <br />soil slumping events should be determined as they affect the safety <br />of the dam structure and erosion in the area. Revegetation plans <br />for such areas should be stated. At this reservoir, the minimum <br />recreation pool is set at only 30,000 acre-feet, compared to a <br />conservation pool of 264,000 acre-feet. While recreation was not <br />a major benefit of the project as proposed, it has become a unique <br />benefit to the Aspen area. The effects of major drawdown on exist- <br />ing recreational activities and fishery habitat should be assessp.d <br />if such a minimum pool has to be established to meet downstream <br />replacement water requirements. <br /> <br />XI-:>73 <br />