WSP08562 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0013 Alternative 1 - No Action This alternative causes the least impacts to the local biological and physical environment of the project area and, on that basis, is the environmentally preferable alternative. The "no action" alternative would actually be a denial (see Sect~on II, above) and would force the Cities to obtain the needed water frbm alternative sources. The cost of water from the alternative sources, such as the condemnation of agri- cultural water and development of grbundwater described in the FEIS (Section 2.1.1, page 2-5), could be higher. Furthermore, the second- ary effects on farmlands, agricultural economies, and the holders of rights to groundwater could be severe (FEIS Section 2.1.2, page 2-7). If the "no action" alternative were adopted, the Cities could likely not acquire and develop water resou~ces in time to meet the projected demands for water. Finally, the Fo~est Service does not have the authority to require the Cities to a~opt the non-structural alterna- tives described in Section 2.1.1 of ~he FEIS, pages 2-1 through 2-7. Alternative 2 - 1962 Homestake Phase' II Al ignment This alternative is based upon a land use authorized by Grant C-103867 issued on December 29, 1960, and assigned to the Cities on July 31, 1962. The Grant authorized a series of tunnels, open canals, and conduits to divert water from nine locations in the Holy Cross Wilder- ness. This alternative results in the disturbance of 253 acres of surface area. About 30,000 acre-fee,t of water could be diverted annually and seven streams could be 'dried up for portions of each year. There is no provision to require permanent, bypass flows in this alternative and as a result, five miles of streams would have inade- quate flows to maintain fisheries and other environmental benefits. The implementation of this alternative would adversely affect 220 acres of the Holy Cross Wilderness. ; About 14 acres of wetlands would be 1 ost. Alternative 2 is 1 ess envi!ronmenta lly preferable than Alternative 6. Because of the advense effects on wilderness, stream- flow, surface area disturbance, and iWildlife habitat, Alternative 2 was not selected. ! Alternative 3 - Tunnel and Pipeline Systems This alternative is a combination of tunnels and pipelines. Diver- sions of water would occur in the Holy Cross Wilderness at eight locations. There would be one divension outside the Wilderness. Two large pipelines or conduits would b~ installed in the Wilderness; one 42 inches in diameter and 21,000 feet in length; the other 54 to 66 inches in diameter and 63,000 feet i!n length (See FEIS, Section 2.2.3, page 2-19). About 103 acres of surface area would be disturbed, of which 70 acres would be within the Wilderness. Annual water diversion would be 23,900 acre-feet. Bypass flows would be required at all diversions and the streamflow would be adequate for fisheries and other environmental benefits at all times. No stream would be dried up. About 14 acres of wetlands woul!d be lost. Alternative 3 is less environmentally preferable than Alt~rnative 6. Because of the adverse effects on wilderness, surface area !disturbance, and wildlife habitat, Alternative 3 was not selected. ' 12