WSP08562 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.f 0004 '.!< i .' In addition to the broad public issues, the Forest Service identified five specific issues that provided the focus of the Homestake Phase II Project (FEIS Sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.3, pages 1-16 to 1-18). These are: A. Effects of the proposal on the Holy Cross Wilderness values. In my judgment this is the most important issue to many of the individuals who commented on the Draft EIS (DEIS). There is severe criticism of the project on the basis that it is in conflict with the intent and purpose of wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. While I agree that the project is contrary to the concept and philosophy of wilderness, it is specifically provided in the law establishing the Holy Cross Wilderness that the creation of the Wilderness will not be considered in determining whether or not to permit the use of National Forest System lands for the Homestake Project purposes. (See Section V.D. of this document and FEIS Sections 1.4, pages 1-11, 1-12; 3.1.6, pages 3-14 to 3-16; 4.1.6, pages 4-36 to 4-39.) B. Effects of the project on wetlands. The contention that wetlands will not be significantly affected by the project has been questioned by some of the DE IS com- mentors. The Forest Service conducted detailed studies of the Cross and Fall Creek wetlands. The Forest Service was,assisted by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers in the study. It was found that these wetlands developed in basins and hollows scoured out of the bedrock by glacial action. Depositional material subsequently deposited in these scoured areas acts as a groundwater reservoir. The saturated conditions necessary for wetland vegetation is provided by precipitation falling directly upon the wetlands themselves. In addition, the hillsides adjacent to the wetlands provide a considerable amount of water through surface and subsurface runoff. Since much of the wetland area lies outside of the floodplain and sufficient water is available from sources other than the streams, I conclude that the project will not have a significant effect on wetlands. (FEIS Sections 3.1.3, pages 3-8 to 3-10; 4.1.3, pages 4-21 to 4-30) C. The maintenance of adequate instream flows to protect the envi ronment. Several comments to the DEIS expressed concern about the deple- tion of streamf10ws below the proposed Phase II diversions. The easement authorizing the diversion requires that environ- mental maintenance flows be provided in all streams affected by diversions. This means that a set amount of water would be provided at all times to protect fisheries, maintain channel stability, and enhance visual resources. The Phase II diversion structures will be designed to bypass the minimum flow before diversion takes place. The bypass flow mechanism will be 3