My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP09652
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
9001-10000
>
WSP09652
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:55:00 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:47:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.765
Description
White River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
3/1/1994
Author
USFS
Title
Snowmass Ski Area - Final Environmental Impact Statement - White River National Forest - Aspen Ranger District - Volume I
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
435
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Increased municipal use and water needed for snowmaking will require water to be <br />pumped from the SWSD diversion on the mainstem of Snowrnass Creek. The exact <br />amount of water available to the SWSD prior to using the Snowrnass Creek pumps is <br />not precisely known. The historic winter low flows are in the range of 1.6 to <br />2.0 cfs. The SWSD municipal facility has a storage capacity for treated water <br />of 13.8 acre feet for distribution to users. With this available storage, there <br />can be short periods of no intake and months where the supplied water is greater <br />than the inflow to the plant. High demand is buffered by this storage and then <br />replenished during periods of lower use, at times, by pumping from Snowrnass <br />Creek. <br /> <br />Groundwater <br /> <br />There is limited groundwater information for the proj ect. Two groundwater <br />systems are known to exist -- a bedrock aquifer and a perched unconsolidated <br />quaternary deposit aquifer. Neither of these aquifers has the potential to <br />supply a significant quantity of water. No known sources of pollution exist that <br />could potentially degrade the quality of the groundwater. <br /> <br />2. Environmental Consequences <br /> <br />Colorado River <br /> <br />Table S-2: Percentage of Soil Treatments With Significant Soil Movement Potential and Erosion <br />and Geological Hazards by Watershed and Alternativel <br /> <br /> Alternative <br /> .l... J!.. JL .E- li. 1!. <br />Spring Creek <br />Moderate Movement Potential 0 IC' 27 8 17 0 <br />Severe Erosion Hazards 0 IC 3S 8 29 0 <br />Moderate-ta-Severe Geological Hazard 0 IC 42 22 30 0 <br />East Fork Brosh Creek <br />Moderate Mass Movement Potential 0 IC 19 13 21 10 <br />Severe Erosion Hazards 0 IC 27 22 31 11 <br />~oderate to Severe Geological Hazards 0 IC 22 21 2S S <br /> <br />Snowmass Creek watershed would not receive any treatments in these categories. No significant impacts would be expected <br />in the West Fork Brush Creek and Mainstem Brush Creek watershed. <br />Ie - Insignificant Change <br /> <br />Alternatives E and G pose the greatest risk of soil and geological impacts <br />(primarily landsliding) in the spring Creek watershed. In the East Fork Brush <br />Creek watershed, Alternatives E, F and G would create the greatest risks. <br /> <br />Summary . 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.