WSP11724 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fish Creek Reservoir Expamion EIS ::$&,.j:;::::?$;-:;:;:$~~~:::;:,=::::..<t..<*-$,:~W";:{::;~$;S;:;~:y.->:;:'@~.<:1~~?~~~:p,;:.;.:;~;:w.;..::::;.~;'~~-;::?{;:::;;::fu..>>:0~';;:"~;.W~;:.;:::;:;:::>>*~ml~;:;:;:W&3;;..:::~;.::;~,::;;..W.;:.X:::;~};;:.;:::::::;::~ acres of Borrow Area A-I would be inundated by the expanded reservoir so construction activities would account for only about 21 acres of additional tOtal disturbance. Within wetland areas to be disturbed, approximately 130 feet of Middle Fork Fish Creek and 390 feet of Granite Creek would be inundated by Alternative C. Mitigation agreements which would improve fisheries habitat and maintain minimum in-stream flow in lower Fish Creek under Alternative B would not apply to Alternative C. In addition, with smaller reservoir expansion, there would not be sufficient reservoir capacity to maintain a fisheries pool during maximum drawdown periods. 4.8.2.5 Borrow Aree Options Three borrow area options are being considered as a part of this project. As indicated above surface disturbance associated with Borrow Area A-I would be dependent on which reservoir expansion alternative is selected. The potential disturbance to terrestrial habitats by use of optional Borrow Areas A-2 and B would become additive depending on need for rip-rap or additional fill material for either reservoir alternative. Therefore, as much as an additional 26.4 acres could be disturbed through use of Borrow Areas A2 and B. The majority of this disturbance (26.2 acres) would occur in upland meadow and mixed conifer habitats (see Section 4.7, Vegeiation). Neither additional borrow area (A2 or B) would affect any additional wetland habitat. The Applicants have committed to replace topsoil and reseed with native grasses all disturbed borrow areas. However, no details have been provided to allow an evaluation of the feasibility of this commitment and potential for success. Therefore, it is assumed that the majority of the productivity of the endemic soils overlying the borrow areas (excluding rock outcrop areas) would be lost, and vegetation diversity and productivity would not be returned to pre-existing conditions. As a result there would be a long-term loss in habitat quality in the borrow source areas. 4.8.2.6 Campground Relocation Site Options Campground Relocation Site 2 would affect 1.6 fewer acres of upland habitat than Campground Relocation Site 1. Upland meadow and mixed conifer habitats would be the only habitats affected by either campground option. However, Site 2 would affect more mixed conifer habitat (4.8 acres versus 3.6) and less upland meadow habitat (0.5 acres versus 3.3) than Site 1. 4.8.2.7 Roed Corridor Options As indicated, three road corridor options have been identified for this project. Each road construction option would result in relatively minor differences in habitat disturbance. Road Corridor Option 1 affectS the least acreage (1.49 acres), including wetlands, but would impact the most mixed conifer habitat. Road Corridor Option 2 would affect the most acreage (1.69 acres), including 0.37 and 0.82 acres of wetland and mixed conifer habitats, respectively. Road Corridor Option 3 would affect slightly less habitat (1.61 acres) than Option 1. It would also affect the least amount mixed conifer habitat (0.71 acre) and the most wetland habitat (0.48 acre). 4.8.3 Cumulative Impacts Under all three alternatives (A, B, and C), greater use of the area would result In funher displacement of wildlife. ~'::->>">>:::S:::~?;.~":;l;:;:>>~&"...m:m::::::-:$~;:;::.~~~;:.;&.;:r::;::'%~~&':.~;$:~~~1=:WJZ:<.:::':?'.@'::::~;;<:;:::;<:;:::~:::;:.;~:::;;;::::::<,:;:':;;.:::::::.::::t;:;,::"-:::;"-$;:;:;:x;;::<<<.mm;.:;~~~:>>>>;:; P.ge 4-30 September 1993