Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fish Creek Reservoir Expansion EIS <br />s::;::::rx::=::;:;::;:;...~.3m'~~,;:>>:w:=:'&.~~:=::;::,;.:~~;:;:;::;'::::'Wx<M:;:;:'-U;::;':;:;:::;:3;:>>::;::-:;::::;"$~~,,'>:wloX~@:;::,,;,:;~:X:w-.w:<<:;?:=:~::::;~~'0j:::;:*<<::::;:;.;:.~~~W;;:: <br /> <br />miles of FDR 310 would have visibility to the project. The project would not be visible from <br />Buffalo Pass, Fish Creek Falls, the Fish Creek Falls Trail, or Mount Werner. <br /> <br />Discussed below are the impacts on visual quality as seen from the six key viewpoints described in <br />Section 3.11. The six viewpoints are all places that are frequented by a relatively large number of <br />visitors and thus have a high level of sensitivity. Visual impacts visible from locations other than <br />the key viewpoints are also discussed under "Other Direct Impacts." <br /> <br />Viewpoint A Impacts - Viewpoint A is located at the existing campground looking towards the <br />darn. Since the expanded reservoir would inundate the campground, this exact view would not exist <br />any longer when the reservoir is full. Figure 4-1 estimates how this view would appear from the <br />surface of the reservoir at that point. The foreground trees and vegetation would all be inundated, <br />as would the small islands, and the view of water would be greatly expanded. This larger expanse <br />of water would be the most dominant visual change, contrasting significantly from the existing view. <br />Such large bodies of water are not generally found within this portion of the forest, but since the <br />reservoir's visual elements borrow from natural color, form, line and texture, it would meet the <br />"modification" objective when the reservoir is full. Since water is generally considered a visually <br />desirable element in the landscape, the increase in size of the reservoir by approximately 50 acres <br />would be considered a beneficial visual impact. <br /> <br />Another beneficial impact would be the smaller drawdowns resulting from the project. The <br />proposed outlet structure and remote operational control works would allow the City to release only <br />the water it needs to meet demand, which is currently about 350 AF, or 19 percent of the existing <br />storage capacity. The City currently releases between 1,000 and 1,200 AF, or approximately 65 <br />percent of existing capacity. As water demand increases over time, drawdowns would increase, but <br />this would happen with or without the project. <br /> <br />Although the project would reduce drawdowns over existing conditions, the drawdowns would <br />expose additional shoreline and would not meet the "modification" VQO because of the contrast <br />created in color and texture and its foreground location. During normal operations, the reservoir <br />would be drawn down from August until spring runoff fills the reservoir, usually in late April or <br />May. Most of the drawdown impacts would occur during August, since recreational use is <br />significantly lower after Labor Day than during the summer months. <br /> <br />Under Alternative B, the darn would increase in length from 650 feet to 830 feet. The dam is <br />located in the middleground from Viewpoint A (2/3 mile away) and thus the increased length would <br />be readily apparent. Although the horizontal line of the dam is compatible with natural conditions, <br />the form of the dam is much straighter than naturally established form, which would be accentuated <br />by the longer darn. When the reservoir is full, the increased height of the darn would not be visible, <br />since the freeboard would be the same as under existing operations. Since the darn borrows from <br />naturally established line, color, and texture and is visually compatible with the surroundings from <br />this viewpoint, it would meet the "modification" VQO. When seen as foreground, however, the <br />dam would not meet the "modification" VQO because its contrasting form would dominate the <br />View. <br /> <br />The proposed control building would also be subordinate to the overall composition of the view <br />because of its relatively small size (10' h x 20' w x 15' d) and its distance from this viewpoint. The <br />presence of background trees behind the structure would also help it blend in with the surroundings. <br /> <br /><<::::::t;@.z;~:::;:::;:s3'l::::W*~~~~$::,~?1i:::;:;m.::;<<::::."%~~:::>>2".,w.,..~~~::m:.1~~;..,:W";:::::;;:;':<:::::~;;;;:;,;$;.;&~:<.<<'%..<::;;::S::;.;:x::'::~':"::S~~;,:$:~:<~:Z;.;':;':;';:;:;::;:::" <br /> <br />Page 4.40 <br /> <br />Sept<rnber 1993 <br />