Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br />:::':;"''-:f::;.::m~;.:::'<<:::::{~-:Z::::::::::::;:;::::~;:;:::?-::'~;:;-$;,;r::;:::m::~:~;'}-::>3;.::::;:;::~?-:<~z;<~:;w.;;;~:;:m:::::~:;:;:;~8',-:::.z::'-:::"-:,..$::;;:;:;:::;.::t::::::;:;':>>;:::::;:i=-~:;':;:::::;:~:.llir::*::0:::;::{',,::':".;;f.m.::r-;::..::w::(.',0.;;:...:<<:::;:::;';:.%::,:;..<,"*::;-;:;\>;:;.~~.::w;:::::~:::*",;:;.l:~. <br /> <br />0)2.888 <br /> <br />The main dam would be rip rapped and the saddle dam would be either seeded or rip rapped. The <br />spillway would also be visible from Puppy Dog Lake, which would have either a rip rapped or <br />bedrock channel along the top half and a grass lined channel below. The side slopes would be grass <br />or bedrock. Although the view of the spilIway and dams from downstream would not meet <br />"modification" VQO, the small number of visitors make this an area of low sensitivity. <br /> <br />A beneficial impact would be the old borrow areas to be reclaimed as part of the project. Another <br />beneficial impact would be the stream channel rehabilitation proposed downstream of Puppy Dog <br />Lake. Although not seen by many visitors, the existing erosion resulting from current reservoir <br />operation represents a visual disturbance that needs to be repaired. The new outlet control works <br />and spillway would prevent future erosion by reducing flows through Puppy Dog Lake. <br /> <br />Impacts of Road Corridor Option 2 were discussed under Viewpoint D. Road Corridor Options <br />1 and 3 would also have visual impacts. Approximately 1/3 mile of Option 1 is routed along the <br />existing trail to Long Lake. The clearing and grading required to convert the trail into a road would <br />represent a visual change seen by the many recreationists that use the trail to access Long Lake and <br />the Fish Creek Falls Trail. The disturbance, however, would be screened from view from other <br />areas by trees and thus would have less visual impact than the other road corridor options. Option <br />3 would be visible from FDR 310 and probably from the north shore of the reservoir and <br />Campground Relocation Site 1 as discussed under Viewpoint B. The proposed access road, regardless <br />of its location, would not meet the "modification" VQO, since it would contrast in terms of line, <br />color, and texture with its surroundings. An three road corridor options include rerouting 600 feet <br />of the existing access road immediately east of the dam above the proposed water line and rerouting <br />1,000 feet of the existing road out of a clearing. Both of the rerouted segments would be screened <br />from the surroundings by existing trees. <br /> <br />The Applicant may be required to create off-site wetlands to mitigate impacts. Since the exact <br />locations of such efforts have not been finalized, their visual impacts cannot be determined. Any <br />structures required for mitigation would thus need to be approved by the Forest Service prior to <br />installation. Structures should be as compatible as possible with the form, line, color and texture <br />found in the vicinity. <br /> <br />Indirect ImDactS - As discussed under Alternative A (Section 4.11.2.1), low flows in Fish Creek <br />downstream of the municipal filtration plant represent an existing visual concern. Fish Creek is an <br />important natural feature within a tourist-oriented community, and thus the creek's aesthetic value <br />is of concern to the City. The low flows can occur as early as July and often occur in August, both <br />prime months for tourism. The remote operational control proposed as part of the project would <br />give the City more flexibility in operating the reservoir and thus allow them to maintain the <br />minimum flow of 2 cis in the creek required by stipulation with the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board. <br /> <br />4.11.2.3 Alternetive C . Smeller Reservoir Expension <br /> <br />Short-Term Direct Impacts - The short-term impacts of Alternative C would be similar to those <br />of Alternative B, primarily because the construction period would be the same for both alternatives. <br />The magnitude of visual impacts from Alternative C, however, may be less in some respects than <br />that for Alternative B due to the smaller scope of the project, but the lack of detailed construction <br />plans makes it difficult to quantify. Material stockpiles, for example, may be smalIer, as would <br />borrow areas. Clearing should also be less extensive. <br /> <br />M...'l::l:<:}*,":::::1:-:-:"~:::;:::;::;:::>'.9."":=:::o:..~~$::::;:;.,...~(.'"...~:;::::::~~~~<<'::::;:;n'.>>':~~'::;>::;:W";'::;::X~::>:::;:;>~:-;':'~::::;S-M~.~~=:,':'R::;::::'.:V.<:<:-;"'.WS:::'=;::':'...':':;.:'(':;::::::::":::::::::<:>~:~::::..': <br /> <br />Stptelnbtr 1993 <br /> <br />Page 4.49 <br />