WSP11724 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Fish Creek Reservoir Expansion EIS :::'':::'-:::::;:;:~;'-:0i;':::;::>>::::.~::X{;:;S">>i:;::::;:$::::;~~3~~Z;-:-:<<;;:;:;~$'-*:;:;:';:::i;:;;;''~;;:i<<~.::~;:::.:..::-.mM~:;.;"t::..::m.:;:?:::i<~:;:;:;:;:;::t3:::';:::::~~<:i;::&;:t..~,~::;;:=m>>:::.%-mm;::::0:::':<::::::':i:"%.~W;:';'<:'''y",>>~'>>;;'<:~;~~i=:';:'&':0:'~~~~~)J:.''.<< Long Term Direct Impacts - The long term impacts of Alternative C would be similar to those of Alternative B, but in some cases less extensive. The size of the reservoir would increase by only 22 acres (20 percent). The length of [he main dam would be increased, but only by 100 feet (15.4 percent). Its height would increase by 8 feet (15 percent). The control building would be the same as for the Proposed Action. The length of the saddle dam would also be increased, but only by 400 feet (100 percent):. The saddle dam's height would increase by 10 feet (63 percent). As with Alternative B, the increased height of the two dams would only be visible from downstream when the reservoir is full. As the reservoir is gradually drawn down, the increased height would become more visible from the reservoir. The proposed access routes would remain the same as for Alternative B, as would the proposed campgrounds and powerline. The compatibility of the above features with the Forest Service visual quality objectives is discussed under Al[ernative B. The effects of drawdowns on visual quality would be greater with Alterna[ive C than with Alternative B. The borrow areas may have greater impacts with Alternative C than with Alternative B. A smaller reservoir would inundate a smaller portion of the proposed borrow areas and thus expose more disturbed area to view. Over one-half of the borrow area, as currently proposed, would be exposed with the smaller reservoir, although it could be assumed that less borrow would be needed for a smaller reservoir. Indirect Impacts - The stipulated agreement between the City and the Colorado Water Conservation Board would not pertain to Alternative C (see Section 4.3.2.3). The City, therefore, would not be required to maintain a minimum flow of 2 cls. Visual impacts below the intake to the water filtration plant would be the same as these described under Alternative A. 4.11.3 Impacts Summary Under Alternative A, the current visual nature of the Fish Creek Reservoir site would remain. Current visual conditions at the reservoir and low flow in Fish Creek would not be improved. Alternative B would have both adverse and beneficial visual impacts. The most obvious beneficial impact visible from the campground and FDR 310 would be the increased size of the reservoir. Other beneficial impactS would include the rehabilitation or inundation of old borrow areas, the smaller drawdowns, due to remote operational control; and the stream channel rehabilitation downstream of Puppy Dog Lake. A beneficial indirect impact would be the maintenance of 2 cis minimum flow in Fish Creek, downstream of the municipal treatment plant. Short term adverse effects of Alternative B would occur during construction, which would not meet the Forest Service visual quality objectives of "modification" or "partial retention". Construction activities would be visible from FDR 310, a popular recreation route to Long Lake. Under Alternative B, the most obvious long term adverse effect visible from Campground Relocation Site 1 and FDR 310 would be [he increased length of the main dam. When viewed as middleground, however, the dam should meet the "modification" VQO. Other visual impacts include the campground, which would meet the "partial retention" VQO, and [he borrow areas, which would meet the "modification" VQO, assuming they are adequately reclaimed. ~~~::;'::':,~~;::3:<;..,-::::--..:<<:'>>::S::?;${,~t:::;:';r.1o;'::<;~:::;<<':~~>>:~<<<<:~~;:'::;S;:W~:2&$S[$::~:;:i:<<::::<:3:.:<<:,:~:;,:=>:t~'.;:.~>*);:::::x:>,)':"i.::..~~))%::<.'.w/;.%'::::;:;;;:-/;.s")":'':::0:''~;{'<''..s-x:;.<''<'<x.:.'.(o.K..:.<;,,-;,,:;':.;,: Page 4.50 Sepltmber 1993