WSP11863

• File Number: 8200.750
• Description: San Juan River General
• State: CO
• Basin: San Juan/Dolores
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 8/1/1986
• Author: USFS
• Title: Wolf Creek Valley Ski Area - Revised Draft - Environmental Impact Statement - San Juan National Forest - 1986 - Chapter IV to end
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

'.
Because the inq;acted watersheds constitute less ~han 7% of the
drainage area above the project lands, the changes 'in flow regimes
and sediment loads on the West Fork, East Fork an:ll main San Juan
Rivers will be insignificant. As an example, Tclb1e IV-8 shows
that the current annual suspended sedirrent in the West Fork of the
San Juan below the project lands is estimated at 77 ,426 tons. The
total .increase in sedirrent due to all constructio~ activities is
estimated at 227.6 tons per year or an increase I of 0.3%. This
increase is well below the allowable increase in sedirrentation
given in the Land and Resource Managerrent Plan 9f the San Juan
National Forest. With the appropriate mitigation measures
described in the 404 Permit and Master DeveloJl:rnent Plan, the
sedirrent load will decrease after each constructioj1 phase.
I
,

c. Alternative Three

This alternative calls for less disturbance withi~ the entire San
Juan River drainage basin than does Alternative TWo. Consequently
the impacts to fisheries will be even more insi~ificant overall,
~d there will be no impacts to the East Fork iof the San Juan
River. I

!
I

D. ECDN:lMTC ENVIRONMF.Nl'

Due to the broad range of economic issues covered in this section, it is
important to be brief yet still discuss significant consequ$nces. with this
in mind, the report Wolf Creek Valley Econanic and Social! TItg;)acts (Hamrer,
Siler, George Associates; April 30, 1985) is hereby I incorporated by
reference (NEPA Regulations - 40 CFR 1502.21) to cut d~' on bulk. This
document is available for review at the San Juan National orest offices in
pagosa springs and Durango, and the Regional Forester I s fice in Denver.
The report includes detailed discussions of the consequences of Alternative
one (No Action), which, if adopted, would result in Substantially reduced
impacts (relative to Alternatives Two and Three) assOciated with the
developnent of the private base property (rooM being considered by Mineral
County), and indirect off-site developnent. Substantial (letail is provided
for both Alternatives Two and Three, since their consequences are greater,
and therefore of greater relevance to reviewers. Alternat:l-ve one would have
no ski area, and total developnent units would be l,480j rather than the
3,165 anticipated for Alternatives Two and Three. In addition, Alternative
one would have 50% single family and 50% medium den~ity mUlti-family
dwellings, with no high density developnent, as opposed t<;> 50% high density
developnent for Alternatives Two and Three.

The private property for this developnent is located in M~neral County, yet
it is clear that IOOst economic impacts (and social impacts; see Section E)
will occur in Archuleta County and Pagosa Springs. I This is due to
transportation facilities, the project's proximity to P~gosa Springs, and
Wolf Creek Pass which geographically separates Wolf Cre~ Valley from' most
of Mineral COunty. This "transference" of impact :l-s recognized and
discussed in each of the sections that follow, as appropdate.

208