Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />1-4 <br /> <br />Envi ronmental Concerns: Potential adverse and beneficial effects <br />of water development alternatives were identified as a major issue among area <br />stakeholders (defined as those individuals and organizations having a stake in <br />the outcome of the Study). Speci fically, stakeholders were concerned about <br />the potential impact of water development on recreation, water quality, and <br />coldwater fisheries. In addition, other envi ronmental and social issues dis- <br />cussed were related to safety concerns regarding dams and flood hazards in the <br />Basin. <br /> <br />Economic Concerns: A number of economic issues were raised during <br />the interviews. Several people commented that land developers have not had to <br />bear enough of the economic burden of water development in the past. Capital <br />costs and effects on area water rates were common concerns expressed about <br />potential project construction. At the same time, several people remarked <br />that cost should not be a sole determining factor in selection or elimination <br />of otherwise attractive alternative measures or plans. <br /> <br />In summary, the interviews and other elements of the Program were <br />instrumental in changing the direction and emphasis of the Step 2 studies. In <br />response to conce rns ra i sed in the i nterv i ews regard i ng the I ack of emphas i s <br />on non-structural alternatives, the Management Commi ttee di rected that Step 2 <br />studies be modified to include greater emphasis on non-structural water <br />resources management measures. <br /> <br />In Step 2, Advisory Commi ttee members completed a formal opinion <br />questionnaire intended to document the relative importance of water related <br />issues such as water availability, flood control, recreation, environmental <br />and social concerns, energy production, and financial considerations. Results <br />of this survey are included as Appendix A to this report. They indicate that <br />the Committee favored reservoir alternatives located in the foothills or on <br />the plains rather than those located in high mountain areas. The consensus <br />was that a wel I-managed water resources management program is definitely <br />needed to conserve available water supplies. As a result of the questionnaire <br />and the on-going Program, a better understanding of regional interests and <br />values was obtained. <br /> <br />D. Siting and Study Areas <br /> <br />A Siting Area and a <br />to commencement of the Study. <br />Area is the larger of the two, <br /> <br />Study Area were establ ished by the CWRPDA prior <br />These areas are shown in Fig. 1-1. The Siting <br />fully encompassing the Study Area. <br /> <br />The Study Area is the area to be served by the structural and <br />non-structural measures developed in this Study. The Study Area includes the <br />St. Vrain Creek Basin to its confluence with the South Platte River exclusive <br />of Boulder Creek and an approximate 40-sq-mi area of the SI. Vrain physical <br />drainage basin in the vicinity of Firestone, Frederick, and Dacono. Also, a <br />small portion of the City of Boulder in the vicinity of Boulder Reservoir is <br />included in the Study Area. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />