WSP01428 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3450 not be exceeded. Projected growth in the two Cities is consistent with the population projections in the Colorado State Implementation PIan (SIP). The Homestake Phase II Project will maintain SIP compliance from 1994 through the year 2000 for carbon monoxide (CO) standards. (d) Significant Environmentally Sensitive Factors: Significant environmental1y senstive factors 10cated on a map can be found as Attachment 11. This map identifies wetlands, and forest and woodlands. This map is from the Cities Environmental Impact Report, completed by Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers in May, 1981, for use by the USFS. Plan B on this map is the proposed development pIan described in this application. The remaining alternatives shown on the map are largely reflected in the alternatives stated by the USFS, as discussed at submission requirement #(3). The following areas are not shown since they do not generally exist: groundwater recharge areas (other than the shallow alluv1um at the base of the valley floor and along the stream bed); natural hazards; critical wildlife habitat (the Colorado Cutthroat Trout is known to exist on upper Cross Creek, Cross Creek, and East Cross Creek, but the DEIS p. 4-18 and the Sundeen & Fifer Report (Attachment 13) conclude that the minimum stream flows would ensure adequate fishery maintenance; thus, the habitat is not critical); and unique areas of geologic, historic and archeological importance (none were found by the U.S. Forest Service at the tunnel or diversion sites). Attachment 12, a White River National Forest users map, shows reereational areas and trails. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Forest Service identifies the env1ronmentally sensitive factors and the impact the project will have on those factors. (See generally table 2-5; and regarding wetlands, pp. 3-10 & 4-14; vegetation pp. 3-8 & 4-16; wildlife pp. 3-10, 3-11, 4-16, 4-17; recreation pp. 3-12 & 4-19.) Additional1y, the document identifies the mitigating measures (pp. 2-20) to be under- taken by the project proponents. (e) Visual Aesthetics & Nuisance Factors: (See DEIS p. 4-21.) Al1 proposed diversion sites wil1 be extremely remote, well scre~ned, and of minimal size. Stream flow reduction immediately below the diversion sites will not cause any visual degrada- tion because of required bypass flows established by the Forest Serviee. Furthermore, only one stream (East Cross Creek) from which diversions will be made is situated near a remote, unmaintained recreational trail. During diversions, stream flow fluctuations may be noticeable for a short distance below the diversion site on this stream. However, all four sites are so removed from usual foot trails that the presence of the diversion or the stream flow reduetions immediately below the diversion sites will very rarely be noticed. (Concerning noise, see DEIS, p. 4-27.) 18