Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Response: Flow releases vere discussed in response to <br />another cOllllllent by the Environmental Protection Agency. The maximum <br />release rate through the outlet vorks vill be 2,000 cubic feet per <br />second; the minimum release will depend on inflow into the lake. No <br />adverse environmental impacts are expected as a result of normal <br />reservoir operation. <br /> <br />COIIIIIlent: The removal of the mobile home court may not be <br />an adverse environmental impact as indicated in-the statement. The <br />relocation of the homes mAT be beneficial to land use planning and develop- <br />ment. <br /> <br />Responee: It is agreed that the removal of the mobile home <br />court would not have adverse effects on the biological environment. However, <br />relocations of homes and families would be considered an adverse physicosocial <br />environmental effect. It is further agreed that relocation of these mobile <br />homes could be beneficial to land use planning and development. Their'removal <br />would present opportunity for this portion of the Bear Creek floodplain to <br />revert to its original state. It would also remove a source of stream <br />pollution in the form of a sewage treatment plant which preeently serves the <br />mobile home court. <br /> <br />Comment: The initial recreation plan discussed possible <br />motorized trails on the Hogback within the project boundary. Such use <br />would constitute a severe environmental impact for which there will likely <br />be no remedial measures. <br /> <br />Response: Current recreation plans do not include any <br />motorized trails on the Hogback, nor was this possibility discussed in <br />the environmental impact statement. <br /> <br />COIIIIIlent: <br />to the project, inCluding <br />make a judgement. <br /> <br />The statement should more fully discuss alternatives <br />cost figures, so that the reader could more easily <br /> <br />Response: <br />alternatives section was <br />Approximate cost figures <br /> <br />The cOllllllent was considered valid and the <br />expanded when the statement was revised. <br />were used where they were available. <br /> <br />Comment: Since the flood control pool is many times larger <br />than the conservation pool, the statement must diacuss the probability of <br />occurrence of filling all or a portion of the flood pool and the adverse <br />environmental impact which will likely occur. <br /> <br />Response: This vas considered a valid comment. The frequency <br />of occurrence of a flood sufficient to fill the flood control pool was <br />incorporated into the state~~c~ in the detrimental impacts section. The <br />impact of such an occurrence wss also discussed. <br /> <br />19 <br />