My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01752
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01752
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:32:37 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:38:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.131.J
Description
Yellow Jacket Project
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
4/1/1976
Author
USDOI/BOR
Title
Yellow Jacket Project Colorado: Progress Report Part II
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />0) <br />.:", <br />"" <br />C'J <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION <br /> <br />Recreational opportunities would be created at both project reser- <br />voirs with recreational facilities designed to meet the induced needs. <br />Thornburgh Reservoir would partially inundate the Thornburgh Battle Site, <br />although the present monument is some distance above the projected high <br />waterline. <br /> <br />The use of project water as proposed in this alternative could have <br />significant adverse effects. Irrigation development, though restricted <br />to presently cultivated lands, could lead to more intensive farming <br />activity which would tend to discourage deer from using interspersed <br />native habitat. At the same time, irrigation development could lead <br />to deer and elk damage of haystacks and early spring growth of hay <br />crops. The construction of canals and the additional irrigation of <br />lands south of the White River would have adverse impacts. <br /> <br />While specific plans are not known for use of the 54,500 acre-feet <br />of water for the coal industry, it would probably support large steam- <br />generating or gasification plants. Impacts of the plants themselves <br />would depend on type, size, and location. Impacts of the actual coal <br />mining would depend on methods employed and the location of mines. The <br />coal industry would have significant effects on the area's wildlife <br />resources as well as present land use, recreation, and social conditions. <br /> <br />The area's resources would also be affected by oil-shale develop- <br />ment, which is provided for to some extent in this alternative. Releases <br />from Lake Avery for oil shale use would increase the low flows of the <br />White River below Big Beaver Creek, thereby improving the fishery <br />habitat. Diversions at the Oil Shale Diversion Dam would decrease high <br />flows downstream from that point, but the Lake Avery releases would <br />protect the low flow minimums. Some deer winter range would be ad- <br />versely affected by oil shale activity. <br /> <br />Wi th Oil Shale-- <br />Oil Shale and Irrigation Emphasis Alternative <br /> <br />This alternative plan was formulated under an assumption that oil <br />shale development would overshadow coal development, or that coal gasifi- <br />cation would not become a reality. The plan provides for the full water <br />supply requested by the Rio Blanco Oil Shale Project, lessees of tract <br />C-a. Municipal and domestic water for the White River Valley would also <br />be provided. <br /> <br />The shift away from coal emphasis would make it possible to bring <br />more land under irrigation in the Milk Creek Segment. This in turn <br />would require the construction of a conveyance system for irrigation <br />water. Because of the high cost of the Josephine Basin Canal presented <br />in the coal emphasis alternative, it has been deleted from this plan; <br /> <br />49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.