Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"" <br />~ <br />C'? <br />C\1 <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION <br /> <br />area and reduction in productivity at Lake Avery. Recreational oppor- <br />tunities would be created but the Thornburgh battlefield would be par- <br />tially inundated. The amount of coal-industry water in this plan could <br />support a substantial industry although not as extensive as the previous <br />alternative, and oil shale development and its related impacts would be <br />less dependent on other water sources. The supplying of drinking water <br />to the Meeker area could help direct growth where desired or it could <br />stimulate unwanted growth. <br /> <br />Irrigation development would have detrimental effects on the man- <br />agement of deer and elk which utilize interspersed nonirrigated areas <br />in the winter. This problem could be greater under this alternative <br />than the previous one because of the increased irrigated acreages and <br />the new irrigation of lands which now support native vegetation in the <br />Little Beaver area. Landscape scars would result from construction of <br />the White River Feeder Conduit and the Morapos Feeder Conduit. <br /> <br />MOP Compromise Alternative <br /> <br />At the November 1975 meeting of the MOP team, a plan for the Yellow <br />Jacket Project was derived which appeared to be the most likely alter- <br />native for development. It is essentially a blend of other alternative <br />plans. Both environmental quality and National economic development <br />were considered to be planning objectives. The plan is similar to the <br />oil shale and irrigation emphasis alternative, previously described. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Project purposes <br /> <br />This MOP compromise plan would develop a total water supply of 126,400 <br />acre-feet in the White River and Milk Creek ,drainages. The major proj- <br />ect use would be for development of energy-related resources, including <br />oil shale and coal. Irrigation and municipal and domestic water would <br />also be provided for. The water supply for each purpose and in each <br />segment of the project is shown in the following table. The plan also <br />provides for recreation and fish and wildlife features although no <br />specific water supply would be developed for those purposes. <br /> <br />Uses <br />Oil shale industry <br />Coal industry <br />Sprinkler irrigation <br />Surface irrigation <br />Municipal <br />Total <br /> <br />Water supply summary <br />year) <br />Milk <br />Creek <br />Segment <br />o <br />5,000 <br />o <br />8,500 <br />" <br /> <br />(acre-feet per <br />White <br />River <br />Segment <br />60,000 <br />30,000 <br />17,900 <br />o <br />5,000 <br />112,900 <br /> <br />13,500 <br /> <br />Total <br />60,000 <br />35,000 <br />17,900 <br />8,500 <br />5.000 <br />126,40~ <br /> <br />53 <br />