|
<br />:.;!.1"#..~~-'.hV:.<iZ<Ult,"_Wj.'~'".-&~a'>,)cB.;; ","">'6;':_',J~,,,,;,;.,",;e;.""\1C.,,,,,,,.;,,-,,:,:... ~""." ,',""'.' :lS<..~>fl.'fA.~, ~i,c.."",,,,,,,,,,,,,,h"'~N<-'."'-;->;~,,."~"'''',';",_',~,,,,,O<o~ "...~..o".:i;"",;. ," . "",.", ;...~..<.~")-:'~",", ,.,' ,"..",,,,,;;.;1;;:;i.'C!.ii.~,';-~'_-:.<:,'_-.r""'''-:.~''~-ji.a.,...
<br />
<br />o
<br />I.:")
<br />C'rj
<br />N
<br />
<br />CHAPTER IV
<br />
<br />PLAN FORMULATION
<br />
<br />Annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are estimated at
<br />$318,000, including $257,000 for reclamation and joint-use facilities,
<br />$56,000 for recreational facilities, and $5,000 for fishing easements
<br />along streams. Pumping costs included in the $257,000 cited above are
<br />based on an average annual energy use of 1,215,000 kilowatt-hours and
<br />an electircal capacity of 12,000 kilowatts.
<br />
<br />Estimated annual benefits of $10,515,000 and annual equivalent costs
<br />of $6,151,000 indicate a benefit-cost ratio of 1.71 to 1. This ratio is
<br />higher than that associated 'with any of the other alternative plans
<br />investigated.
<br />
<br />Environmental considerations
<br />
<br />This plan involves environmental effects similar to those in several
<br />of the alternatives, but it includes a more positive program to lessen
<br />adverse effects and enhance present conditions.
<br />
<br />As with other alternatives considered, impacts would result from the
<br />construction and operation of project features and from the use of devel-
<br />oped water. Lake Avery enlargement and Thornburgh Reservoir would inun-
<br />date wildlife habitat including big game winter range and riparian habi-
<br />tat. As Lake Avery is now managed as a single-purpose fishing lake, the
<br />change to a multipurpose facility would reduce the quality of the lake's
<br />fishery. On the other hand, stream fishing that would be lost at Thorn-
<br />burgh Reservoir is limited and of low quality, so with reservoir impound-
<br />ment there would be an increase in fishing opportunities. Stabilization
<br />of Axial Reservoir would also provide more fishing opportunity in the area.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Milk Creek should maintain what fishery it now supports as minimum
<br />flows would be maintained and water quality improved. The effects of
<br />project diversions and releases from Lake Avery to supplement low river
<br />flows have not yet been evaluated. A flow regimen based on earlier Fish
<br />and Wildlife Service recommendations is incorporated into the project at
<br />this time. The project, however, will not establish minimum fish flows
<br />until recommendations from the present study being conducted by the
<br />Colorado Division of Wildlife are finalized. Easements to obtain eccess
<br />for fishermen and other outdoor recreationists to sections of the r~ver
<br />flowing through private land would increase the use of the river by the
<br />general public.
<br />
<br />The present free-flowing nature of the White River would not be al-
<br />tered by any impoundments under this alternative. Thornburgh Reservoir
<br />would inundate portions of the Thornburgh battle site.
<br />
<br />Irrigation development under
<br />lands with native cover but would
<br />game populations for two reasons.
<br />
<br />this alternative would not involve
<br />still have detrimental effects on big
<br />First, the increased farming activity
<br />
<br />60
<br />
|