Laserfiche WebLink
<br />These initial alternatives were evaluated by a coarse screening evaluation process consistent with <br />the requirements of Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act. This coarse screening process is <br />described in greater detail in a separate document which is available from the ELM. The result of <br />this evaluation indicates that only the alternatives listed below have the potential to meet the purpose <br />and need in a practicable manner. These alternatives and the No Action alternative are proposed for <br />evaluation in the EA. <br /> <br />L Replacement of the pipeline along Plateau Creek in an alignment that minimizes <br />impacts to all resources. <br /> <br />3. Replacement of the pipeline along the existing highway ROW. <br /> <br />4b. An undersized Plateau Creek pipeline replacement with the provision to construct a <br />future booster station to increase capacity when required by demand. <br /> <br />The No Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need or practicability test described in the <br />Clean Water Act, but must be considered in accordance with NEPA. <br /> <br />Issues <br /> <br />Important issues that were raised during the stakeholder process include the evaluation of impacts <br />and benefits for the following items: . <br /> <br />I. Cultural Resources <br />2. Wetlands and Riparian Habitat Resources <br />3. Geologic Hazards <br />4. Threatened or Endangered Species <br />5. Game Fish <br />6. Financial Evaluations <br />7. Hydrology/Stream Depletions <br />8. Groundwater <br />9. Water Quality <br />10. Unification with other water agencies. <br />11. Future Collbran Project Operations <br />12. Transportation Systems (Highways) <br />13. Demand Projections <br /> <br />These issues will be addressed in the EA and evaluated in the decision process. <br /> <br />