Laserfiche WebLink
<br />If) <br />~ <br />C"j <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />CIW'TER VIII <br /> <br />hLTERNATIVE PLANS <br /> <br />Several altarnative plans, as discussed in the following paragraphs; <br />were studied in the course of project investigations to determine the <br />best means of providing project lands with an adequate water supply. <br />A number of the plans involved the importation of water from the Elk <br />Creek watershed. All the alternatives were rejected in favor of the <br />adopted plan because of inadequate water supply or excessive costs. <br /> <br />West Elk Canal-Timberline Canal Plan <br /> <br />Under this plan the Timberline Canal would extend from Corral Creek <br />to the head of West Elk Creek intercepting flow of tributaries to main <br />Elk Creek in the high White River Plateau section. A reservoir would be <br />required on Cl~k Greek, and the West Elk Canal would be constructed <br />from West Elk Creek to the Hat;vey Gap Reservoir. This development would <br />receive water from only a limited drainage area and thus its water <br />supply would be poor. The Timberline Canal would be inaccessible and <br />at a high altitude and thus would be difficult to operate. Costs of <br />this development were found to be excessive in comparison with its <br />benefi ts . <br /> <br />Elk Falls Canal and Power Conduit Plan <br /> <br />A long conduit would be constructed from Elk Falls on Main Elk <br />Creek above the mouth of Meadow Creek to a power plant on West Elk <br />Creek near the West Elk Creek Ranger Station. The conduit would consist <br />of a 3-mile pipe line in Main Elk Creek Canyon, a l-mile canal section, <br />2,700 feet of tunnel, and a penstock to the power plant. Water released <br />through the power plant would be rediverted by a canal for delivary to <br />the Harvey Gap Reservoir. Geological examinations indicated construction <br />of the tunnel would be difficult and water supply studies showed that <br />as little as 20 second-feet would be available for power during the fall <br />and winter. To assure maintenance of the 20-second-foot flow it v.uuld <br />be necessary to construct a reservoir on ~eadow Creek and a costly <br />di ve rsi on inlet from Meadow and Mansfield Creeks to the condui t. Cost <br />of the plan was found to be excessive in comparison to possible irri- <br />gation and power benefits. <br /> <br />r! <br /> <br />'.' <br /> <br />~" <br /> <br />, , <br />..; <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />:: <br />.' <br />.~ <br /> <br />"I <br />, <br /> <br />'<;! <br /> <br />~nlargement of West Elk Creek Reservoir <br /> <br />Gaging station records showed that stream flow available for <br />storage in the West Elk Creek Reservoir is insufficient to warrant the <br />cost of enlarging the reservoir. <br /> <br />53 <br />