WSP05529 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3430 Furthermore, the Denver Water Board has no desire to joint-venture and thus to reduce its yield where it would give up 240,000 af/yr for 80,000 af/yr. Finally, the environmental impacts upon Summit and Grand counties are more severe than any impacts in Eagle County. The environmental impacts in Summit and Grand Counties include significant stream depletion and reservoir fluctuation, landslide hazards at Green Mountain Reservoir, a large earth scar along the pipeline right-of-way, and destruction of wildlife habitat. In addition to environmental impacts are the institutional impacts which make this alternative infeasible at this time. In particular, Senate Document 80 governing the use of Green Mountain Reservoir must be changed through Congressional action. Such a change is unlikely since the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Azure Project is adversely impacted by this alternative. The final alternative, number 6, is the alternative selected by the Cities and herein proposed as the Phase II diversion of Cross Creek, East Cross Creek, West Cross Creek, and Fall Creek waters via a system of tunnels and diversion structures. The proposed project minimizes the environmental impacts to the wilderness area while at the same time provides water to the Cities via an economically viable gravity system. No pipelines occur within the wilderness; the only surface disturbance within the wilderness will result from the construction of four diversion sites at about one and one-half acres each, a total of six acres. Only four streams are diverted and adequate minimum stream flows to maintain aquatic life habitat will be provided by agreement with the United States Forest Service. These diversions are remote from human contacts. While the water yield is lower, the environmental impacts are the least of the several alternatives (see Table 2-5 of DEIS, p. 2-24,. for a summary of environmental and socio-economic impacts.) The minimization of operating and maintenance costs, including the requirement for extensive pumping (and related high energy costs), were also primary considerations. While the unit capital costs are comparatively initially high, the long term costs are low, because pumping is largely avoided. While this proposal is not the least costly, it is the most optimum combination of reliable water collection with least possible cost and environmental impact. (4) Proponents Of Proposal: (a) Names And Addresses Of Project Proponents; City of Colorado Springs Department of Public Uti1ties P.O. Box 1103 Colorado Springs, CO 80947 City of Aurora Department of Utilities 1470 S. Havana Street Aurora, CO 80012 4