Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roberts Tunnel. Figure 1-14 shows the estimated safe yield of each of <br />the alternatives. <br /> <br />IMPACTS <br /> <br />1.26 Figures I-IS through 1-24 present some of the most prominent <br /> <br /> <br />impacts of the South Platte storage alternatives and the estimated <br /> <br /> <br />reduction in impacts that would result from potential mitigation. <br /> <br />1.27 In many cases where complete mitigation is indicated, there <br /> <br />still are net changes. Water quality and channel stability would be <br /> <br /> <br />improved. Impacts to elk in the Williams Fork area would be avoided <br /> <br />with the mitigation identified. Physiological, soils, some <br /> <br /> <br />socioeconomic, threatened and endangered species, and some wildlife <br /> <br />impacts could not be avoided. Mitigation for these resourc~s includes <br /> <br /> <br />minimizing, rectifying, or reducing the impacts over time. As a <br /> <br />result, the resource would be different even with complete mitigation. <br /> <br />The most prevalent method of mitigation is compensation for the 10ss <br /> <br />by replacement or substitution. Compensation is used to mitigate most <br /> <br /> <br />of the impacts to wetlands, vegetation, some wildlife, cultural, <br /> <br /> <br />transportation, recreation, some socioeconomics, and aquatic <br /> <br />resources. The replacement or substitution is usually not the same as <br /> <br /> <br />the resource loss resulting in a net change even with complete <br /> <br />mitigation. <br /> <br />1.28 Both minimization and compensation are involved in aquatics <br /> <br />mitigation. Figure 1-23 indicates that the total pounds of trout <br /> <br /> <br />gained by mitigation would equal about 90 percent of those lost. <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 1-24 indicates that mitigation would result in over twice as <br /> <br /> <br />many miles of Gold Medal quality streams. Even though these stream <br /> <br /> <br />miles would exceed the 40 pounds per acre standing crop requirement <br /> <br />for Gold Medal quality, the density would be significantly 10wer than <br /> <br /> <br />in the stream miles lost. Also, harvest management by the State of <br /> <br /> <br />Colorado would be required to achieve the trout sizes necessary for <br /> <br />Gold Medal quality. <br /> <br />1-18 <br />