My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07057
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07057
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:25:32 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:04:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.600.20
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Studies - Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
4/16/1975
Author
US DoI BoR
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 of 2, Pages IX-34 to Appendix
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.'!" ~., 1"'1 1''' <br />'iuUu <br /> <br />with sufficient capacity to convey the water from Lime Creek <br />and Last Chance Creek to the Charles H. Boustead Tunnel to <br />prevent further disturbance of the area should it become neces- <br />sary to construct the Lime Creek and Last Chance Creek diversion <br />facilities some time in the future. <br /> <br />2. Deleted Malta Diversion Dam and Canal <br /> <br />Malta Diversion Dam and Canal, which would have diverted and con- <br />veyed water from the Arkansas River to TWin Lakes via the Mt. <br />Elbert Canal or Conduit, the Mt. Elbert Forebay and Mt. Elbert <br />Pumped-Storage Pawerplant. have been deleted from the project <br />plan. <br /> <br />a. Associated Impacts <br /> <br />It was determined that these features would have depleted the <br />Arkansas River of water that was effectively diluting the <br />heavily polluted flows of California Gulch within a short <br />distance downstream of its confluence with the Arkansas River. <br />Depleting the water at the diversion site would have resulted <br />in the biological productivity of the Arkansas River being <br />severely affected for several miles below the confluence <br />with California Gulch. The water from the Arkansas River would <br />have also resulted in precipitates from heavy metals in solu- <br />tion being deposited in the Mt. Elbert Forebay and possibly <br />TWin, Lakes Reservoir. The estimated cost to mitigate this <br />environmental damage far exceeded potential revenues or benefits <br />which would have been derived from the diverted water. There- <br />fore, the diversion dam and canal were environmentally and <br />economically infeasible. <br /> <br />IX-40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.