WSP07644 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

...' , r. , ; ~~ ... the bifurcation north of Clear Creek Reservoir, and to maintain minimum flo~s in Lake Creek belo~ the proposed ~in Lakes Dam. The combination of an enlarged T~in Lakes Reservoir ~ith greater storage capacity and the use of the Mt. Elbert Forebay and Conduit ~ill minimize the daily fluctuations of T~in Lakes during the pump back and po~er operations of the ~It. Elbert Po~erplant. \-lith a 6-hour, one unit po~erplant operation, there ~ill be a daily fluc- tuation of 0.5 to 0.9 feet in the Twin Lakes ~ater level depending On ~hether the lake is full or empty. IHth both 100-mega~att units operating for 6 hours, the daily fluctuation will be 1.1 to 1. 7 feet depending on whether the lake is full or empty. These are the fluctuations that ~ill occur during powerplant operations ~hich are governed by the daily power demands fulfilled by the 200-mega~att powerplant. . 15. Comment - Alternates: Conversion of open canals to covered pipelines. It is thought that this could be done at a small increase in cost but ~ith considerable savings on water losses and fencing. ~es~~ns~: The current plan includes construction of a Ht. Elbert Conduit in lieu of the open canal. Many people who attended the /lay 1974 Project public hearings in Aspen, Colorado, expressed environmental concern about the Mt. Elbert Canal. Therefore, the Bureau changed the canal to a conduit ,,'hich is described in Chapter II, pages 84 and 144, and Chapter IV, Section A.2; B.5 (page 64). . The Otero Canal will be fenced and have several game crossing bridges as described in Chapter II, pages 85 and 123. Neither public hearing participants nor other letters of comment expressed concern for chan~lng the Otern r.~n~l !~t0 ~ c~~d~!t. Th~ e~~~gU ~ill continue to ~ork ~ith the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to make the canal a compatible facility with the existing environment. A cost comparison bet"een the canal and conduit alternatives 8hm.s the conduit to cost 20 percent more than the canal ~hen all con- struction and operation costs are considered, including water loss, fencing, and other indirect costs. 16. ~~mment - Alternates: Elimination of land which is now, and which will be surplus for reclamation storage purposes. This land extends above the high ~ater level at 9210. Reduction of expense of the Project by saving the cost of private land acquisition at present high market values. This ~ould likely be the same land mentioned in Item 3 as surplus and lying above elevation 9210. Response: Reservoir The acquisition of land for the T~in Lakes Dam and and the ~It. Elbert Powerplant, Forebay, and Switchyard . XI-232