WSP07644 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

......" "'t "': ~ J ~;J . Page 5 The alternative of pipeline construction instead of the proposed Mt. Elbert Canal should be considered. The pipeline alter- native significantly reduces negative environmental impacts of both a permanent and temporary nature. These impacts are outlined in the following table. Mt. Elbert Canal vs~ Pipeline Canal Subject 1. Acres cleared for ROW 2. Acres revegetated 3. ROW Distance 4. Water Qual Hy 5. Effect upon deer and elk winter range 6. Operating Procedures 7. Aesthetics 190 acres 72 acres 11.3 miles Pipeline 99 acres Potenti a 11y a 11 9.1 miles Copper sulfate needed No chemicals needed. to control algae. Evaporation loss Little or no evapora- approximately 80 tion. acre-feet/year. Significant, migra- tion restricted permanently in some areas. Siltation removal, vegetation removal along banks and in Permanent scar on scenic landscape Temporary interference with migration, no long term effect. . Maintenance-free operation. No permanent damage if revegetation is successful. 'EPA recommends that these advantages be given due consideration when considering the additional cost of the pipeline. Monetary costs of the alternatives should reflect the necessity of developing an algae control program, weed and siltation operational maintenance, and water costs due to evaporation along the proposed canal. The Mt. Elbert forebay reservoir area will require a silt-clay layer to prevent water loss to the permeable soils. Will this pro- cedure insure against all water loss due to infiltration or will significant seepage still occur? Clearing procedures for the forested area near the reservoir should consider a feathered-edge appearance rather than a straight line along the shore. Thinning of the dense XI-274 .