WSP08418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMt,jAKY (Continued) The Ute Hountain Ute Tribe has expre~sed the following concerns: need for accelerated construction of its C::l!ldl and lateral system; a review of project land and consl(ieration of alternative land; construc- tion of tribal features through the newly founded construction company (Weeminuchi Tribal Construction Authority); development of tribal r,.crea- tion opportunities; and control over operation, maintenance, and replace- ment of tribal-related project features. Concerning accelerating con- struction, Reclamation maintains that R repayment contract, on which negotiations are continuing, must first be signed. The current schedule, therefore, is acceptable to the tribe. Reclamation examined land north and west of Towaoe, but additional operation and maintenance costs would have been incurred through the need for pumping water to this land. The tribe desires to assume as much as possible of the constr~ction of proj- ect facilities on the reservation, and the authority of Public La" 93-638 may allow this concept. The DWCD is negot Lating with the Tribe for their subcontracting the operation and maintenance of laterals on the reservation. As described in the 1977 FES plan, Reclamation will make available 800 acre-feet of water annually to the tribe for fish and wildlife enhancement. On other environmental issues, the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommended against lining conveyance facilitIes, constructing a coal slurry pipeline, and withdrawing saline land from service because each would reduce the quantity and quality of existing wetlands. The division favored ponding and evaporating small creek flows and using saline water for industrial cooling. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the purchase of the 689 acres downstream of McPhee Dam completes the remaining mitigation on the project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its final Planning Aid Memorandum concurs with the Colorado Division of Wildlife on this opinion. Short~--,,_'!.<Ll"-ong-Te rm Environmental Ef tects Summary Table 3 on the following page shows the short- and long-term effects of the project modifications on various resources. The short- term effects would last for the 4 years of construction; the long-term effects would be for the 50-year life of the project. Comp a r i..s_~'!.Y.!_Al t:.~r:.,,~t:.i ve P l_ans_ and S~..l~~t:.!..~~Lthe_ Pr~_~<!.J'..lan The proposed plan was selected because (I) it 'Nas the only plan studied that passed all four tests of viability (completeness, effective- ness, efficiency, and acceptahility), (2) it is acceptable to the public and supported by the MVIC and DWCD, (3) it is compatible with the on-farm S-16