My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08462
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08462
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:48:19 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:59:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.120
Description
Grand Valley Unit - Colorado River Basin Salinity Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
11/27/1985
Title
Corres. Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Grand Valley Unit - Stage Two Development
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.
/
2
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 />':J <br />'.. <br />\.':':1 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />STA~ OF COLORADO <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />,'-I <br /> <br />--. <br /> <br />(~J <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br /> <br />November 27, 1985 <br /> <br />Richard D. lamm <br />Goyernor <br />J. William McDonald <br />Director <br />David W. Walker <br />Deputy Director <br /> <br />Mr. Wes Hirschi <br />Regional Director <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Code UC-730 <br />P.O. Box 11568 <br />Salt Lake City, Utah 84148 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Hirschi: <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board staff has reviewed the <br />Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Grand Valley <br />Unit, Stage Two Development. We appreciate having the opportun- <br />ity to comment. <br /> <br />The DEIS evaluates the impacts of two al-ternatives and a no- <br />action alternative. The environmental impacts from both alter- <br />natives appear to be properly evaluated in the DEIS and are <br />essentially the same. Neither alternative appears to have <br />signi ficant adverse impacts on the environmen"o. <br /> <br />The primary impact resulting from the implementation of the <br />selected alternative is the loss of 2, 239 acr,~s of largely man- <br />made wetland areas adjacent to the canals and laterals that will <br />be lined or placed in pipes. To offset this loss, the purchase <br />of 2,090 acres of private land is proposed. We recommend that <br />the Bureau examine alternatives to the purchase in fee simple of <br />private lands. The availability of state or federal lands should <br />also be investigated. Finally, the wetlands are to be managed by <br />the Colorado Division of wildlife (DOW). The report should state <br />what arrangements have been made with the DOW to assume that <br />obligation. <br /> <br />The report correctly states that OM&R costs for the <br />recommended alternative and for the managemen-t of the wildlife <br />area are estimated and may change. The repor-t should al so note <br />the recent agreements which have been reached with the four local <br />irrigation entities to assume the ownership, operation, and <br />maintenance of the laterals which are to be improved. <br /> <br />802 <br />mc/hirschi <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.