WSP08562 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0011 B. sary damage to the environment (FEIS Section 2.4.1, pages 2-35 to 2-38). Without th,ese miti gati on measures the Forest Service would not be assured of environmental protection and unnecessary damage to the lenvi ronment woul d occur. Conse- quently the Forest Service would not issue the grant document under the FLPMA regulation:s (43 USC 1764, Section504[a]). It is consistent with the requiirement of the National Environ- mental Policy Act of 1969, to use all practicable means and measures to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productivehannony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future genera- tions of Americans. I i Compliance with Section 7 of t~e Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205, as amended) is req~ired. A "no jeopardy opinion" has been issued by the Fish and Wnd1ife Service (FEIS Appendix I). The Cities have agreed to the required action specified by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FEIS Section 4.1.4, page 4-33; FEIS Appendix I; and Easement Condition 27, herein.) I have reviewed the FEIS with ~egard to wetlands which would be impacted (FEIS Sections 3.1.3,Jpages 3-8 to 3-10; 4.1.3, pages 4-21 to 4-30) and Executive Or~er 11990. The granting of this land use is consistent with Executive Order 11990 because the wetlands on the project area will not be significantly affected by the water diversion. The diversion structures will be located in the streams, temporarily disturbin~ about six acres, of which about two wetland acres will be lost (FEIS Section 4.1.3, page 4-29). There is no practicable alternative to avoid the disturb- ance of these six acres. Significant adverse effects will not occur and this action minimize$ the loss of wetlands. , i The proposal is generally inconsistent with the concept and philosophy of wilderness as expressed in the Wilderness Act of 1964. However, it is consistent with the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980 (PL 96-560) containing 'the following language concerning the Homestake Phase II Project ,and the Holy Cross Wilderness: ". . .(5) Certain lands i~ the San Isabel and White River National Forest, Colorado, which comprise approximately one hundred!and twenty-six thousand acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Holy Cross Wilderness--Propose<;1, II dated November, 1980, and which shall be known as the Holy Cross Wilderness: Provided, that no right, or claim of right, to the diversion and use of existing conditional water rights for the Homestake Water Development project by the cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs shall be pre- judiced, expanded, dimini$hed, altered, or affected by this Act. Nothing in thi~ act shall be construed to expand, abate, impair, impede, or interfere with the construction, maintenance; or repair of said project, C. D. E. 10