Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r~l <br />I <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />I: <br />II <br />I <br /> <br />, <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />CONTENTS <br /> <br />Endangered Species .........,..."......................,."............. 42 <br />Compliance with the Endangered Species Act .........,..............,. 42 <br />Endangered Species Act Regulatory Relieffor Grand Valley Irrigators. . . . . . . 43 <br />Vegetation and Land Use ..................................................44 <br />Unique Geographical Features. . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 <br />Construction Easements and Disturbances ............................. 45 <br /> <br />Cultural Resources ....................................................... 46 <br />Modernizing the Historic Canal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 <br /> <br />Indian Trust Assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 <br />Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 <br />Recreation Resources ................................................,.... 48 <br />Impacts at Highline Lake State Park .................................. 48 <br />Socioeconomic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 <br />Funding and Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 <br />Hydroelectric Power Generation at the Grand Valley Power Plant. . . . . . . . . . . 52 <br />Cumulative Impacts ...................................................... 53 <br />Sufficient Progress of the Recovery Program ........................... 53 <br />Other Recovery Program Activities for the 15-Mile Reach ................ 55 <br />Summary of Environmental Commitments.. . .. . ... .... . .. .... ... .. . .. . ... . . . . 57 <br /> <br />CHAPTER 4 - CONSULTATION AND COORDlNA TlON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 <br />Scoping for the Draft Environmental Assessment ............................... 59 <br />Draft Assessment ReviewIFinal Assessment Preparation ......................... 59 <br />Public Involvement ............................................... 59 <br />Overview of Letters Received. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 <br />Summary of Changes to the EA. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 <br />Consultation with other Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 <br /> <br />REFERENCES CITED .............................................. . . . . . . . . . . 65 <br /> <br />BACKGROUND lNFORMA TION <br /> <br />1 - Recovery Program for Endangered Colorado River Fishes .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 <br />2 - The Grand Valley Project.. . . .'...... ...... ............ .. .... . ... ....... . .. . . ..3 <br />3 - Colorado-Big Thompson Project ............................................... 5 <br />4 - The Settlement and Surplus HUP Water Deliveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 <br />5 - How Salinity Control Improvements Increased Ability to Manage Spills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 <br />6 - CWCB's 1995 Instream Flow Filing ...........................................36 <br />7 - Priority of Cameo Rights... ... .. . . . . ..... . . .. ....... . .. . ... .. .. ... .. . . . .. . . .37 <br /> <br />11 <br />