Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />C'J <br />r:.::> <br />...-.1 <br />.-4 <br /> <br />('''1 <br /> <br />.' < <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />6. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded in a 1990 update of <br />their Biological Opinion on the Grand Valley Unit that the proposal would have <br />no effect on threatened or endangered species. <br /> <br />7. CUltural resources have been inventoried by Colorado State <br />University in 1984 and by Reclamation in 1990, and no sites eligible to the <br />National Register of Historic places have been recorded. Construction <br />specifications will require protection of any sites discovered during <br />construction. <br /> <br />8. Social and economic impacts would not result in significant changes. <br />Construction worker immigration would be less than 0.1 percent of the total <br />for Mesa County. Approximately 35 jobs would be created for each of the two <br />construction years. Construction specifications and monitoring would reduce <br />construction type impacts (i.e., dust, traffic disruption, noise) to local <br />residents. <br /> <br />9. Concrete sections of canals would increase safety hazards along the <br />Price Ditch. Safety fencing to Reclamation standards would reduce this <br />problem; in addition, provisions for animal escapes would be made in the <br />Price Ditch. <br /> <br />10. Possible elimination of two special cross-clrainage ponds and 6.5 <br />miles of dikes from portions of the Grand Valley Unit would essentially <br />maintain present conditions of flash flood control. Existing cross-clrainage <br />structures would be replaced in-kind. <br /> <br />11. The historical runoff protection provided by the Stubb Ditch would <br />be replaced by a ditch on the north side of the Stubb pipeline operation and <br />maintenance road. <br /> <br />12. The circulation of the assessment to approximately 50 individuals <br />and organizations for public review produced 8 letters of comment. Copies of <br />the letters and responses to the comments appear in the final environmental <br />assessment. Comments included requests for more information on wetland <br />impacts, additional discussions on the cross drainage system, and more <br />discussion on the effect of the program on water rights and saved water. <br />These issues and others are discussed and resolved in the final environmental <br />assessment. <br />