My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11547
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11547
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:17:54 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:02:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.116.I
Description
Fruitland Mesa Project
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
10/7/1976
Title
Public Hearing - Draft Environmental Statement - Crawford-Colorado October 7-1976 - (Part 1 of 2)
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.
/
37
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 />26 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />one wonders why this wouldn't work out so that these~things <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />could all be listed in the draft. But in any case, these two <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />agencies are preparing other mitigation plans right now which <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />could have major social and economic impact. The plans involve <br /> <br />5 acquisition of private lands to be managed as deer winter range. <br /> <br />6 The estimates of how much will actually be necessary range up <br /> <br />7 to ten thousand acres. And if we are talking about the amount <br /> <br />8 of land equal to that which is proposed to be benefited by <br /> <br />'9 this project. Equal amount of land will be needed to offset <br /> <br />10 the adverse impact of the project, and is actually going to <br /> <br />11 have to be bought up. How do those kinds of things balance <br /> <br />'12 out in being favorable or not? But anyway, t.hese costs, both <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />13 social costs and the actual dollars, certainly will be major <br /> <br />14 and must bei shown in the final EIS and the definite plan report <br /> <br />15 in order to calculate apd compare actual costs and benefits <br /> <br />16 ,of this project. <br /> <br />Now even if such a program would be socially acceptable <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />to the land owners involved, and let's say hyopthetically ~~uld <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />somehow not ~affect the benefit cost ratio of this project eo <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />severely, other problems with deer ,vould still occur. The <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />affects of facilities on their migration routes conflict with <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />new crops and stacked hay distribution. Changes within the <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />herd due to increased access will all be short or long term <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />problems and should be qualified in the final impact statement <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />as to their extent, severity and cumulative relationship with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.