Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />0543 <br />Project Benefits <br /> <br />There will be a 32% decrease in nitrate loading to the <br />groundwater in the watershed area. <br /> <br />Increasing Selenium levels (19.7 micrograms/liter) in the <br />Arkar.sas River at the Lamar gaging station will be reduced <br />by 17% and meet EPA and State standards. <br /> <br />Present salt loading from the watershed to the Arkansas River <br />of 116,000 tons/yr will be reduced 30%. <br /> <br />Uranium concentration at the Lamar gaging station will be <br />,reduced by .4ug/1 in the Arkansas River <br /> <br />Irrigation induced erosion on 8,800 acres averaging 42T/ac/yr <br />will be reduced by 88% to an acceptable level. <br /> <br />Wetland and fisheries will be enhanced due to reduced heavy <br />metal loading. <br /> <br />Reduced sediment to creeks, drains and the Arkansas River. <br /> <br />Other Impacts <br /> <br />Land use changes (acres)-NONE <br /> <br />Environmental values changed or lost: <br /> <br />Wetlands and fisheries will be improved due to better water <br />quality from reduced heavy metals, nutrients, and sediment. <br />Erosion on prime farmland will be reduced to acceptable levels. <br />Cultural Resources - not effected. wildlife Habitat - increase <br />in cropland wildlife habitat value. <br /> <br />Compensatory mitigation included in the plan <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Major conclusions <br /> <br />Overall, improved surface and groundwater quality, improved human <br />health and safety, significant sediment and erosion reduction, <br />improved water quality in Arkansas River, improved wetlands and <br />fisheries from improved water quality, improved wildlife habitat, <br />reduced irrigation labor costs, reduced irrigation system <br />operation and maintenance, and improved irrigation efficiency <br />results in increased available water supply on and offsite. <br /> <br />Areas of Controversy <br /> <br />The Colorado Attorney General and the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board expressed a concern that the project would effect the flows <br />in the Arkansas River by increasing crop consumptive use. This <br />concern is due to the Kansas/Colorado water compact, as it <br /> <br />5 <br />