WSP12256 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3016 The dam would be a rolled earthfill structure very simiiar to the proposed Narrows Dam. The overall environmental setting for the Narrows site is applicable to the Weld County site. The so; ls at the damsite and reservoir site at the Weld County alternative are 1 ighter in texture and are more highly erodible. The Weld County site would require more land than the Narrows site. The proximity of the Weld site to Greeley, Colorado, could increase the chances for eutrophication and pollutlon problems in the water impoundment due to the adjacent feedlot wastes and human sewage effluent. Additionally, due to the proximity of the Greeley urbanized area, serious problems from the standpoint of land speculation, subdivisions, and utility suppli-es could take place. The town of Hardin, Colorado, would be inundated, whi-ch would require the relocation of 30 people; however, an additional 270 people would require reloca- tion. An entire feedlot operation would require relocation. 4. Modification of Existing Facilities There exist many small reservoirs off the mainstem of the South Platte River which are filled by direct flow rights from the South Platte River. Any attempts at modifying these facilities, while benefiting the individual water districts, would not significantly increase the available water to downstream water users. Chances are that fish 'and wildlife and rec'reation would not benefit since the existing facilities are privately owned and operated. Increasing the exist- ing water resource for municipal and industrial water uses could not be attained. It is doubtful that sufficient high waterflows could be stored to increase the quantity of irriga- tion water available. E. Other Issues 1. Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 404(b)(I), Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material Into Navi~able Waters. A section 404 (b) 1 evaluatlon has been prepared and 15 intended to meet the requ1rements of fill. in Ilnavigab1e waters II pursuant to Public Law 95-217 (see appendix A). liThe EPA and the Corps of Engineers have determined that this project as proposed is not consistent or otherwise in compliance with the section 404(b)(l) guidelines of the Clean Water Act." This is based on the fact that wetlands lost will not be replaced on an acre per acre basis (see wet lands). 2. Endan ered S ecies Act of 1973, Amendments of 1978, Section 7(c). The Fish and Wildlife Servlce -a a e lty, a co og ca erV1ces lee as prepared a biological opinion with a no jeopardy finding bOn the peregrine falcon, black-footed ferret, ,and a no jeopardy finding with certain conservation stipulations on the bald eagle. In January 1983, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Regional Office, Denver, Colorado) issued a -biological opinion of jeopardy on the whooping crane unless specific measures to preclude jeopardy are incorporated into the Narrows Unit plan. The Fish and Wild1 ife Service recommended n. . . that water storage be designated in the Narrows Unit Reservoir to provide needed supplemental flows for roosting habitat and for channel w_idth maintenance. Flows need to be released from the Narrows Unit Reservoir to satisfy channel maintenance needs; this has been estimated to average 32,000 acre-feet per year, depending upon the base flow." These f-lows are for the Platte River between Lexington and Shelton, Nebraska. In March 1983, an interagency task group composed of staff from the Bureau and Fish and Wildlife Service was formed to identify additional water and/or land management alternatives to remove the jeopardy finding rendered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This group identified a number of alternatives which it believed could provide the suitable habitat characteristics conducive to continued Whooping crane use in the area of concern. However, it was concluded that none of the alternatives, including the plan recommended in the biological opinion issued on January 20, 1983, are completely satisfactory due to -the lack of certainty that, if i-mple- mented, the desired results of providing for Whooping crane habitat would be achieved. As a result, the Regional Directors of the-two Interio,r agencies have agreed to a plan of action to field test a number of these measures over the next 2 years with the goal of developing an acceptable and implementab1e plan for whooping crane habitat management that would remove the jeopardy opinion. The plan of action is contained in Appendix D. 3. Prime and Unique Farmlands, CEQ Memo, August 3D, 1976. The project would inundate 5,500 acres (2,227 ha) of irrigated farmland and take another 5,500 acres (2,227 ha) of farmland out of private hands and put into the public domain, but some production could continue as part of a management plan. S-4