2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) By implementing the plan, salt loading to the Colorado River would • be reduced by approximately 138,000 tons annually. No-action alternative The no-action alternative was analyzed to compare the viable plans and no action, which assumes no expenditure of salinity control funds for Stage Two development. No significant salinity reduction is expected under the description of the no-action alternative. The U.S. Department of Agriculture on-farm salinity control program is not dependent on the Bureau of Reclamation activities and, therefore, salinity reductions may occur under the no-action alternative. The extent of this reduction cannot be predicted because the on-f arm program is voluntary. There- fore, it has not been included in the no-action alternative. However, the program does have the potential to reduce salt loading by as much as 130,000 tons annually. Any salinity reduction through privately funded measures is expected to be minor and would probably be offset by in- creased water use and associated depletions. Canal and lateral improve- ments would be limited to those absolutely necessary to keep the irriga- tion systems functional. Wildlife measures amounting to approximately 10 percent of the wildlife plan for the entire Grand Valley Unit would be implemented to compensate for Stage One losses. Summary of Environmental Impacts Land use and ownership • Under either alternative A or B or the no-action alternative, the current trend of residential areas encroaching onto adjacent irrigated and dry grazing areas would continue. Farming practices would continue much as they are now. Rights-of-way for canals and laterals would not be expected to change, except that public lands withdrawn for the Grand Valley Project and now no longer needed for operation and maintenance would be returned to the Bureau of Land Management to administer. Small isolated tracts of Federal land south of the Government Highline Canal and land excess to the Grand Valley Project could be sold. Under the no-action alternative, the 1,409 acres estimated as exist- ing rights-of-way for the canals and laterals in the valley would remain essentially the same as they are now. Either alternative A or B would require about 3,325 acres of additional land for construction activities, the detention dike and ditch system, flood easements at detention ponds, access roads, construction material sites, and drainage areas. These additional lands would include 1,402 acres of Federal land and 1,923 acres of private land. Of this 3,325 acres, approximately 1,100 acres would be needed permanently. By developing either alternative A or B, approximately 2,090 acres of private and Federal land would be acquired and transferred to the State of Colorado for wildlife management. Under the no-action alterna- tive, approximately 10 percent of that amount would be transferred to compensate for Stage One losses. S-4