My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7951
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7951
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:32 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:31:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7951
Author
Boudreaux, J.
Title
Techniques For Computing Endangered Species Mitigation For Water Development Projects In The Upper Colorado River Basin.
USFW Year
1981.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
5 <br /> <br />(3) Water Rights Purchases to guarantee minimum flows in the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin, estimated cost = $3,000,000. <br />(4) Habitat Manipulation in Basin, estimated cost = $3,000,000. <br />Total Estimated Cost of Plan = $20,000,000 in 1981 dollars. The costs <br />could be expected to rise by 10% per year (or more) due to inflation. <br />PART III. Mitigation Formula for Windy Gap Project in Colorado <br />The above plan is aimed at allowing some increase in water development <br />(but not total development) in the Upper Colorado River Basin, while <br />still recovering the fish. Any projects that increase water depletions <br />~v~ - in the-Basin should pay a proportionate share of the cost of the plan, <br />s~ <br />r <br />G`~`~- ~ <br />a~~~a, since water development is the crux of the problem. <br />B,~ <br />~. <br />The Windy Gap Project in Colorado was the first attempt by the Service <br />to establish a procedure for determining a project`s proportionate share <br />of costs. Water depletions for the project averaged 57,000 acre-feet <br />per year, and varied from near zero in dry years to 93,000 acre-feet in <br />wet years. The project was~~first examined according to the first ques- <br />tion of jeopardy, "Would the project threaten the existence of the <br />endangered species?" The analysis showed that changes to the physical <br />habitat of the fish species would be undetectable, i.e., there would be <br />no local major impacts. <br />The second question of jeopardy eras then asked, "Would the project <br />affect the recovery of the fish?" Based on the preceding discussion <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.