Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, '~..... <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />bCO~23 <br /> <br />.. <br />- <br /> <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />9. The utility was discussed for including species other than "economic" <br />species (e.g., waterfowl) in habitat evaluations. Evaluations of other species <br />would probably not result in a significant determination of adverse effects <br />caused by the project division. <br /> <br />10. The State of Colorado's capability was briefly discussed for managing <br />refuges in the Russell or Mishak Lakes areas. These are potential refuge areas <br />that could be established depending on the results of mitigation determinations. <br /> <br />11. Water and Power's position on the conveyance channel fishery was repeated <br />as stated in the 1979 Definite Plan Report (pages B-16 through B-19). <br /> <br />12. Mitigation measures should be prioritized or staged to be established con- <br />currently with staged construction of the project division. If a revised miti- <br />gation plan has not been determined in 1981, there may be a hiatus in mitigation <br />being concurrent with the construction of Stage 1-2. Water and Power is obli- <br />gated to prepare a supplement to the 1979 Final Environmental Statement before <br />starting the construction of Stage 3 (scheduled for 1982). This obligation was <br />construed by Water and Power personn~l to equate with the filing of the draft <br />supplement. or- . <br /> <br />13. Regarding the potential for increasing water availability to Monte Vista NWR <br />in lieu of water deliveries to Alamosa NWR: if such a plan was pursued, Water <br />and Power personnel favored the method of surface water diversions from the <br />Rio Grande to Monte Vista NWR, rather than additional ground water pumping .at <br />Monte Vista NWR. The surface diversion method would require studies involving <br />Rio Grande hydrology, diversion dam and ditch rights, ditch capacities, ditch <br />slopes, and ditch maintenance, all to determine the feasibility of conveying <br />water to Monte Vista NWR from the Rio Grande in the IOOnth of February. The <br />alternative method of pumping additional ground water at Monte Vista NWR is <br />viewed as less attractive because detailed ground water investigations would be <br />necessary to predict whether or not injury would result to senior water right <br />holders (Colorado, State Engineer's letter of October 17, 1980). <br />