WSP01267 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) N ~ 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 Stllge 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 Bureauiof Reclamation activities and, therefore, salinity reductions may occur ,under the. n1action alternative. The. extent of this reduction. cannot, be predicte because the on-farm program is voluntary. There- fore, it has not been included in the no-action alternative. However,. the prpgram does have the potential to reduce salt loading by as much as 130,000 tons annually. Any salinity reduction through privately funded measur~sis .expected to be minor and would probably be offset by .in- creased water use and associated depletions. Csnal and lateral improve- ments would be limited to those absolutely necessary to keep the irr1iga-' tion st,.stems 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. . ;.' t, ) Summary of Environmental Impacts Land use and ownership Uilder either alternative A or B or the no-action alternative, .!:he current trend of. residential areas encroaching onto adjacent irrigated. and dry grazing areas would continue. Farming practices would continue much aa they are now. Rights-of-way for canals and laterals would not. be exp~cted to change, except that public lands withdrawn for the Grand' Valley!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 t.he Government Highline Canal and labd excess to the Grand Valley Project could be sold. 0; Un!ler the no-a.ction alternative, the 1,409 acres estimated as exist-:-. ing rights-of-way for the canals and iaterals in the valley would remain essentially the same as they are now, Either alternative A or B would requir~ about 3,325 acres of additional land for construction activities, the de~ention 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 pri"ate and Federal land would be acquired and transferred to the' State of Colorado for wildlife management. Under the no-action alterna- tive, I<pproximately 10 percent of that amount would be transferred. to compen$ate for Stage One losses. S-4 ',~ .