Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,J <br /> <br />Summaries of Meetings l~~l~ Since November \~lPl~nning Team Meetin~.-- <br />The follm-ling meetings Her" held, '-lith results as indicated. <br /> <br />January 24, 1979- Technical staff meeting held to discuss data- <br />collection procedures. The decision was made to cover the entire <br />project study area in the feasibility report, but construction <br />priorities would be related to soil types and cost effectiveness. <br />The primary problem was identified as determining the mechanisms <br />of salt loading, and data-collection procedures were recommended <br />and later refined. <br /> <br />!larch 21, 1979-The Environmental, Social, and Economic Subteam met <br />to assess progress and review schedules. Team members reported <br />that the Soil Conservation Service-directed wetland study had been <br />completed, project-area habitat mapping finished, and SCS studies <br />concerning on-farm salinity control finished in draft form. Field <br />habitat evaluations, economic and social assessments, and a cultural <br />resource survey were identified as future work. <br /> <br />April 12, 1979-A coordination meeting was held with the Soil <br />Conservation Service to compare information about salini~y' and water <br />levels in project area, view slide presentations on SCS on-farm <br />improvements, and establish information-exchange procedures, particu- <br />larly involving deep-percolation quantities and salt-loading. <br /> <br />April 16, 1979-Project planners met with the Uncompahgre Valley Water <br />Users Board to present preliminary salt-reduction alternatives and <br />comparative cost data, the planning schedule, and repayment information. <br />Board members expressed interest in being kept informed and partici- <br />pating in public meetings; they also suggested some additional work <br />to improve the. alternatives. As a result of these discussions, the <br />water users association will have a prime role in future public <br />meetings. . <br /> <br />Environmental Preferences and Concerns.--According to the environmental <br />planning subteam the prime environmental concern is to protect existing <br />wetlands in the project area, many of which are associated with waterfowl <br />migration and other wildlife uses. Subteam members have concluded that <br />wetlands losses probably can best be mitigated by protecting' and improving <br />riparian wetlands along the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers. Open ditches <br />and laterals are more likely to support edge vegetation valuable to wild- <br />life, and if large canals are concrete-lined, provision should be made for <br />deer and other large animals to escape from canals. (The Charles Hensen <br />Canal, part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, has such provisions that <br />have proved effective.) Subteam members believe that the Montrose-Delta <br />Canal should be assigned a low priority for lining because of its high <br />aesthetic and wildlife values, and land retirement might be considered as <br />a long-term alternative in some cases. <br /> <br />(;Ofi86::> <br /> <br />5 <br />