My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01569
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01569
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:31:41 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:32:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8449.900
Description
Bear Creek
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
2/4/1972
Author
USACOE
Title
Final Environmental Statement for Bear Creek Flood Control Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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
<br />the ratio should be either explained for the reader or eliminated <br />because it is unrelated to environmental impact. <br /> <br />Response: This same interest rate was used in the <br />authorizing document and, therefore , sta;ys the same as long as the <br />authorization stands. <br /> <br />Comment: It would be desirable to include additional <br />maps in order to help the reader better understand the local setting <br />of the project. <br /> <br />Response: The comment was considered valid; however, <br />there are no other maps available for use in an environmental statement <br />at this time. <br /> <br />Comment: The portion of the statement dealing with land <br />use changes should be revised and updated because of the relative scarcity <br />of floodplain lands not already developed and also because of floodplain <br />zoning ordina.nces being enacted at the present time. <br /> <br />Response: This was considered a valid comment and the <br />environmental statement was revised to update forecasts on land use cha.nges. <br />However, the discussion on floodplain zoning ordinances will remain essentially <br />the same until their effectiveness has been evaluated. <br /> <br />Comment: The statement says in one place that mining on <br />project land vill cease and, in another place, indicates that mining could <br />continue after project implementation. These tvo'atatements are inconsistent. <br /> <br />Response: For all practical purposes mining viII cease <br />upon project implementation. However, as pointed out in Section 3 of the <br />statement, future mining which is determined to be in the best interest of <br />the country could prove to be the exception. Such a possibility cannot be <br />ruled out completely. <br /> <br />Comment: A cessation of mining within the project boundary <br />could accelerate extraction of similar minerals in adjacent lands. This <br />should be discussed as an adverse project impact. <br /> <br />Response: This was considered a valid comment and a discussion <br />of this possibility was included in the detrimental impacts section of the <br />statement. <br /> <br />Comment: Project construction viII accelerate residential <br />development on adjacent lands. This, along with related problems, should <br />be discussed as a project impact. <br /> <br />Response: This possibility was alluded to in the detrimental <br />impacts section, but a~parently not enough emphasis was placed on it. <br /> <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.