Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comment: The effects of the project on downstream <br />[water J quality should be described and also any effects on water <br />quality in the Soda Lakes. <br /> <br />Response: Since the reservoir,will not be operated to <br />control low flows, the dovnstre8.lll water quality should not be adversely <br />affected. There may even be some iJaprovement in the downstream water <br />quality as some of the solids suspended in the reservoir inflow will <br />settle out as the flow passes through the multiple-purpose pool. The <br />project should have no affect on water quality in the Soda Lakes. <br /> <br />12. Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> <br />Comment: General concurrence was expressed with respect <br />to the environmental statement. The Board is in favor of construction of <br />the proposed project. <br /> <br />C. Citizen Groups. <br /> <br />The draft environmental ,;tatement was sent to the following <br />citizen groups requesting their views and comments. Their comments <br />are summarized below and copies of the replies are attached to the <br />environmental statement. <br /> <br />1. The Nature Conservancy. <br /> <br />~~: No useful comments were made with respect to the <br /> <br />project. <br /> <br />2. No comments were received from the following citizen <br />groups although each group was furnished a copy of the environmental <br />statement. <br /> <br />Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. (Colorado Division) <br />Rocky Mountain Center on the Environment <br />South Platte Area Redevelopment Council <br />Thorne Ecological Foundation <br />Colorado Citizens Coordinating Committee on Environmental <br />Planning <br />Colorado Wildlife Fede~ation, Inc. <br />Colorado Open Space Coordinating Council, Inc. <br /> <br />D. Individuals. <br /> <br />1. Comments <br /> <br />received from the following individuals: <br /> <br />Tim T., S_chowalter. ' -kewood, Colorado <br /> <br />25 <br />