My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02881
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02881
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:47:28 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:24:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8270.100
Description
Colorado River Basin Water Quality/Salinity -- Misc Water Quality
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
5/19/1977
Title
Final Environmental Statement - Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program - Volume II - Public Comment -- Part 1 of 2 -- Title Page through Page 145
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.
/
137
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 />.- <br />...... <br />CJ'l <br />(,)l <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />25. Comment: Page III-II, last paragraph. - We suggest that irriga- <br />tion for quick establishment of vegetal cover be included. <br /> <br />~: A statement as to using irrigation to assist,with the reestab- <br />IISnment of native vegetation in borrow areas, has been added to the <br />paragraph immediately following the one referenced. <br /> <br />26. Conunent: Page III-19, paragraph 3, sentence 1. - We feel imple- <br />mentation of the units proposed in the program could increase agricul- <br />tural production in the upper basin up to 25 percent. The Bureau 1 s <br />1974 report on the Minidoka Project irrigation management service's <br />program listed a 13 percent increase in crop yields (page III-59). <br /> <br />Reply: The reference is incorrectly cited. The Minidoka Report <br />stated there was a 13-percent increase in return revenues resulting <br />from increased crop yields. <br /> <br />For a few local areas such as Grand Valley or the Uinta Unit, there <br />would be some increase in crop yields, but if the whole Upper Colo- <br />rado River Basin is considered, the percentage increase would be <br />very small. <br /> <br />27. Comment: Page 111-60, paragraph 3. - We feel benefits in addi- <br />tion to reduced siltation in the Colorado River would include reduced <br />pollutant loads of nitrogen, phosphorous, pesticides, and oxygen'con- <br />suming organic compounds. <br /> <br />.~,~. <br />"~*{;: <br />~:.,;/.:i- <br /> <br />Reply: A statement concerning the <br />has been added to the discussion. <br />Local Economic Resources.. <br /> <br />reduction of the other pollutants <br />See chapter III, section B.2.b. [1] <br /> <br />28. Comment: Page IV-IS, Section [5], line 11. - We suggest that <br />an estimate be made of the amount of water needed to maintain the <br />habitat that was above the trench and that amount shOUld be assured. <br /> <br />Reply: An estimate of the quantity of water required to maintain the <br />existing phreatophytic growth has been included under the Las Vegas <br />Wash Unit, Chapters I and II. The Wash itself is primarily under <br />Clark County ownership and the rights to use surface wastewater are <br />jointly shared by the county and the municipalities of the area. The <br />county is currently planning a park development for the Wash and will <br />use their water rights to maintain it. As such, there is no Federal <br />responsibility to assure these flows. <br /> <br />~~:~1Z! <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.