Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'"""' <br />~ ~ <br /> <br />Ul <br /> <br />Replies to Comments Made by the <br />Environmental Protection Services, State of Nevada <br />(Letter of April 26, 1976) <br /> <br />1. Comment: Major direct and secondary impacts on state. - Desali- <br />nation projects at LaVerkin Springs, Utah, and Littlefield Springs, <br />Arizona, will remove approximately 153,700 tons of salt per year <br />from the Virgin River. Salt concentrations monitored by this agency <br />exceed 3,000 p/m which is considered unsuitable or injurious for irri- <br />gation usage. These upstream projects will lower this salt p/m value <br />somewhat, but how much is not stated in this report. <br /> <br />Reply: The LaVerkin Springs Unit will remove 103,000 tons of salt <br />from the Virgin River system. Littlefield Springs Unit will remove <br />16,700 tons. This is a total of 119,700 tons not 153,000 tons. The <br />resulting effect of these projects, when compared to the 1941-1970 <br />long-term average at the Littlefield gage, and also taking into <br />account project depletions, would be as follows: <br /> <br />1941-1970 flow weighted average at Littlefield, <br />With LaVerkin Springs removed, and <br />With Littlefield Springs removed <br /> <br />- 1,644 mg/JI. <br />- 1,175 mg/JI. <br />- 1,125 mg/JI. <br /> <br />~~~~ <br /> <br />These figures have been added to appropriate impact section in <br />chapter III of the Final EIS. <br /> <br />2. Comment: The Littlefield Springs Project will deplete the flow in <br />the Virgin River by 4,100 acre-feet per year. The author is unaware <br />of existing water rights on the Virgin, but perhaps the salt reduc- <br />tion benefits should be compared with water loss anticipated to fully <br />assess the overall effect on the state. <br /> <br />Reply: The Littlefield Springs Unit has not been investigated in <br />sufficient detail to make an evaluation of diverted flow versus water <br />rights and demands. If this were to become a problem, the choice <br />would be to stop diversions during times of critical need or conflict <br />or to purchase enough irrigated acreage to obtain the required water <br />right. <br /> <br />3. Comment: These two projects will also have some impacts on <br />native fish in the Virgin as well as the endangered woundf!n fish. <br />The impact is unknown at this time, but I feel that this should be <br />explored more fully before the project is given a go-ahead. <br /> <br />':~~!D <br /> <br />168 <br />