My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03845
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03845
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:52:26 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:00:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.450
Description
McElmo Creek Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
7
Date
3/1/1992
Title
Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the McElmo Creek Unit of the Colorado River Basic Salinity Control Program 1991 Annual Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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 />I. WZLDLl:n xrn:GATIOll: <br /> <br />Thirty eight (38) CRSC contracts were approved in 1990 <br />and 1991 for a total expenditure of $1,216,471.00 on 4482 <br />acres (see table 2, contract information report). <br />Approximately 8' has been allocated for wildlife practices. <br />Twenty eight (28) contracts (74') contain some form of cost- <br />shared wildlife practices (see table 1, cost-share <br />information report). Three (3) contracts contain non-cost <br />shared wildlife practices and management. So far only <br />planned mitigation practices (as opposed to applied) have <br />been tracked so these figures do not reflect actual <br />conditions. Actual changes will be observed beginning with <br />the 1992 report. Mitigation is presently keeping pace with <br />upland and wetland losses (see wildlife habitat impact <br />summary). The opportunities, however, are now becoming <br />scarce. The high cost of installing planned irrigation <br />systems creates a financial burden to many of our producers <br />who can be classified as limited resource farmers. It's <br />difficult to then justify additional dollars for wildlife <br />habitat. More and more, we are dealing with producers who <br />have no interest in developing wildlife habitat and have <br />every intention of eliminating existing habitat (especially <br />willows and other wetlands) on their own. Some become <br />indignant when wetlands are mentioned. Many feel they have <br />too much habitat (in most cases they do because of poor past <br />management). These attitudes are intimidating to the <br />planning staff and effectiveness in aChieving mitigation <br />diminishes. We have been fortunate that impacts lately have <br />been short term or minimal. It is our perception that when <br />we do obtain substantial mitigation it will be with <br />individuals that are only interested in wildlife habitat <br />development or enhancement. But the situation also exists <br />for some significant wetland habitat losses as our on-farm <br />acreage is so great. <br /> <br />,,, <br />n' <br />... (\...... <br />-, " <br />\.'; \. ). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.