Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"I'"' .~O <br />Ii;j'v <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. Comment - III-133, IV-45 and V-54. Has there been a resolution to <br />the conflict of historic/reclamation values in the Twin Lakes Village <br />area? What historical importance is attached to the physical prop- <br />erties described? What specific mitigation measures are proposed for <br />the possible flooding of this area? <br /> <br />Response: There is no conflict concerning the historic value of the <br />Twin Lakes Village area. The Bureau of Reclamation is cooperating <br />with the Colorado State Historical Society and the Advisory Council <br />on Historic Preservation concerning compliance with the National <br />Historic Preservation Act of 1955 as concerns all properties of <br />historic or archeological significance in the Twin Lakes area as <br />well as the remainder of the Project area. See comments of the <br />Colorado State Historical Society. <br /> <br />4. Comment - IV-8 and VII-13. The environmental impact of private <br />developers is briefly listed. No mitigation measures are proposed <br />in Section V, which indicates the assumption is made that private <br />development is a beneficial use of the environment. <br /> <br />Response: The exclusion of specific mitigating measures for the. <br />environmental impact of the private developer does not intend to <br />imply that private development is a beneficial use of the environ- <br />ment. The Bureau of Reclamation's purchase of lands surrounding <br />. Project reservoirs for recreation and fish and wildlife development <br />might be considered a mitigating measure to private development as <br />it is a deterrent to immediate lakeshore development. Its purpose is <br />to protect the resource against undesirable and uncontrolled develop- <br />ment and to maintain control of public access. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. C~~cilt - IV-21. The s~aLernent does not indicate damages to Mexico <br />water users on the lower Colorado River. The United States does <br />have the responsibility with Mexico to lower salinity in the river. <br /> <br />Response: The United States does have the responsibility to lo~er <br />the salinity of the Colorado River. Public Law 93-320 has authorized <br />four salinity control units with estimated salinity reduction of <br />48 mg/l at Imperial Dam. A brief discussion of these units is <br />included in responses to comments of the Environmental Protection <br />Agency and more detailed background information for these units <br />may be found in the Bureau of Reclamation's "Colorado River. Water <br />Quality Improvement Program Status Report, January 1974." <br /> <br />5. Comment - IV-83. Under construction impacts (29a), the most lasting <br />road impact will be the increased access into primitive areas with <br />possible resultant environmental degradation. <br /> <br />Response: Nast Tunnel, Cunningham and Mormon-Carter Access Roads <br />are the only access roads that provide access to areas that could <br />possibly be considered primitive areas. The Public Service Company's <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />XI-23B <br />