My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07644
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07644
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:15 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:29:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.600.20
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Studies - Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
4/16/1975
Author
US DoI BoR
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 of 2, Pages XI-231 to XI-421
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.
/
193
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 />i-" ,-, r', - <br />~U~V <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />To: riles <br /> <br />Subject: Response to the July 8, 1974, Environmental Protection Agency <br />(Region VIII) Letter of Comment on the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project, Colorado, Draft Environmental Statement <br /> <br />A major effect on implementation and operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project (FAP) is the impact upon salinity of the waters in the Colorado <br />River Basin. EPA offers the following comments regarding the salinity <br />increases as they affect economic and environmental factors due to the <br />diversion of 70,000 acre-feet annually: <br /> <br />1. Comment - The consumptive use of this amount of high quality water <br />(50 mg/l dissolved solids) will result in a Bureau of Reclamation <br />estimated increase of 4 mg/l of total dissolved solids, at Hoover <br />Dam, Arizona. Data and calculations made to arrive at this estimate <br />should be included, at least in the appendix of the final report. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Response: Data and calculations are included in revised Chapter IV. <br />Data and calculations are presented for Cameo, Colorado, Lees Ferry, <br />Utah;and Imperial Dam, Arizona. <br /> <br />2. Comment - Recommendations of the 1972 Colorado River Enforcement <br />Conference and the proposed Colorado River System Control Policy <br />and Standards Procedures published in the Federal Register June 13, <br />1974, both call for the establishment of a policy to~maintain <br />salinity at or below 1972 levels in the lower main stem of the <br />Colorado River. Because this project will result in an increase in <br />salinity, potential measures to offset these increases should be <br />discussed in the final statement. <br /> <br />Response: Public Law 93-320 has authorized four salinity control <br />units with an estimated combined impact of 48 mg/l reduction in <br />salinity at Imperial Dam. Two of these projects, Grand Valley Unit <br />and Paradox Valley Unit, are located in Colorado and would result in <br />a projected 35 mg/l improvement in concentration at Imperial Dam. <br />A discussion of these units, background material for which may be <br />found in "Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program Status <br />Report, January 1974," follows: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Paradox Valley Unit, Colorado - Paradox Valley contributes about <br />200,000 tons of salt per year to the Dolores River in southwestern <br />Colorado. A control project would reduce this contribution about <br />180,000 tons per year resulting in a reduction of the salinity <br />concentration at Imperial Dam of about 16 mg/l. Investigations were <br />started in fiscal year 1972 and a feasibility report is scheduled <br />for completion in fiscal year 1975. <br /> <br />XI-279 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.