My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07690
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07690
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:27 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:32:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8277.600.10
Description
Big Sandy River Unit - Colorado River Salinity Control Program
State
WY
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
9/1/1987
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Big Sandy River Unit
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.
/
19
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 />(2) Cost sharing for fish and wildlife habitat replacements <br />using salinity control funds. <br /> <br />(3) Cost sharing ata maximum rate of 70 percent federal - <br />30 percent local for fish and wildlife habitat <br />replacements and an increase to $100,000 for the total <br />federal cost share per individual. <br /> <br />In contrast, the pre-1984 Amendment authority provided the following: <br /> <br />(1) Salinity control funds were not authorized for fish and <br />wildlife habitat replacements. Replacements were funded <br />through the ASeS's existing Agricultural Conservation <br />Program at a cost-share rate of 75 percent federal and <br />25 percent local. <br /> <br />(2) The maximum federal cost share per individual for all <br />practices was $10,000. <br /> <br />(3) Local governments and nongovernmental entities were not <br />eligible for cost-share assistance. <br /> <br />Since there is no data available on the amended salinity program, a <br />credible comparison on the level of program participation and <br />replacements of fish and wildlife habitat cannot be made. <br /> <br />Tables S-l and S-2 in the Summary and Tables 2-1 and 2-2 in Chapter 2 do <br />not include effects of potential and voluntary fish and wildlife habitat <br />replacements. These tables and supporting narratives present what the <br />SCS believes to be the highest potential level of adverse impacts on <br />fish and wildlife habitats for each alternative. <br /> <br />As outlined by NEPA, several economic and environmental alternatives <br />were developed and analyzed that were beyond the authority or <br />jurisdiction of the SCS (NEPA 40 CFR Part 1502.14). In addition, the <br />State of Wyoming or the landoWners did not support various alternatives. <br />Chapter 2 describes alternative plans. Chapter 5 explores additional <br />conflicts between objectives. <br /> <br />The exact level and type (avoiding, minimizing, rehabilitating, or <br />replacing) of fish and wildlife habitat replacements will ultimately <br />depend on: <br /> <br />(1) the voluntary replacement of wildlife habitats onfarm by <br />individual landowners under a 70 percent federal and <br />30 percent local cost-share p~ogram, <br /> <br />(2) the voluntary replacement of fish and wildlife habitats . <br />off-farm by the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage <br />District under a 70 percent federal and 30 percent local <br />cost-share program, <br /> <br />(3) the design, location, and number of irrigation-regulating <br />reservoirs and wasteways (new wildlife habitats), <br /> <br />F-4 <br /> <br />o U L' ri ;) 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.