My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07846
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07846
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:29:08 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:37:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.48.D.3
Description
Wolford Mountain
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/13/1992
Title
Wolford Mountain Reservoir Water Substitution - Record of Decision
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Record of Decision
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 />lECORC OF 0 EaSTON <br />'.\'~lrGId M:G__IM:aOi,.C~llJ ~r <br /> <br />"~GO <br /> <br />environmental and project-related issues. These letters were <br />from the City of Grand Junction, Mesa County Water Association, <br />Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter, Mr. Paul H. Grant of Grand <br />County, Colorado, and the Service. <br /> <br />The City of Grand Junction raised the issue that insufficient <br />detail was provided in the DEIS on the substitution agreement for <br />Wolford Mountain Reservoir and Green Mountain Reservoir. To <br />address this issue, the SDEIS was expanded to include a more <br />detailed discussion of the substitution agreement and its <br />potential impacts. <br /> <br />The Mesa County Water Association raised the issue concerning <br />what recourse water users on the Blue and Colorado Rivers <br />upstream of McCoy or Kremrnling would have to maintain suitable <br />streamflows for irrigation, recreational, and commercial <br />purposes. In response, it was stated that only a substitution of <br />water between the proposed reservoir and Green Mountain is being <br />contemplated. If any senior water rights were injured, recourse <br />would be through the State of Colorado water rights system. No <br />injury to such senior water rights is anticipated. <br /> <br />The Sierra Club Rocky Mountain Chapter raised the issues of the <br />project's reliance on congressional authorization for approval <br />and the allegation that there is no current market for the water <br />yield of the project. In response, it was stated that the water <br />substitution agreement could be implemented by Reclamation within <br />existing legislation and authorities. Water demand data is <br />consistent with the updated metropolitan Denver system-wide EIS. <br /> <br />Mr. Paul H. .Grant raised the issues that the project would affect <br />Grand County and dewater most of the Colorado River and all of <br />the Fraser River. In response, Mr. Grant was advised that <br />substitution of water would be limited to Wolford Mountain and <br />Green Mountain Reservoirs. Therefore, the project will not <br />impact that portion of the Colorado River Basin upstream of the <br />Blue River including the Fraser River sub-basin. In the future, <br />substitutions or exchanges with impacts different than those <br />described in the SDEIS would require additional NEPA compliance. <br /> <br />The Service raised the issue that the SDEIS does not address <br />impacts to the aquatic environment on the Colorado River above <br />the Blue River confluence or impacts to the Williams Fork River <br />below Williams Fork Reservoir. In response it was stated that <br />the project will not change the historic functions of Williams <br />Fork Reservoir and the diversions by the Moffat Tunnel diversion <br />system. In the future, substitutions or exchanges different than <br />those described in SDEIS would require additional NEPA <br />compliance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.