DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Enlargement of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir ( Monument #1 Reservoir Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and June 2017 Gunnison Grand Valley Forest Service National Forests Ranger District i In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632- 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. ii Enlargement of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mesa County, Colorado Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado Division of Natural Resources Responsible Official: Scott G. Armentrout, Forest Supervisor 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416 For Information Contact: Clay Speas, Forest Fisheries Biologist 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416; 970-874-6650; [email protected] Abstract: The Ute Water Conservancy District proposes to enlarge two reservoirs in the Leon Creek watershed, located east of Grand Junction, Colorado: the Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir. The combined volume of the reservoirs would be approximately 6,607 acre-feet. Construction may take 7-9 years. If both reservoirs were approved, road infrastructure would be upgraded in year 1, Monument #1 would be enlarged in years 2-5 and Hunter would be enlarged in years 6-9. The Forest Service, in evaluating Ute Water’s application, considered three alternatives: 1) the proposed action (both reservoirs); 2) enlarging Monument #1 to a size sufficient to store approximately all 6,598 acre-feet of water; and 3) a no-action alternative. Issues related to Roadless Areas and wetlands were the primary drivers of the decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Should the deciding official select an action alternative, that decision would entail the authorization of an enlarged reservoir footprint at one or more locations, various road-related construction activities, construction activities at one or more reservoir sites, access to borrow material, and mitigation activities on National Forest lands. It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful to the Agency’s preparation of the EIS. Opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS ends 45 days following the publication date of the Notice of Availability of the Supplemental draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register. Comments should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with standing to participate in subsequent administrative or judicial reviews. Send Comments to: Clay Speas GMUG National Forest Supervisor’s Office 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416 970.874.6650; [email protected] Date Comments Must Be Received: July 31, 2017 1 (Intentionally left blank) 2 Summary The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) proposes to authorize enlargement, in succession, of Monument #1 Reservoir and Hunter Reservoir. Both facilities are located east of Grand Junction, Colorado, on the north side of the Grand Mesa (Figure 1). Leon Creek is tributary to Plateau Creek which is tributary to the Colorado River. This action is needed, because Ute Water is implementing a proactive plan to have water stored for increased demand between now and 2045. Storing approximately 6,600 acre feet of water in the Leon Creek watershed is one component of Ute Water’s plan to provide additional water. In authorizing enlargement of these facilities the Forest Service will concomitantly authorize maintenance work for roads and trails on which construction equipment will travel during the construction period. Additionally, permits will be issued for a worker’s camp, borrow material, and activities associated with mitigation. The agency included two alternatives to the proposed action: Alternative 2: building a larger reservoir at the Monument #1 Reservoir site. Alternative 2 is the agency’s preferred alternative. A No Action Alternative. The agency formulated several major conclusions during the analysis: Potential impacts to wetlands are the major consideration for this project: enlarging Monument #1 and Hunter Reservoir will inundate 57.6 acres of wetlands. However, proposed mitigation for these impacts will offset both the loss of area and function of the affected wetlands. Best-available climate change modelling data suggest Monument #1 and Hunter Reservoirs are likely to remain snow-dominated for the next 30 years. The area is likely to see an increase in vehicle traffic during the 7-9 year construction window. Improvements to roads will allow 2-wheel drive vehicles along a portion of National Forest System Road (NFSR) 262, which, in its current state, is passable only by ATVs, UTVs, and 4- wheel drive vehicles. Road improvements higher in the watershed, along NFSR 262, NFSR 280, and NFST 518, will not render these routes passable by low-clearance vehicles. The Forest Service will not maintain NFSR 262 in an improved state following the completion of the project; therefore, increased vehicle traffic on this route will return to current levels within 1-2 years following the completion of construction.. Based upon this analysis, the responsible official will decide the following: 1) whether to select an action alternative (Alternative 1 or 2) or the No Action Alternative (Alternative 3); and 2) if an action alternative is selected, prescribe terms and conditions (including compensatory mitigation) associated with special use authorizations and associated permits for construction activities on National Forest System lands. 3 (Intentionally left blank) 4 Summary of Changes between Draft and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statements The following changes have occurred since the Draft EIS was published: The scope of Proposed Action has increased to include Monument #1 Reservoir. Best Available Science and information collected regarding wetlands has been included. Mitigation measures have been identified. Alternatives considered in detail have changed. The Forest Service and EPA have identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Alternatives not considered in detail has been updated. The Colorado Roadless Rule has been formalized, which clarifies activities with regard to Proposed Action allowed in Roadless Areas. Analysis for alternatives has been updated. 5 (Intentionally left blank) 6 Table of Contents Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Changes between Draft and Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statements .............. 5 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 9 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................. 11 Summary of Proposed Action ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources March 2018
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests REVISED DRAFT Forest Assessments: Watersheds, Water, and Soil Resources March 2018 Taylor River above Taylor Dam, Gunnison Ranger District In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Categorical Exclusion for Right-Of-Way Assignments and Renewals
    United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Categorical Exclusion for Right-of-Way Assignments and Renewals Grand Junction Field Office McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area 2815 H Road Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 DOI-BLM-CO-S080-2019-0002-CX April 2019 1 The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air, and scenic, scientific, and cultural values. 2 INTRODUCTION A right-of-way (ROW) assignment is a transfer, in whole or in part, of any right or interest in a right-of-way grant or lease from the holder (assignor) to a subsequent party (assignee) with the BLM’s written approval. The assignee must apply for the assignment and include a signed statement that they agree to comply with and be bound by all terms and conditions of the right-of- way grant. The assignor must consent in writing to assign all undivided right, title, and interest in and to the ROW grant. A ROW grant specifies the terms and condition for its renewal and the holder must apply to renew the grant. We will renew the grant if the holder is in compliance with the terms, conditions and stipulations of the grant.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare II # 195 Kannah Creek RARE II History – RARE Unit 195 Identified 29,650 Acres As Roadless and Recommended the Area for Wilderness in the RARE II FEIS
    Grand Mesa – Roadless Evaluation RARE II #195 Kannah Creek Rare II # 195 Kannah Creek RARE II History – RARE Unit 195 identified 29,650 acres as roadless and recommended the area for wilderness in the RARE II FEIS. This landscape was not proposed in either of the Colorado Wilderness bills (1980 & 1993) due to its status as a municipal watershed for the city of Grand Junction. Lands that were altered by road construction and timber harvest were removed from the inventory. The remaining acres are described in the 2005 Inventory as unit #20401, Kannah Creek. Resource Activities which removed lands of RARE 195 from 2005 inventory: • There are four miles of road • Vegetation harvest of 413 acres in the Flowing Park area and along road #100 Lands End Road • Communication site 2005 Roadless Inventory compared to 1979 Inventoried Roadless Areas Y 65 E HW STAT D IRS R RVO ESE ON R ERS AND D R D N E D S R D N K A L R A P G N I W O L F IND Kannah Creek IAN PO Legend INT RD # 01 Classified Road Level 5 Classified Road Level 1-4 2005 Roadless Inventory # 01 D R N 1979 Inventoried Roadless Area # 195 O O P GMUG Forest Boundary S H G D U Vegetation Treatments R T O D IN O Non - NF System Lands P A S E M 2005 Roadless Inventory & Evaluation of Potential Wilderness Areas Page 1 of 27 Grand Mesa – Roadless Evaluation Kannah Creek #20401 2005 Inventory Description: Kannah Creek #20401 – 34,630 Acres – Mesa County General Description: Unit 20401 is located on the west end of the Grand Mesa approximately 17 miles southeast of Grand Junction and 10 miles northwest of Delta.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County
    Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources, 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Mesa County Prepared for: Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, Wetlands Program 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 Prepared by: Joe Rocchio, Georgia Doyle, Peggy Lyon and Denise Culver May 29, 2003 Colorado Natural Heritage Program College of Natural Resources 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Copyright © 2002 by Colorado Natural Heritage Program Cover photograph: Rio Grande cottonwood riparian forest (Populus deltoides ssp. wislizenii/Rhus trilobata) along the Colorado River near the Mesa/Garfield county line (CNHP photo). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this study was provided by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Program. We greatly appreciate the support and assistance of Alex Chappell, Coordinator of the Division of Wildlife's Wetlands Program and John Toolen, Habitat Biologist with the Division of Wildlife and the Western Colorado Five Rivers Wetland Focus Area Committee Coordinator. This project would not have been possible without the help of many dedicated individuals. We appreciate the support of the members of the Western Colorado Five Rivers Wetland Focus Area Committee for providing their local knowledge of important wetlands in Mesa County. Rob Bleiberg and James Ferriday of Mesa Land Trust provided maps of conservation easements to aid in assessing threats. We thank Dave Soker, Bob Burdick, Doug Osmundson, and Terry Ireland of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Grand Junction for invaluable assistance with information on conservation easements, endangered fish, and Southwest Willow Flycatchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Notices
    13730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Notices Dated: March 8, 1995. which provides water to more than Plateau Creek such that impacts to all Susan K. Feldman, 55,000 Grand Valley residents. The Ute resources are minimized. Committee Management Officer, NIH. Water service area includes most of the Alternative BÐReplacement of the [FR Doc. 95±6187 Filed 3±13±95; 8:45 am] Grand Valley area surrounding the City pipeline parallel to Plateau Creek BILLING CODE 4140±01±M of Grand Junction, Colorado, and entirely within the existing state extends from east of the Town of highway 65 and 330 rights-of-way. Palisade to within 5 miles of the Alternative CÐReplacement of the DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Colorado-Utah stateline. Ute Water is a political subdivision of the State of pipeline in either alignment A or B with Bureau of Land Management Colorado formed under the Water a smaller pipeline. This alternative Conservancy Act of 1937, and is includes provisions for construction of [CO±070±5101±CO12] considered to be a quasi-municipal a booster station at the mouth of Plateau entity. Canyon to be built at a future date to Notice of Intent To Prepare an meet long-term demands. Environmental Assessment (EA) and The existing prestressed concrete pipe Notice To Scoping Meetings, and, if was installed in the early 1960s. A Alternative DÐA ``no federal action'' Determined To Be Necessary, Prepare pipeline consisting of 42-inch and 36- alternative. an Environmental Impact Statement inch diameter pipe carries raw water for Major issues identified during the (EIS) on a Proposed Replacement Raw approximately 4.5 miles from the Lower preliminary scoping include: (1) Molina Power Plant tail race to two Water Pipeline in Mesa County, CO wetlands and riparian areas, (2) storage reservoirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Roan Creek Toll Road Dominquez Archaeological Research Group Deliverable No
    Project No. 2016-AS-004 Archaeological Assessment of Roan Creek Toll Road Dominquez Archaeological Research Group Deliverable No. 5 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATIONS IS PROHIBITED (43 CFR 7.18) AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF ROAN CREEK TOLL ROAD (5ME924) AND ASSOCIATED SITES IN MESA COUNTY, COLORADO BLM Reference No. 15816-01 OAHP Reference No. ME.LM.R935 SHF Project No. 16-AS-004 DARG Project No. D2016-07 21 November 2016 Prepared by Carl E. Conner, Principal Investigator and Nicole (Darnell) Inman ] DOMINQUEZ ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH GROUP ] P.O. Box 3543 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502 BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-67009 Submitted to COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1200 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: DISCLOSURE OF SITE LOCATIONS IS PROHIBITED (43 CFR 7.18) PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION COPY. PORTIONS OF THIS REPORT MAY HAVE BEEN REDACTED AND PAGES MAY HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO PROTECT THE SITE LOCATIONS. Abstract Dominquez Archaeological Research Group (DARG), by means of a grant from the Colorado State Historical Fund (16-AS-004), conducted a site assessment of the Roan Creek Toll Road site (5ME924), located in DeBeque Canyon for the Bureau of Land Management Grand Junction Field Office (BLM GJFO). Fieldwork was conducted from May 5 to July 20, 2016 under BLM Antiquities Permit No. C-67009. Carl Conner served as Principal Investigator and Nicole (Darnell) Inman served as Project Director. Overall, the project recorded 2.5 miles of toll road. Two segments (5ME924.8 and 5ME924.9) were documented; however, each of those are comprised of non-contiguous roadway structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleistocene Surficial Deposits of the Grand Mesa Area, Colorado
    New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 32nd Field Conference, Western Slope Colorado, 1981 121 PLEISTOCENE SURFICIAL DEPOSITS OF THE GRAND MESA AREA, COLORADO REX D. COLE Multi Mineral Corporation 715 Horizon Drive Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 and JOHN L. SEXTON Department of Geosciences Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 INTRODUCTION The Grand Mesa area has been a topic of study since the Hayden Grand Mesa, with an average surface elevation of about 3050 m, Surveys (Hayden, 1876). Most recent studies have focused on the is a basalt-capped plateau that forms one of the most prominent glacial geology of the area (Henderson, 1923; Nygren, 1935; physiographic features in west-central Colorado (fig. 1). Basalt Retzer, 1954; Yeend, 1969). Sinnock (1978; this guidebook) ad- flows capping Grand Mesa have protected the underlying weaker dressed the geomorphology of the western front of Grand Mesa in sedimentary rocks from erosion. Progressive erosion of Grand his study of the Uncompahgre Plateau and Grand Valley. General Mesa since the outpouring of basalt 10 million years ago (K/Ar treatment of the geology of Grand Mesa is given by Young and date of 9.7 ± 0.5; Marvin and others, 1966) has produced an Young (1968, 1977). Detailed mapping of parts of the Grand Mesa area has been done by Yeend (1969), Donnell and Yeend (1968a, impressive array of pediments, alluvial fans, glacial outwash fans, b, c, d, e), Yeend and Donnell (1968), Hail (1972a, 1972b), and Sin- landslides, and colluvial deposits which now flank the mesa on all nock (1978). sides. 122 COLE and SEXTON In this paper we briefly address the general geology of the Grand The Mesaverde and Mancos make up most of the stratigraphic sec- Mesa area, and then we provide a more detailed description of the tion visible on the west and south slopes of Grand Mesa.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesa County Resource Management Plan (RMP)
    NOVEMBER 17, 2020 Mesa County Resource Management Plan Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices (Intentionally Left Blank) CONTENTS ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................................... IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. VIII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 MESA COUNTY’S PLAN OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2.A Organization ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2.B Process ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.C Amending the Plan ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Information H.2 Biological Studies Book 1 Pre-Event
    Historical Information H.2 Biological Studies Book 1 Pre-Event Bioenvironmental Safety Survey and Evaluation Proj ect Rulison DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. Nuclear Explosions Peaceful Applications PRE-EVENT BIOENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY SURVEY AND EVALUATION PROJECT RULISON by R. Glen Fuller July 28, 1969 Prepared for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission under Contract No. AT(26-1)-171 BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE Columbus Laboratories 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201 This publication is available from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Department of Commerce Springfield, Virginia 22 15 1 Price: Printed copy $3.00; Microfiche $0.65 TABLE OF CONTENTS .Page SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... c 1 Range Livestock .................... 1 .- Wild Game ...................... 1 Battlement Creek Watershed ................ 2 INTRODUCTION ...................... 2 ECOLOGICALSURVEY .................... 3 Range -Cattle Distribution ................. 3 Conclusions .................... 6 Wild-Game Distribution and Harvest ............... 6- Conclusions .................... 8 Battlement Creek Watershed ................ 8 Potential Water-Pollution Problems ............ 8 Battlement Reservoirs ................ 16 Miscellaneous Ecological Considerations ............ 16 Time Distribution of Ecological Events ............ 17 . SOURCES OF INFORMATION .........., ....... 19
    [Show full text]
  • Geoarchaeology of a Rockshelter : Site 5 ME 82 Mesa County Colorado
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1980 Geoarchaeology of a rockshelter : site 5 ME 82 Mesa County Colorado Barbara A. Till The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Till, Barbara A., "Geoarchaeology of a rockshelter : site 5 ME 82 Mesa County Colorado" (1980). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7362. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7362 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 Th is is an unpublished manuscript in which copyright sub ­ s is t s . Any further reprinting of its contents must be approved BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD Library University of Montana Date: * ^8 0______ GEOARCHAEOLOGY OF A ROCKSHELTER— SITE 5 ME 82, MESA COUNTY, COLORADO By Barbara A. T ill B.A., Fort Lewis College, 1975 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1980 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examines Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP38163 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Valley Project Fish Passage & Fish Screen Biological Assessment
    BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE GRAND VALLEY PROJECT DIVERSION DAM ENDANGERED FISH PASSAGE FACILITIES prepared by U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office August 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This biological assessment was prepared to evaluate anticipated project effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats resulting from the construction of fish passage facilities at the Grand Valley Project Diversion Dam in Mesa County, Colorado. The project is located on the Colorado River approximately 7 miles northeast of Palisade, Colorado (see Figure 1). The facilities will consist of a selective fish passage structure to allow endangered fish, as well as other native fishes, to move upstream of the diversion dam. A fish screen will also be installed in the Government Highline Canal to prevent fish entrainment. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Implementation Program has identified this diversion dam as a barrier to fish movement and the need to restore passage to connect 44 river miles of endangered fish critical habitat upstream with 193 river miles of critical habitat downstream. Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and subsequent evaluations resulted in the identification of five (5) endangered and one (1) threatened species that may occur within the project area. This biological assessment also evaluates one additional species, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, known to occur in the area, but not included on the Service list. The species and anticipated effects
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Oil Shale Technologies (Part 6 Of
    — —— CHAPTER 4 Background Contents Page Page Introduction . 85 Status of U.S. Oil Shale Projects . ..........113 The Need for a New Energy Supply System. , . 85 The Purpose and Organization of This Chapter 86 Chapter 4 References. ..................114 Oil Shale Resources . 87 The Genesis of Oil Shale. 87 List of Tables Worldwide Deposits . 87 Table No. Page Deposits in the United States . 88 13. Potential Shale Oil in Place in the Oil Description of the Oil Shale Resource Region. 93 Shale Deposits of theUnited States . 89 Location . 93 14 Potential Shale Oil in Place in the Green Topography and Geology. 93 River Formation: Colorado, Utah, and Climate and Meteorology. 99 Wyoming . 91 Plants and Animals. ... , . .. ....100 15 Potential Shale Oil Resources of the Air and Water Quality and Economic Base. .. 103 Green River Formation . 92 16. Composition and Pyrolysis Products of Oil Shale Products and Their Potential Typical Colorado Oil Shale . 106 Applications . .. ...105 17. Status of MajorU.S. Oil Shale Projects. 114 The Nature of Oil Shale . .................105 Kerogen Pyrolysis. .. 105 List of Figures Associated Minerals. ..................107 The History of Oil ShaleDevelopment. .. ....108 Figure No, Page Scotland . ............................,108 12. Oil Shale Deposits of the United States. 89 Sweden . ................,..108 13. Oil Shale Deposits of the Green River France . ................,......109 Formation . 90 Spain . ......................109 14. The Oil Shale Resource Region of the Germany . .......................109 Green River Formation: Colorado, Utah, South Africa ..,.... ...................109 and Wyoming. 94 Australia. .,...... ....................109 15. Major Mountain Systems in the Vicinity United States, . .....................,.110 of the Green River Formation . 95 16. Topographic Relief of the piceance Status of Foreign Oil Shale Industries .
    [Show full text]