Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'"' .' <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />co <br />CD <br /> <br />Some comments requested clarification of background information and relationship with other <br />projects. Others requested more information on procedures for the design and rights-of-way <br />acquisition processes. Another suggested the alternative of land retirement should be <br />revisited. Some comments questioned impacts on land and water use of both the piping and <br />replacement programs. More than half of the comments required clarification of the habitat <br />replacement program, including why we propose to replace losses in the valley along the <br />river corridors and how monitoring will be accomplished. Clarification was also requested <br />on commitments for surveys of threatened and endangered plant species. Comments <br />concerning socio-economic factors were also related to the habitat replacement program. <br /> <br />o <br />~ b ~4 <br /> <br />Planning for the project was suspended shortly after the close of the comment period because <br />a ceiling on funds for salinity control projects was reached. Appropriations for additional <br />funds required an amendment to the Salinity Control Act which was passed in July 1995. In <br />September 1994, Reclamation fmalized.the-Supplement to the Feasibility Report. In <br />December, the Supplement was distributed along with a request for additional input toward <br />revision of the EA. The only input received concerned proposals for potential habitat <br />replacement properties. Reclamation cannot consider such proposals before specific piping <br />proposals are approved for funding. <br /> <br />Specific Comments and Responses <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />Comment 1: ".. . additional background from fmal EIS would be helpful... appending <br />summaries of each report and a repon on progress to date '" would suffice." (Clark) <br /> <br />Response 1: We have revised the EA to summarize results and status of related reports, <br />including Reclamation's 1984 Feasibility ReponlFinal Envirorunental Statement (FRJFES) <br />and the 1994 Supplement to the Feasibility Repon. Changes highlight how the East Side <br />Laterals Project (and associated environmental impacts) differs from the 1984 plan and the <br />No Action alternative. All references cited are available for review at Reclamation's office <br />in Grand Junction. <br /> <br />Relationship with Other Projects <br /> <br />Comment 2: "Discussion is needed of specific related consequences and impacts with the <br />on-farm water management program of the Soil Conservation Service--especially regarding <br />wetlands and wildlife habitat." (Clark) <br /> <br />Response 2: The 1979 Wetland Inventory and Evaluation report for the Lower Gunnison <br />Basin Unit was a joint study led by the Soil Conservation Service, and studied impacts by <br />both on-farm and off-farm programs. The SCS completed a fmal EIS in 1981 for their <br />salinity control activities in the Unit, and is responsible for separately mitigating wetland and <br />wildlife habitat impacts for improvements made under the on-farm program. This document <br /> <br />31 <br />