Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"" -' <br /> <br />o <br />o <br />W <br />t.v <br /> <br />Response 31: The section on socio-economic factors was revised to summarize concerns for <br />the 1984 Plan and the East Side Laterals proposal. <br /> <br />Conunent 32: "Final EA should clearly state that these numbers [habitat costs] are estimates <br />and not cost ceilings." (FWS) <br /> <br />Response 32: The costs are presented as estimates in both the Supplement to the Feasibility <br />Repon (Reclamation, 1994) and this EA. A discussion of the estimates has been added to <br />the section on socio-economic factors. They are based on experience with a similar program <br />for the Grand Valley Unit in Mesa County, Colorado. <br /> <br />Recreation and Esthetics <br /> <br />Conunent 33: "Can habitat replacement do more than just be compatible and coordinate <br />with riverside and natural area protection along the Uncompahgre River?" (Clark) <br /> <br />Response 33: Efforts could be combined to the degree that human use of the corridor would <br />not interfere with the goals for habitat replacement (see section on environmental <br />considerations in the Alternatives chapter). <br /> <br />Consultation and CoordinaJion <br /> <br />Conunent 34: "Did BLM have any input to this effort originally?" (BLM) <br /> <br />Response 34: The BLM was solicited for their input and provided a letter dated March 31, <br />1983, from the Montrose District Manager containing comments on the feasibility report <br />(PR), draft environmental statement, and proposed plans. The letter is displayed in the <br />FRIFES along with responses to each of the comments. Appropriate changes were made. <br /> <br />39 <br />