Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l.'? <br />C\J <br />.-l <br />o <br />,~ Commission in which many of the entities commenting on the EA <br />~) spoke. News releases were also made announcing the availability of <br />the draft EA. More than 100 comment letters were received from <br />agencies, federal and state legislators, organizations, and <br />individuals. (Commentors are indicated by ***'s after their name <br />on Attachment A). <br /> <br />Overview of Letters Received <br /> <br />Comments are summarized below. The individual letters are <br />available for review at the Bureau of Reclamation's Grand Junction <br />projects office in Grand Junction CO. <br /> <br />In general, the letters received on the draft EA expressed broad <br />support for the salinity control program, but were concerned with <br />the lining method or associated actions recommended for the <br />project. Major areas of concern included: <br /> <br />_ questions about Reclamation's preference and cost estimates <br />for membrane lining vs concrete lining. <br /> <br />_ the impacts to individual property owners and the local <br />economies of purchasing additional lands to widen and/or construct <br />the lined canal, especially for high value "prime or unique" <br />agricultural lands such as peach orchards or vineyards. <br /> <br />_ the need to provide enough room for adequate O&M of the <br />canal and the need to fence the canal to control trespass and <br />encroachment on the canal. <br /> <br />_ opposition to fencing of the canal property boundaries, for <br />a variety of reasons. <br /> <br />_ the impact of the project on existing private bridges needed <br />to access property north of the canal in Reach 1. <br /> <br />_ the need for legal access along the canal corridor to <br />adjacent parcels. <br /> <br />_ the impacts of the project on recreational use of the canal <br />road as a hiking, jogging and biking trail. <br /> <br />_ questions about the merits or effectiveness of the salinity <br />control program in general. <br /> <br />As a result of the public input, modifications to the designs of <br />the lining alternatives have been made to minimize land acquisition <br />needs, and guidelines for the associated actions of fencing and <br />permits for access and O&M needs have been further developed and <br />descrlbed to reduce impacts to landowners while providing adequate <br />protection of the canal. <br /> <br />36 <br />