WSP03260 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00 C\l ~ o Soecific Comments and Resoonses ~::.: Specific comments have been summarized below and responses prepared. As indicated previously, all comment letters are available for review at Reclamation's Grand Junction projects Office. Alternative Preferences Most of the letters expressed general support for the salinity control program in the Grand Valley, including all of the agencies, legislators, and organizations, and most of the Reach 1 landowners. Individuals opposing the salinity control program generally preferred the No-Action Alternative, at least until alternative ideas could be evaluated. Reach lA landowners generally preferred concrete lining for Reach lA, and Reach lB landowners generally preferred either concrete or membrane lining alternatives which did not result in widening of the canal corridor. No comments were received from Reach 2 landowners indicating a preference between the viable lining alternatives. Comment 1: I prefer the No-Action Alternative because the salinity control benefits are not worth the cost or are questionable. Resoonse 1: The cost effectiveness of the salinity control in the Grand valley Unit was analyzed as part of the FEIS for stage Two Development, and is based on extensive planning studies and monitoring results. Measures for the Grand valley unit were authorized and funded because they help meet commitments of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, and "competed" favorably among the proposed projects within the entire basin. The FEIS estimated that the proposed lining of Reach 1 would remove 23,300 tons/year of salt from the river, and the lining of Reach 2 would remove 13,200 tons/year. Comment 2: "Better" alternatives should be evaluated and implemented. These include the non-viable pipeline and gabion alternatives discussed in the draft EA, covering the lined canal, implementing on-farm control measures instead of lining the canal, and planting a shelterbelt of trees along the south side of the canal to intercept seepage water and utilize the salts. Resoonse 2: As discussed in the EA, there were several alternatives which were considered and rejected as non-viable alternatives because they were not feasible or cost effective, especially in relation to the membrane or concrete lining alternatives. Pipelines were considered cost prohibitive. Due to the capacity and the relatively flat grade of the canal corridor, it would take multiple 10-foot diameter pipes to be able to carry the canal flow capacity. A quick estimate for a pipeline alternative indicated that the cost would be many times greater than Alternative MI. Savings due to reduced land purchases, 39