Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />C"') <br />~ <br />('"-, <br />-' <br />!,~ <br /> <br />:::-) <br /> <br />the salinity control project could not legally be used. It is <br />highly unlikely that non-Federal funds could be obtained to pay the <br />difference between alternatives (such as the pipeline alternative) <br />over cost effective salinity control alternatives to derive <br />recreation benefits, especially since the majority of the canal <br />runs through rural areas north of the more densely populated areas <br />of the valley. Planning for recreational use is critical and must <br />address the needs for delivering irrigation water, operating and <br />maintaining canal facilities, and enforcing regulations. As the <br />O&M contracting entity, concurrence of the GVWUA would be required. <br />Measures would also be needed to protect the U.S., the GVWUA, and <br />adjacent landowners from liability, potential court costs, and <br />potential property damage associated with unplanned use of the <br />corridor by the general public. <br /> <br />Comment 4: Alternatives Ml and M3 should not be implemented <br />because they will take acreage of prime or unique farmland out of <br />production, which is not consistent with the Farmland Protection <br />Policy Act. This is not necessary since other alternatives (M4, <br />Cl, and C2) are presented which avoid permanent land acquisition. <br /> <br />Response 4: The section in Chapter III on Land Use Impacts has <br />been revised to discuss the application of the Farmland Protection <br />Policy Act (FPPA). While it is aimed to guide planning of Federal <br />projects to consider and avoid impacts to prime and unique <br />farmlands, it is not intended to prohibit such use. In fact, the <br />FPPA states that it "shall not be deemed to provide a basis for any <br />action, either legal or equitable, by any state, unit of local <br />government, or any person or class of persons challenging a federal <br />project, program, or other activity that may affect farmland." <br />While one purpose of developing and analyzing the impacts of <br />Alternatives M4, Cl, and C2 was to consider alternatives which <br />avoid impacts to prime and unique farmlands, the decision of <br />whether or not to then implement them is not required by the FPPA. <br />The recommended plan has been developed to minimize permanent land <br />acquisition needs, particularly in areas of permanent crops such as <br />orchards; and therefore, is in compliance with the Act. <br /> <br />Comment 5: It is not clear why Alternatives Cl and C2 are designed <br />for a shifted centerline when the extra cost of Alternative M4 <br />apparently results because its centerline has been similarly <br />shifted. <br /> <br />Response 5: It is true that the shifting of the centerline would <br />cause an increase in construction costs for Alternative M4. This <br />is due to earth moving costs, especially for filling behind the <br />north sideslope of the shifted canal. Figure 2 shows that the 20- <br />foot shift typical in Alternative M4 is different than the 10-foot <br />shift of the concrete-lined segment shown in Figure 3. In both <br />cases, the centerline adjustments are the minimum necessary to <br />avoid the acquisition of land; it is less for concrete lining <br />because the steep-sided concrete canal is about 30 feet narrower <br /> <br />41 <br />