Laserfiche WebLink
<br />en <br />01 <br />..... <br />o <br />'.-:l <br /><.~ <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />General <br /> <br />The FElS on the Grand Valley Unit presents details on public involvement <br />activities for the planning of the Unit. A Coordinating Committee was <br />formed to coordinate salinity control studies and to disseminate <br />information to the public. Formal environmental seeping meetings were held <br />in Fruita and Clifton, Colorado. <br /> <br />Major public concerns were voiced about plans that would combine irrigation <br />systems. The public was concerned about administration of combined <br />facilities, the effects on water rights, and the effects on operational <br />costs. <br /> <br />Major concerns from the public that are related to the present proposal, <br />included concerns with safety of new irrigation features, responsibility <br />for costs, concern over government control of private systems, concern with <br />construction period impacts on private land and on public services, <br />concerns with wetland losses, and concerns about additional needs for <br />rights-of-ways. These concerns have been addressed in this environmental <br />assessment where appropriate. <br /> <br />Safety problems have been recognized and safety measures are included in <br />project designs. The assessment addresses construction costs which would <br />be the responsibility of the Unit, rather than private irrigation companies <br />or individuals. Any increased operation and maintenance (O&M) costs would <br />be the responsibility of the Unit as discussed in the assessment. <br />Construction specifications have been planned to reduce impacts to private <br />lands, services, and utilities. Wetland losses have been estimated and <br />mitigation plans included in the assessment. Additional rights-of-way <br />would be necessary and this is discussed in the assessment. <br /> <br />During planning of the Price and Stubb Ditch increments, meetings were held <br />with Palisade and Mesa County Irrigation Districts. Major concerns were <br />Federal involvement in the previously private irrigation systems and <br />keeping the O&M costs on the proposed ditches to a minimum. These were <br />addressed by keeping Federal interference in the O&M contracts to a <br />minimum. In addition, the irrigation districts were assured of design and <br />specification review before construction on their ditches begins. A news <br />release announcing the preparation of this assessment was provided to local <br />papers; however, no co~ents or suggestions were received as a result. <br /> <br />Continuous coordination has been maintained with the SCS to ensure <br />compatibility between on- and off-farm salinity measures. The FWS has <br />prepared a Planning Aid Memorandum on changes suggested in this assessment <br />and has recommended fish and wildlife measures. <br /> <br />Environmental Assessment <br /> <br />This environmental assessment has been distributed to approximately 50 <br />individuals and organizations (shown in Attachment B). News releases <br />announcing the availability of the assessment were sent to local papers. <br />Reclamation considered comments received and then determined to prepare a <br />Finding of No Significant Impact. <br /> <br />36 <br />