Laserfiche WebLink
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND <br />RF;SPONSES TO COMMENTS <br />This chapter of the final EIS contains a copy of all written <br />comments received on the draft EIS and oral testimony <br />presented at Cite Grand Junction public hearing (Section <br />2.l), and responses to those comments (Section 2.2). The <br />public comment period extended for 60 days, beginning <br />July 25, 1986 and rndittg September 23, 1986. Public <br />hearings were held in Meeker, Colorado, on August 26, <br />1986, end Grand Junction, Colorado, on August 27, 1986. <br />2.1.2 List of Comment Letters/T~+~~r+pt <br />TABLE 2-1 <br />COMMENT LETTERS/TRANSCRIPT <br />RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS <br />Commoner better Numher <br />2.1 Public Comments <br />2.1.1 Introduction <br />The public comment letters submitted on the draft EIS <br />appear in the order they were receival by the White River <br />Resource Area Office. To reduce the total volume of <br />reprinted materials in this text, extensive: attachments to some <br />comment letters, that do not raise speafic issues, have not <br />been included. Following the ktters is the trtutscript from <br />the public hearing in Grand Junction. No substantive <br />comments, that raised specific issues, were received from <br />the public at the Meeker public hearing; therefore, the <br />transcript was cot included in this doatmenL The transcript <br />for the Mceker public hearing is available for public review <br />at the BLM White River Resource Aron office in Maker, <br />Colorado. <br />For ease of reference, the comment letters and the Grand <br />Junction public hearing transcript have: been listed in Table <br />2-1, according to sours. The letter number or transcript <br />number refers to the designation in the upper left hand comer <br />of each letter or transcript. <br />Over 200 individual comments, taken from 16 individual <br />letters and the Grand Junction public hearing transcript, <br />were received on the draft EIS. Section 2.2 of this chapter <br />contains a detailed response to each comment The bulls <br />of the comments involved geohydrologic concerns. <br />FEDERAL AGENCIES <br />U.S. Department of Agriculture <br />Forest Service-Rocky Mountain Region 16 <br />U.S. Departmrnt of the Interior <br />Bureau of Mines 3 <br />Bureau of Reclamation <br />Uppo Colorado Regional Office 4 <br />Engineering and Research Center 7 <br />Geological Survey 12 <br />Geological Survey-Office o[ Energy <br />& Marine Geology 10 <br />National Park Service 9 <br />U.S. Fish and W~dlife Soria 14 <br />U.S. Eavironmenul Protection Agency 13 <br />STATE AGENCIES <br />Colorrdo Historial Society 15 <br />Department of Health-Air Quality Coauol <br />Division 5 <br />Department of Nalunal Resource- <br />Division of Wildlife 5 <br />INDIVIDUAIS AND PROFESSIONAL <br />CONSULTANTS <br />Daub & Associate 11 <br />Donald R. Johnson 8 <br />Joao L. Savage 2 <br />John W. Savage, Jr. 1 <br />Wright Water Engineers, loc. 6 <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />Grand Jmction, Colorado A <br />Bdl Hollis, Wrigbt Water Engineers for <br />WoII Ridge Corp. A <br />Jerry Daub, Daub & Associates for <br />Wolf Ridge Corp. A <br />Martin Jone, Cliffs Engineering Inc. <br />for Wolf Ridge Corp. A <br />2.13 Comment Letters/Transcript <br />2-1 <br />