Laserfiche WebLink
CHAPTERFOUR Responses to Public and Agency Comments <br />Letter and <br />Comment No. Response <br />P-3.110 The text should have referenced Figure 3.12-1, which does show the <br /> location of the two Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). <br />P-3.111 Comment acknowledged; text on page 3-51 has been changed. <br />P-3.112 The text on page 3-52 has been changed to clarify this point. All BLM <br /> lands in the Project Area are Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class <br /> III, except for the ACECs which are VRM Class II. <br />P-3.113 Regazding solid waste, refer to the response to Comment P-3.178. <br /> Regarding stormwater runoff, refer to the response to Comment P-3.85. <br />P-3.114 The types of detailed information requested are not available at this time <br /> and are not necessary to prepare an adequate NEPA analysis. For <br /> electricity and natural gas, sources of supply and means of transmission to <br /> the project have been provided, but quantitative information on probable <br /> use is not available. The 138-kV transmission line is a separate project that <br /> would be designed and built by White River Electric Association, Inc. and <br /> will be addressed in a separate NEPA document. Regarding water supply, <br /> refer to response to Comment P-3.16. <br />P-3.115 Comment acknowledged; text on page 3-60 has been changed. <br />P-3.116 There is no enforceable commitment. The sentence has been modified to <br />change "would" to "may". <br />P-3.117 The average daily traffic volumes (ADT) identified in Table 3.15-1 were <br />the most recent yeaz that counts were available. In most cases, data were <br />available from 1996, which is considered to be a reasonably recent period <br />by CDOT. Data for two roads (County Road 5 and County Road 215) <br />were from 1989; however, these are very low volume roads that were not <br />observed to carry significantly more traffic in 1998-99 when this Draft EIS <br />was prepared. <br />In every case, ADT volumes were lower than the designed capacities for <br />the associated roadway type. All roadways within the Project Area except <br />for State Highway (SH) 13 were found to operate at Level of Service <br />(LOS) A (free-flow, with no constraints even during peak periods) during <br />the year counts were taken. SH 13 operates at LOS B (within the range of <br />stable flow, but other vehicles are noticeable within the traffic stream). <br />Crossroads accessing these roads are low volume and were not observed to• <br />create capacity problems at intersections with the roads studied in this Draft <br />EIS. <br />All roads except SH 13 are expected to maintain LOS A at least through <br />the year 2010, even with the addition of construction or operating traffic. <br />SH 13 is expected to maintain LOS B for the same period. These <br />4-53 <br />