Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"!-4 <br />..:r.... <br />-, <br /> <br />(CJ <br />~-I <br /> <br />~:: .;,.~ <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The DEIS should be clearer on what portions of the Grand <br />Valley Unit will be implemented. For example, tables 5 and 10 <br />identify 15 increments of canal and lateral linings with salt <br />reductions as shown. However, only the 10 most cost-effective <br />increments will apparently be implemented as described under the <br />recommended plan. This is misleading when one gets to reviewing <br />the environmental impacts in detail. <br /> <br />There appears to be a discrepancy between the salt loading <br />reduction (tons) given in the DEIS versus that given in the "1985 <br />Joint Evaluation of Salinity Control Programs in the Colorado <br />River Basin." This discrepancy should be resolved. <br /> <br />It is our understanding that Executive Order 11988 requires <br />protection for the one percent chance flood rather than the four <br />percent chance flood. Protection against only the four percent <br />chance flood may increase OM&R costs significantly. Justifica- <br />tion for protecting the system to only the 25 year flood level <br />should be provided. <br /> <br />In summary, we find that the report, subject to the fore- <br />going comments, adequately addresses the environmental impacts of <br />stage two. We appreciate have the opportunity to review and <br />comment on it. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />(c0 <br /> <br />&t/ /)1 {/;~;-7:~{. <br /> <br />J. william McDonald <br />Director <br /> <br />JWM/ch <br /> <br />cc: David Getches <br />David Robbins <br />Bob Arnott <br />Gary Broetzman <br />Jack Barnett <br />Jim Ruch <br />Perry Olsen <br />