Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r- <br />.' i <br />(:,) <br />"'~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />:~. ~) <br /> <br />Suggestions for the Final Environmental Assessment <br />Government Highline Canal <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Clarify the design parameters that are the basis for each alternative and briefly explain <br />major changes from earlier (1983 and 1986) designs. <br /> <br />. a. Earlier cross sections were smaller and appear to have less carrying capacity. <br />We were informed that the larger carrying capacity is due to the elimination <br />of cross drainage structures, and the need for the improved canal to carry a <br />portion of tributary storm runoff. This should be explained in the <br />Environmental Assessment (EA) by reference to flow rates, roughness of <br />concrete and earth covered PVC canals, and cross se<...tional area. <br /> <br />b. Need for service roads on both sides of canal. At page 5 you state "the plans <br />for the FEIS did anticipate the need for an 04M road on the south side of the <br />GHC." You then note the sediment problems on the west end and state <br />"therefore a north O&M road would also be necessary." Actually the 1983 <br />Supplement to the Definite Plan Report and the 1986 FEIS both provided for <br />16 foot wide roads on both sides of the canal (SDPR at page 31 and FEIS at <br />page 23). The inclusion of service roads on both sides of the canal does not <br />appear to be a recent design feature and therefore the need for additional R. <br />0- W should not be attributed to that fact. Further if sediment removal is the <br />reason for roads on both sides of the canal you should consider providing an <br />explanation of why that removal cannot be accomplished by traveling down the <br />canal bottom itself, as opposed to setting up and reaching into the canal from <br />the O&M roads. Also a discussion of sediment removal, to the extent it is a <br />key design factor in the width of the canal cross section, could consider ways <br />of preventing sediment deposition, as opposed to merely removing it after it has <br />settled. <br /> <br />c. It is not clear why alternatives C-1 and C-2 are designed for a shifted centerline <br />when the extra cost of alternative M-4 apparently results because its centerline <br />has been similarly shifted. <br /> <br />d. Fencing requirements for each alternative are not clear, perhaps a table would <br />help. <br /> <br />e. The salt reduction figure at page 4 (172,000 T/yr) appears to be out of date. <br />The 1990 Plan of Implementation shows 37,500 Tons/year will be removed by <br />USBR work on the Grand Valley (Stage I & Stage II combined). <br /> <br />2. Cost information could be more detailed. <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />You do not show values for the land that has to be taken under the various <br />