Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-, <br />, <br />. / <br />,/ra n cl u m <br /> <br />/'. Mr. Jack Barnett, Executive Director <br />Colorado Ri,er Basin Salinity <br />Control :O!'"'.l..'ll <br />106 West 520 South, Suite 101 <br />Bountiful, Utah $4010 <br /> <br />o~ : November 1$, 19$2 <br />File No.s <br /> <br />From I Colorado River Boord of California <br /> <br />Subject: Draft Sinbad Valley Salinity Repe::'t - BLM <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />We have reviewed the draft ::'epo::-t on Sinbad Valley and offer <br />the follo~i~g con~ents. The repo::'~ is concise and the presentation <br />of the alternatives through the ~se of sketches is well done; however, <br />in its effort to be concise, the ::'sport leaves too many items to <br />speculation. Specific COITments follow: <br /> <br />Page 1. Introd1.:Gtion.. A ge!"'.eral description of the salt <br />loading mechanism is needed. Is it a single spring, a group of <br />springs, effluent ground water o,e::, a length of stream channel, or <br />a combination? A general locatio~ ~ap would also be helpfu+. <br /> <br /> <br />A'ternative Cost Co~~arisons and Effect. <br />quation lor 1990? -;;no derived it an <br /> <br />What is the <br />how is it used? <br /> <br />Page 7, Table 1. The data p::'esented in this table differs from <br />that presented in the BLM 78-79 S~atus Report on page 20. The earlier <br />report states that discharge fr~m ~he saline springs is pere~~ial and <br />yields about 0.2 cfs or 160 acre-feet per year at a salinity of 61,200. <br />mg/l or 13,300 ~ons per year, a~= that streamflow is ephemeral. Table <br />1, however, sho~s a lower average concentration. The reason for the <br />differences s:-,ould be noted ir. -:::8 report. The values of average <br />annual flC'.-I in Table 1 are presen-;:ed to the tenths of an acre-foot. <br />Accordingly, they should match up exactly with the values of average <br />flow in the table. They do not de so when a conversion factor of <br />1 cfs/yr.= 724 acre-feet/year is used. <br /> <br />Pages $.9,10; Tables 2,J,L; ~lternative No.5. No costs are <br />given for a pipeline. However, on page 5 a pipeline is shown on <br />the sketch as a component of the proposal. The pipeline cost should <br />be included in the tables and appropriate changes made. <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />Pages $ .10' Tables 2 <.~: Alternative 6. The sketch on page 6 <br />shows a pumping plant as par-;: of Alternative facilities. However, <br />no ,costs for a pumping pla.."1t or tra..~smission lines have been included <br />in Tables 2,3, or 4. The costs should be included and a~~t9!e <br />changes made in the table. <br /> <br />.~ <br />. co <br />, 0') <br />- <br /> <br />IC"I <br />C"I <br />;::.. <br />o <br />;:=; <br />