Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />, ' <br />- <br /> <br />morandum to <br />Mr. Jack Barnett <br />November 18, 1982 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Page 10. Table 4. A brief explanation would be helpful to <br />explain why Al~erna~ive No.3, High Dam, is applicable under an <br />assumed 0.3 cfs diversion, but not under the lower diversions. <br /> <br />Page 12. Results. first sentence. It appears that the Sinbad <br />Evaporation Alternative ~ith a pumping rate of 0.3 cfs, and a cost- <br />effectiveness of $751,000 per mg/l should be included as one of <br />the most cost-effective proposals. Accordingly, in the second line, <br />make the word "Alternative" plural and insert the words "and 0.3 cfs" <br />after "0.2 cfs". The third sentence should also be adjusted to <br />account for this inclusion. <br /> <br />Page 12. Results. third sentence. A brief statement on the <br />environmental advantages should , included. <br />De <br />Page 13. item No. 1. What is the "4340 budget"? <br />Page 13. item No. 3. \'lhere is Sewemup Mesa with respect to <br />Sinbad Valley and wha~ is the "the RMP"? <br /> <br />Page 14. During the Forum i'lork Group meetings in August and <br />October, representatives of BLM stated that the Sager's Valley <br />Project in Utah is a better project and more typical of other <br />potential B~1 projects. Since we discussed the possibility of <br />substituting Sager's Valley for Sinbad Valley in the new salinity <br />control legislation, it would be helpful if the ELM described the <br />project and showed it in this report as an alternative to Sinbad <br />Valley. <br /> <br />This concludes our co~nents. <br /> <br />\~'""r" <br />Myron B. Holburt <br />Chief Engineer <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />002213 <br />