Laserfiche WebLink
<br />!"'? <br />C~) <br />C\J <br />o <br />:, <br /> <br />,...-~ <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />-Ms. Hutchins also asked several questions concerning cross-drainage <br />facilities. For example, the studies regarding the proposal to eliminate <br />or reduc~ the cross-drainage features should be presented. Lands south of <br />the Stubb Ditch would no longer receive protection from runoff if the Stubb <br />Ditch i.s placed in pipe. Various questions exist concerning the <br />construction of the cross-drainage facilities proposed in the final <br />environmental statement on the Unit. Ms. Hutchins also pointed out that <br />the cost effectiveness tables in that EIS do not reflect the cost savings <br />of deleting the cross-drainage facilities referred to in this environmental <br />assessment. <br /> <br />In response, the environmental impacts of deleting these proposed <br />facilities were presented because the environmental benefits of these <br />proposed facilities were considered in the Unit's final environmental <br />impact statement. Deleting these facilities removes habitat that would <br />have been created and would have been considered part of the habitat <br />replacement program. Deleting these facilities also precludes the possible <br />improvement in the level of flood protection. However, as noted in the <br />text, studies currently underway indicate that these facilities may not <br />provide the desired level of runoff protection to the Government Highline <br />Canal. <br /> <br />Questions concerning the construction and operation and maintenance of the <br />cross-drainage facilities proposed in the final Ers have been addressed in <br />that Ers and are only mentioned by reference or summarized in this <br />environmental assessment. <br /> <br />The proposed design of the Stubb Ditch and its operations road includes a <br />ditch on the north side of the road to provide protection from runoff <br />equivalent to the amount of protection provided by the existing open Stubb <br />Ditch. <br /> <br />Since it is not certain which part, if any, of the proposed cross-drainage <br />facilities will be retained, Reclamation has decided not to reduce the <br />estimated cost for the East End Government Highline Canal due to the <br />proposed elimination of cross-drainage facilities. Additionally, since the <br />canal lining is already cost effective ($65/ton), decreasing the cost would <br />only decrease the cost per ton so the decision on whether to improve this <br />section of the canal would not be affected. <br /> <br />-Mr. Skinner requested information regarding the impact of the new salt <br />tonnage and cost estimates would have on all the increments in <br />Reclamation's Grand Valley salinity program? <br /> <br />The impacts of the new tonnage and cost estimates on the recommended plan <br />have been published in the Verification Memorandum for the Grand Valley <br />Unit, Stage Two Development. Tables 1 and 2 from that document are <br />presented below for convenience. The increments that were eliminated in <br />early planning studies (all of the canals in the Grand Valley except the <br />Government Highline Canal) were originally listed in the Grand Valley Unit <br />FEIS in table 13. The original table 13 and a revised table reflecting the <br />new tonnage and cost estimates are also included below for comparison <br />purposes. <br /> <br />40 <br />