Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~ <br />N <br />o <br />'..~ <br /> <br />,..., <br />'_..1 <br /> <br />JULY 16,1990 <br /> <br />PAGE 3 <br /> <br />CHAPTER <br /> <br />IV CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br />The true cost effectiveness is over $100/ton of sail removed. Perhajl€lllii!lliWG,ElliaR~~e <br />11th increment shown for the Grand Valley Mainline Canal Laterals at $173/ton of sail <br />removed, but it is more than the #10 increment of $118/ton of sail removed for the Grand <br />Valley Hi9hline Canal Laterals. (VM, May 16, 1986, page 3, Table L) <br /> <br />Comment: <br /> <br />Chapter II, page 5, paragraph 2, Price Ditch <br /> <br />The final determination of the size of the Price Ditch is questioned, <br /> <br />Why is the size questioned? <br /> <br />How can the capacity of the Price Ditch be unsure when it is known the Palisade Irrigation <br />District's full water right is 80 c'/.s.? <br /> <br />Will not the ditch be sized to carry 80 c'/,s. plus a comfortable safety margin? <br /> <br />Comment: <br /> <br />Chapter II, page 5: Hiohline Canal and cross drainaoe features, paragraph 3. <br /> <br />"Studies since the completion of the FEIS have indicated that a heavy <br />rainfall in this general area could produce enough runoff between the <br />proposed cross-drainage facilities and the east end of the Highline Canal, <br />to cause the canal to fail. Since the cosily cross-drainage facilities do not <br />provide the desired protection and it is not economical to construct <br />facilities closer to the canal, it is proposed to replace the existing cross- <br />drainage facilities in kind and delete the detention ditches and possibly the <br />detention ponds. Studies have not been completed on the cross-drainage <br />control benefits of the detention ponds; consequently, the final <br />recommendation may be to retain these facilities. This document will <br />evaluate the environmental impact of deleting both the cross-drainage <br />ditches and detention ponds since this is the greatest departure from the <br />FEIS recommended plan. The detention ponds, in addition to providing <br />protection to the canal systems, would have provided additional wild life <br />habitat" <br /> <br />There are two departures from FEIS that require this new investigation: <br /> <br />(1) the proposal to line the Price Ditch and to pipe the Stubb Ditch <br /> <br />(2) The intentional deletion of the two major detention ponds and detention <br />ditches. <br /> <br />The fact that your studies are not complete in addressing this more important part of your <br />DEA requires that the resulls of future study be presented in a Draft Environmental Impact <br />Statement <br /> <br />51 <br />