Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JAN 11 2002 17:07 <br /> <br />PARSONS <br /> <br />8015729089 <br /> <br />p.l <br /> <br />,PARSONS CORPORATION <br />Salt Late City Office: <br />40f; 'NQ~ 3uuw Juu1i.u~Al~wial, 3uiiC. 30C, 3uu~..h Juidiu., UT ~5 <br />TclephOllC: (801) 572-5999/Facsimilc: (801) 572-9069 <br /> <br />1}~ao 5,"::.;,,,'~r <br /> <br />C...J IlL QJ.4-1r '1 <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br />TO: <br />CC: <br />FROM: <br />SUBJECT: . <br /> <br />January 11, 2002 <br />Kathleen Ozga, USBR <br />Randy Kirkpatrick, San Juan Water: Commission <br />Rick J. Cox, Consultant for San Juan Waler Commission <br />Navajo Reservoir Operations Preliminary Draft EIS Cormnenls <br /> <br />Transmitted by fax: 970-248-0601 <br /> <br />Kathleen: <br /> <br />Enol Jensen thought that if! faxed this memo to you, you could incorporate some additional <br />comments on the draft Navajo EIS. Following are my comments: <br /> <br />tjff.-. ~{lfiOrJ <br />~v\v <br /> <br />I. Page 147, Graph. The graph shows the average year for tbree different periods. This is not a <br />very good representation of the di.ffer:ences between the pre-dam, post-dam and lest period. I <br />suggest you use a similar water year for each of those periods. In other: words, select a near- <br />average year for the test period and use the "similar" year for the pre- and post-dam periods <br />based on the closest hydrograph. not on the average for the other: data sets. <br />--z: Figures llI.2 and m.3 are out of order: in the report. <br />.!. I. ~ Page m-72, Impact Summary first paragraph. The first sentcmce should. say the loss is in <br />It1r/<1'Ofw revenue, not expenses. . <br />4. Page m-98 and ill.l01. These pages are contradictoty. Page 98 says that shaping of the <br />riverbed is not allowed but the costs for impacts from low flows includes clwmcl <br />modification and rock weirs. If this is not an option, it should not be shown as a mitigation <br />measure. Furthermore, the channel modification costs arc too low. It is inconceivable that <br />channel modifications adequate to divert the river: can be accomplished for only $1,000 per: <br />diversion or rock weirs for only $1,500. This same issue needs to be addressed on Page 103. <br />5. Page ill-10S. The third paragraphs says that the Sanjuan River is listed as impaired for <br />TOS. This is surprising ~ the river: in New Mexico does not exhibit high TOS. This <br />exceedence of Utah IDS standards is restated on Page 114. This needs to be confirmed and <br />the exceedencc stated. <br /> <br />~{\ <br /> <br />I hope these comments are helpful. <br /> <br />Rick Cox <br /> <br />00886 <br />