Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />,.., <br />":1 <br />...0 <br />,-1 <br /> <br />..} <br /> <br />Mr. Ron Johnston <br />July 30, 1991 <br />Page two <br /> <br />c~:\ <br /> <br />1. The "no action" alternative must be rejected. It fails to implement a cost-effective <br />salinity control measure which is necessary to meet the salinity criteria established <br />for the lower Colorado River. The plan of implementation, which is integral to <br />the water quality standards adopted by the basin states and approved by EP A, <br />calls for significant salt reductions in the Grand Valley 1) nit. <br /> <br />2. We concur with your reco=endation of an earth covered, pvc lined canal cross <br />section following the existing canal centerline (alternative M-1) for the East End. <br />This alternative is cheaper to construct, achieves equal salinity reduction benefits, <br />and provides significant safety benefits (lower velocity flows and flatter side <br />slopes) over the concrete lining alternatives. <br /> <br />3. The acquisition of additional permanent ROW for constmction of alternative M-1 <br />does cause some concern. While the total acreage involved is only 31 acres, 19 <br />of those are existing agricultural lands. We understand that some agricultural <br />land owners, particularly the owners of some of the 5.7 acres planted in fruit crops <br />are reluctant to sell the necessary ROW to the U.S. We would encourage the <br />Bureau to continue to work with these reluctant owner. We have observed that <br />replacement acreage appears to be available to these growers in close proximity <br />to the needed ROW. We do not believe the small net loss of agricultural land in <br />the Grand Valley required under alternative M-1 results in any adverse <br />environmental or socio-economic impacts. However, it may lead to an <br />unfavorable impression of the program, and reasonable efforts to obtain the <br />voluntary cooperation of all affected landowners should be explored. <br /> <br />4. If opposition to the project persist from this minority of landowners we would <br />suggest that Reclamation consider a hybrid of alternatives M-1 and M-4, using the <br />existing canal centerline, except for the eastern most three miles where fruit <br />growing is most intensive. This hybrid would reduce the cost differential between <br />M-1 and M-4 and may result in an economically justifiable project, acceptable to <br />all parties. <br /> <br />5. We are also concerned about the comparatively larger amount of temporary ROW <br />required under any of the alternatives. We reco=end that during final design <br />and [mal EA preparation you will refine your analysis and this burden on adjacent <br />landowners will be reduced, particularly where perennial crops are grown and long <br />time periods may be required to reclaim the land damaged by temporary ROW's. <br />We note that the EA is apparently inconsistent on this point stating at page 7 that <br />"Where there are high value crops...no temporary construction ROW would beÌpurchased," and yet listing under M-1 5.0 acre and under M-4 10.8 acres of <br />fruitland to be taken for temporary ROW on Table 4, page 21. <br />