Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0:) <br />:.1. <br />a.. <br />,--,.; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />..-1 <br /> <br />...., <br /> <br />alternatives. Knowing these land costs would help in selecting among designs <br />and construction methods that require different amounts of land. <br /> <br />b. <br /> <br />While you present the aggregate of land and construction costs for each <br />alternative it might be helpful to highlight the major cost differences (materials, <br />labor, earthwork, engineering, etc.) for each alternative. Combined with <br />estimated land costs this information might put the tradeoffs between design <br />alternatives into sharper focus. <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />It would be helpful to display a cost-effectiveness ($/tons of salt removed) for <br />each alternative for purposes of comparison to other salinity control projects <br />in the Grand Valley and throughout the basin. <br /> <br />d. <br /> <br />You should cite the source of the crop production revenues used on page 26. <br /> <br />3. Land Use Issues <br /> <br />a. You cite to PL95-87 for the definition of prime agricultural land as interpreted <br />by SCS. Colorado HJR9l-l035 refers to the Farmland Protection Act of 1990. <br />We believe these are different federal statutes and your analysis of compliance <br />(see page 20) would be improved if you discussed the provisions of both. This <br />would also be useful during further discussions with the General Assembly. <br /> <br />b. We do not see any real difference between alternative M.l (Fee R-O-W) and <br />M-3 (permanent easement). The acreage and construction costs are identical, <br />and we do not see any benefit to adjacent land owners with M-3. If there is a <br />real difference it could be better explained, if there isn't, it should be dropped <br />from consideration. <br /> <br />c. The tables of .prime" and "non-prime" land show a large amount of irrigated <br />"non-prime" land. Is this an error, or is the distinction between prime and non- <br />prime irrelevant to agricultural practices in the Grand Valley? <br /> <br />d. If the new canal centerline is shifted 20 feet to the south (M -4) there is still no <br />need for additional R-O-W to the south. This implies that if the canal <br />centerline is not shifted (M-I) there could be 20 feet of excess R-O-W to the <br />south. Could this land be returned to private ownership to offset the <br />agricu1turalland taken on the north side of the canal with alternative M-l? <br /> <br />e. You may wish to describe the opportunities that exist for effected landowners <br />to purchase replacement lands in the vicinity of the project. <br /> <br />f. It would be helpful to provide data to support our assumption that any impact <br />on local property tax base of taking additional R-O-W would be negligible. <br /> <br />g1069.cah <br />