Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />,I <br />I <br />II <br />i <br />'I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />002542 <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />A. Selection of evaluation/project areas. <br /> <br />In the spring of 1990, meetings were held with Soil <br />Conservation service technical personnel in the Pueblo, <br />Rocky Ford, Las Animas, Lamar, and Holly field offices. <br />These meetings were for the purpose of subdividing the <br />drainages and watersheds along the lower Arkansas River into <br />project size areas which might be submitted for water <br />quality proposals. <br /> <br />This attempt initially included areas of 8,000 to 12,000 <br />acres in size. The proposed study areas needed to be <br />compatible with the proposed river model. This dictated <br />that the potential project yareas should be canal systems. <br />sixteen canal systems were identified for data collection <br />and evaluation: <br /> <br />TABLE 2 <br /> <br />CANAL SYSTEMS STUDIED <br /> <br />CANAL <br /> <br />AREA SERVED <br /> <br />Bessemer <br />Oxford <br />Rocky Ford Highline <br />Catlin <br />Ft. Lyon <br />Holbrook <br />Las Animas <br />Otero <br />Rocky Ford <br />Amity <br />Buffalo <br />Ft. Bent <br />Keese <br />Lamar <br />XY <br />Manvel <br /> <br />19,000 acres <br />6,000 acres <br />20,000 acres <br />19,000 acres <br />91,000 acres <br />16,000 acres <br />4,600 acres <br />6,700 acres <br />8,000 acres <br />34,700 acres <br />6,000 acres <br />6,840 acres <br />1,900 acres <br />9,000 acres <br />6,000 acres <br />5,000 acres <br /> <br />Several of these canal systems are independent in terms of <br />water supply interaction with other systems; however, a <br />number of them do have some interaction. For example, a <br />portion of return flows from the Rocky Ford Highline system <br />is intercepted by the Oxford Canal which, in turn, produces <br />