WSP02321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(;> If) .-I o (-) ..:.:. 3 18, and 2, Reclamation will maintain a consistent policy regarding permits, fencing, and safety as detailed in the final EA. access Through shifts in the centerline of the canal, reduction in operating areas, and minimizing the area for construction, land acquisition needs have been reduced for Reach 1A and 1B as described in the final EA. Summary of Impacts 1. In Reach 1A of the canal, fee title land acquisition would be avoided. In Reach IB of the canal, a maximum of O~6 acres of orchards, 10.9 acres of other croplands, and 7.9 acres of unimproved desert lands would be purchased and lost from agricultural production and other uses. 2. In Reach lA of the canal, a maximum of 4.2 acres of orchards, 5.0 acres of vineyards, 5.7 acres of other croplands, and 7.7 acres of unimproved desert lands would be purchased temporarily for construction purposes, and agricultural production and other uses would be lost for 1 to 3 years. In Reach 1B of the canal, a maximum of 0.9 acres of orchards, no vineyards, 34.0 acres of other croplands, and 23.2 acres of unimproved desert lands could be purchased temporarily for construction purposes, and agricultural production and other uses would be lost for 1 to 3 years. 3. In Reach 2 of the canal, 84 acres of fee title land could be acquired and 96 acres of temporary right-of-way could be used. These lands are primarily unimproved lands, and this use could result in either a permanent or temporary loss. 4. The 311 acres of reserved right-af-way in Reach 2 now used for the canal and operations roads could be purchased in fee; use of this land would not change, but title would be held by the United States to better provide for management and protection of the canal. 5. Fencing, as proposed in the FEIS and refined in the final EA, would increase safety over existing conditions and would reduce trespass and other unauthorized uses of the canal lands. Access provisions included in the final EA would protect existing private access to irrigation structures, agricultural fields, and residences. 6. Design ch~nges, such as the use of shotcrete or concrete at selected locations, adjustments of the centerline of the canal, and other measures would reduce land acquisition needs and avoid impacting existing bridges. 7. As planned in the FEIS, existing water rights and water deliveries would not be changed. The canal would continue to carry water for the Mesa County Irrigation District and Palisade Irrigation District as well as the Grand Valley Water Users' Association. 8. As described in the FEIS, wildlife habitat losses, including wetlands, would be replaced through a land acquisition and development program associated with the entire Unit. The habitat replacement program is ongoing and is centered on the development of the Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife