WSP03260 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L'" c:: ... o (~ structures would be determined in consultations with the Colorado C:::, Division of wildlife and the Fish and wildlife Service. In addition to the escape structures, continuous ridges would be built into the sides of the concrete canal to provide traction for people and animals attempting to escape. Modified Alternative C2 - Modified Alternative C2 (Concrete 2) involves concrete lining only the portion of Reach lA dominated by stable foundation material. This alternative has been modified from that proposed in the draft EA to apply only to Reach lA instead of all of Reach 1, and by proposing membrane lining for portions not concrete lined as described in Alternative M4 instead of by Alternative Ml to avoid the purchase of additional fee lands. In the areas where concrete lining is necessary, temporary ROWs would be acquired as in Alternatives Cl and M4. An estimated 1.9 miles of Reach lA would be concrete lined under this alternative. Fencing and escape structures along the concrete-lined portions would be the same as for Cl. Other Alternatives The following additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis: Alternative M2 (Membrane 2) - differs from Ml in that use of the north O&M road for qualified access by private citizens would be authorized by permit in areas where local landowners are currently using U.S. property for access, and provided that the topography of the new canal would accommodate access. Acquisition of fee land and temporary ROW would be the same as in Modified Alternative MI. upon acquisition of the land, agreements would be executed between the current landowners and Reclamation whereby mutual use of the north ROW would be allowed and the north boundary would not be fenced in all locations. This alternative was eliminated because it would require the same investment as Alternative Ml but would not adequately protect the canal facilities. Alternative PI (Pipe) - involved placing the canal in pipe. This alternative would probably not require the purchase of additional land, would solve safety problems associated with an open canal, and could most easily result in the development of the canal corridor to other, non-project uses such as recreation. Because of the high flow rate of water (775 cubic feet per second (cfs)) and the relatively flat topography of the area, a conservative estimate for Reach 1 indicated that it would take five, 10-foot-diameter pipes to replace the capacity of the existing canal. Preliminary cost estimates indicate that such an alternative would be 30 times more expensive than the membrane-lining Alternative Ml; therefore this alternative was eliminated because it was not considered economically feasible. 16