My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03260
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03260
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:49:29 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:37:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.120.10
Description
Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/10/1991
Title
Final Environmental Assessment: Alternative Lining Methods for the Government Highline Canal - Grand Valley Unit
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />~ <br /> <br />""-', <br />~ <br /> <br />"""' <br />o <br /> <br />Alternative Gl (Gabion) - involved placing rock gabion lining along <br />the canal in association with membrane lining. Gabions are <br />rectangular wire baskets filled with a material, commonly rocks, <br />which cannot pass through the wire. Based upon a preliminary <br />estimate, this alternative is 35 percent more expensive than the <br />membrane-lining alternative. This alternative would not require <br />additional fee land and would be safer than concrete lining, but <br />was eliminated due to the significantly higher costs above both <br />concrete and membrane lining. <br /> <br />Alternative se (Shotcrete) - consisted of a membrane-lining <br />proposal as in Ml; however, shotcrete (a form of concrete) would be <br />used to cover the lining rather than soil. This would permit <br />steeper slopes on the canal and eliminate the need for additional <br />fee land. Temporary ROW would be needed as in Alternative Ml, and <br />both the north and south U.S. fee land boundaries would be fenced. <br />Except for the use of shotcrete where steep sideslopes are <br />required, such as where the canal flows under existing bridges, <br />this alternative was eliminated from further consideration because <br />costs exceeded those of the concrete-lining alternatives. <br /> <br />Associated Actions <br /> <br />Unless otherwise specified, the following policies regarding <br />qualified access permits, bridges, and fencing would apply to the <br />No-Action Alternative as well as each of the viable alternatives <br />(Ml, M3, M4, el, and e2). <br /> <br />Access Permits - Rights-of-use permits are written authorizations <br />which establish the conditions associated with the U.S. granting <br />use of and/or access across their land to another party. Permits <br />for private access via private bridges and/or use of the canal O&M <br />road would be issued to adjacent landowners as described below. <br /> <br />If an existing private bridge and/or the canal O&M road is <br />currently being used by an adjacent landowner for access, the U.S. <br />would issue a permit to the landowner for his/her access to their <br />existing residences, irrigation facilities, and presently irrigated <br />agricultural fields. <br /> <br />Permits would be issued for existing access needs only and would <br />not be extended to accommodate future development, especially <br />residential subdivisions north of the canal. Residential <br />developments must obtain access through public corridors approved <br />by local governments. <br /> <br />The use of the U.S. lands for private farming operations, such as <br />for tractor turn-a rounds or crop production, or any non- <br />agricultural business activity would not be permitted. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.