Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />~ <br />..... <br />o <br />':':-:J <br />;-) <br />- <br /> <br />Alternative C2 has also been modified to avoid the acquisition of <br />fee land. Membrane-lined segments under Modified Alternative C2 <br />would utilize the 20-foot shift as in Alternative M4, instead of <br />the originally proposed lining without a centerline adjustment of <br />Al te rna ti ve Ml. <br /> <br />The acreage saved from fee acquisition from modifications <br />described above and implementation of Alternatives M4 and Cl could <br />still be needed as temporary ROW during construction of an <br />alternative. The acreage of temporary ROW acquisition for each <br />alternative avoids high value residential and permanent crops to <br />the extent currently believed possible. <br /> <br />Land acquisition needs for Reach 2 are based on preliminary <br />information; however, it is estimated that for Reach 2, about 84 <br />acres of additional fee land would be necessary for Alternatives Ml <br />and M3, and S9 acres for Alternative Cl. Temporary ROW would range <br />from 149 acres (Alternatives Ml, M3, and Cl) to 279 acres <br />(Alternative M4) for Reach 2. Figures 1 through 3 presented the <br />typical requirements for the purchase of fee land and temporary ROW <br />for each alternative. <br /> <br />For all of the alternatives, additional temporary ROW could be <br />purchased from approximately 2S landowners south of the canal along <br />Reach 1 where U.S. surveys indicate that structures are trespassing <br />on U.s. fee land. The temporary ROW would be necessary to allow <br />the U.s. to remove the trespass structures. <br /> <br />Construction and O&M Costs <br /> <br />Table 1 contains a summary comparison of costs (and other <br />differences) between the lining alternatives. There are <br />significant differences in the total costs of alternatives due to <br />lining methods. Construction of concrete-lining Reach 1 under <br />Alternative Cl exceeds the membrane-lining Modified Alternative Ml <br />by approximately $S million. Alternatives Ml and M3 are the most <br />cost effective alternatives. Construction costs are increased for <br />Alternative M4 due to the need to fill on the north side of the <br />shifted canal. The total costs of lining any given reach would <br />affect the incremental cost effectiveness of removing salt over the <br />whole Unit. The construction costs in Table 1 includes the cost of <br />purchasing additional fee land, perpetual ROW, temporary ROW, <br />resolving encroachment problems, and fencing. <br /> <br />Land acquisition cost estimates are not disclosed separately from <br />construction costs to avoid interfering with the negotiation <br />process. The cost of resolving encroachments and of purchasing the <br />existing reserved ROW as fee title land is equal among the <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />21 <br />