Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />..-t <br />.-4 <br />o <br /> <br />:-:' <br /> <br />Fencing is proposed along both sides of the canal corridor for all <br />alternatives. Therefore, fencing costs do not vary between <br />alternatives. <br /> <br />'_: <br /> <br />Annual O&M costs are 80 percent greater for concrete as compared to <br />membrane-lined canals. This number is based upon data collected <br />for 3,000 miles of canals from 1930 through 1984 from irrigation <br />systems with a similar environment to the Grand Valley. There is <br />no increase in O&M costs for membrane-lined segments over that of <br />the existing canal; the increased annual O&M costs of concrete <br />lining for Alternative Cl is shown in Table 1 as $35,000 for <br />Reach 1. <br /> <br />Recommended Alternative <br /> <br />For Reach lB, Reclamation plans to construct Modified Alternative <br />Ml because of the lower cost, safety considerations, O&M <br />advantages, and because of the intention of reducing or avoiding <br />land acquisition in high value areas within this reach. This <br />alternative provides adequate long-term land and administrative <br />needs important for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of <br />the irrigation system. Modified Alternative Ml, as changed by the <br />shifting of the centerline and avoidance of high value areas to <br />reduce land acquisition, is also the environmentally preferred <br />alternative. <br /> <br />For Reach lA, Reclamation is recommending either Alternative M4 or <br />Modified Alternative C2. However, implementation of either of <br />these alternatives which are not the most cost effective, would <br />require discussions with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and <br />the Salinity Control Forum. Construction work on Reach lA would be <br />postponed until this issue can be resolved. This decision is in <br />response to public concerns that lining this reach of the <br />Government Highline Canal should avoid widening the canal corridor <br />through high value areas, especially those currently in production <br />as orchards and vineyards. A minor amount of temporary ROWand fee <br />land acquisition in these areas would still be required but would <br />be minimal. Because it protects permanent croplands and is safer <br />than Alternative C2, M4 is the environmentally preferred <br />alternative for Reach lA. <br /> <br />Because of its low cost effectiveness, Reach 2 is a deferred <br />increment and Reclamation would not make a decision at this time <br />regarding a recommended alternative. When construction on Reach 2 <br />is scheduled for initiation, Reclamation would involve adjacent <br />landowners in the process and would then issue a decision regarding <br />Reach 2. <br /> <br />22 <br />