My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04151
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04151
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:53:59 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:10:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.120
Description
Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
5/23/1986
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Grand Valley Unit Stage Two Development
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.
/
22
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 />r- <br />to <br />o <br />o <br />C) <br /> <br />S.J <br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />i\;} <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />Two viable alternatives (A and B) plus a no-action alternative for <br />Stage Two development were considered. Alternatives A and B met the <br />criteria of four tests (completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and <br />acceptability) used to identify viable plans that would meet the goals <br />of the salinity control program and Bureau of Reclamation and Department <br />of the Interior guidelines. From these alternatives, alternative B was <br />selected as the recommended plan of development. <br /> <br />During the planning process, a number of other salinity reduction <br />concepts and alternatives were studied but were dropped from further con- <br />sideration because they failed to pass one or more of the tests. These <br />alternatives included the concept of reducing salinity by combining <br />existing canal systems into fewer and more efficient facilities, the <br />concept of installing barrier cutoff walls along canal embankments, and <br />the addition of nine canal lining increments to alternatives A and B. <br />Options for combining systems were dropped from consideration because of <br />concerns of the water users about potential administrative and water <br />right problems and potential problems related to additional government <br />involvement. The concept of installing barrier cutoff walls was dropped <br />because the technique was unproven and its effectiveness in reducing <br />canal seepage was questionable. The additional increments to alterna- <br />tives A and B were dropped because of their relatively poor cost effec- <br />tiveness. <br /> <br />Recommended plan (alternative B) <br /> <br />The recommended plan would entail membrane lining three reaches of <br />the Government Highline Canal and replacing existing open earth laterals <br />with buried pipe laterals. <br /> <br />The canal improvements would consist of membrane lining approxi- <br />mately 38 miles of the 47-mile section of the Government Highline Canal <br />from Palisade to the canal's terminus, 6 miles northwest of Mack.l! Be- <br />cause of its small capacity, the last mile of the canal would be placed <br />in pipe. One segment of the canal was recently concrete lined under <br />Stage One. A mile-long siphon under East Salt Creek would not be re- <br />placed. The membrane lining would be 20-mil polyvinyl chloride, covered <br />with 14 to 19 inches of earth and gravel for all canal capacities. <br />Maj or existing structures along the canal, including siphons, flumes, <br />and bridges, would be subjected to a structural and hydraulic evaluation <br />and would be replaced if necessary. All turnout structures would be <br />replaced, and several new wasteway and centerline check structures would <br /> <br />1/ The first 6 miles of the canal from the Grand Valley Diversion <br />Dam to Palisade were excluded because the canal traverses the Mesa Verde <br />Formation, a much less saline formation than the Mancos Formation; be- <br />cause of the large capacity of the canal, it would be too expensive to <br />line. <br /> <br />S-2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.