Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to <br />o <br />N <br />(:) <br />.~ <br /> <br />~..::;, <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />Revised FEIS Table 13' <br />Canal increments not included under <br />alternatives A and B (Grand Valley Unit)2 <br /> <br />Salinity reduction Cost <br />Imperial effectiveness <br />Length Rounded Dam by increment <br />Canal (miles) (tons/year) (mQ/l) ($/ton) <br />East End Grand Valley Mainline Canal 12.5 24,744 2.2 92 <br />Stubb Ditch 10.2 4,300 0.4 52 <br />Price Ditch 9.1 7,200 0.7 54 <br />Kiefer Extension 15.4 5,944 0.5 147 <br />Grand Valley Highline 23.5 13,428 1.2 199 <br />Orchard Mesa Canal No. 1 16.3 3,822 0.3 211 <br />West End Grand Valley Mainline Canal 14.0 3,378 0.3 283 <br />Independent Ranchmens Ditch 11.8 1,132 0.1 355 <br />Orchard Mesa Canal No.2 17.3 1.006 0.1 731 <br />I New tonnages were estimated based upon the total tonnage contributed by increment and <br />seepage rates before and after improvement. The seepage rate after construction of the Stubb <br />Ditch would approach 0 since little or no seepage is anticipated from the pipeline. <br />I Based on October 1990 pre-construction-level data at 5 5/8 percent for a 50-year time <br />period. <br /> <br />-Mr, Skinner asked whether cost estimates were based on traditional <br />Reclamation contracts involving competitive bids, or are they based upon <br />the work being completed by the irrigation districts through a contract <br />with Reclamation, <br /> <br />Due to the complexity of the construction associated with the improvement <br />of the Price and Stubb Ditches, it is anticipated that these ditches will <br />be improved through a traditional Reclamation construction contract. <br />Tables 6 and 7 (formerly table 5, p.31; and 6, p.32) were based upon this <br />means of construction. However, the option of having the irrigation <br />districts construct the improvements within their systems remains viable. <br />The net impact of the two types of construction would be quite similar on <br />the local economy, Traditionally, with Reclamation contract construction, <br />contractors bring in most of their machinery and some of the more skilled <br />labor, Consequently, the economic impact of the construction can be <br />limited since these services are not obtained locally, If the work is <br />accomplished by the irrigation districts, all equipment and labor would <br />most likely be obtained locally providing more economic benefit. Thus the <br />economic impact having the irrigation district perform their own <br />construction at a lower cost but using more local resources would be offset <br />by using a traditional Reclamation construction contract at a higher cost <br />and a reduced use of local resources. <br /> <br />-Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) requested clarification of the <br />location of the portions of the Stubb Ditch which may be realigned. The <br />text has been expanded to clarify that the relocations are immediately west <br />of the Clifton Interstate-70 interchange. Additionally, design and <br />construction activities which interface with State highways will be <br />coordinated with <br /> <br />43 <br />