Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative B - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 48- and 54-inch <br />diameter pipeline mainly within the existing Highway 65 ROW along Plateau <br />Creek. <br /> <br />Alternative C - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 39-inch diameter <br />pipeline in the Alternative A alignment. This alternative includes a provision to <br />add a future booster pump station to meet year 2045 demands. <br /> <br />No-Action Alternative - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 24-inch <br />pipeline using the existing alignment. This alternative does not meet the District's <br />stated purpose but was included as a requirement of the EIS process and as a <br />baseline for comparison with the other three alternatives. <br /> <br />A summary of the four alternatives evaluated in the EIS is displayed in Table 3: <br /> <br />Table 3 - Summary of Alternatives <br /> <br />Item Alt. A Alt. B All. C No Action <br />Nominal Pipeline 48 and 54 48 and 54 39 24 <br />Diameter (Inches) <br />Pipeline Length 15.4 15.6 15.4 13.9 <br />(Miles) <br />Capital Cost $30,311,000 $43,161,000 $26,656,000 $17,135,000 <br />Life Cycle Cost (1) $34,300,000 $47,100,000 $36,200,000 $29,900,000 <br />Water Supply (Acre- 28,589 28,589 28,589 12,807 <br />Feet in year 2045) <br />Cost per Acre-Foot $1,200 $1,648 $1 ,266 $2,335 <br /> <br />(1) Present worth of all capital, operating, maintenance and replacement costs for <br />expected life of facilities. <br /> <br />Due to increased water demands over the 50-year planning horizon, all of the alternatives <br />would result in depletions to the 15-mile Reach of the Colorado River, which is <br />considered critical habitat for four species of endangered fish. Other impacts associated <br />with the four alternatives are considered to be beneficial, negligible or fully mitigated <br />with the exception of certain socioeconomic effects of the No-Action Alternative and <br />increased traffic safety risk associated with Alternative B which involves an alignment <br />generally along Highway 65. The EIS concluded that Alternative B is the least <br />environmentally damaging alternative since it minimizes overall impacts to natural, <br />cultural, and historic resources. <br /> <br />Preferred Alternative <br /> <br />Alternative A is the District's preferred alternative because it has low overall <br />environmental impact and is consistent with the project purpose of replacing the existing <br />pipeline with a facility having sufficient capacity to meet projected year 2045 peak <br /> <br />7. - <br />