2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) the function or integrity of the canal. Before any activity associated • with construction of the unit near sites that are eligible or listed on the National Register is undertaken, the Bureau of Reclamation will con- sult with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer and the Ad- visory Council on Historic Preservation. Safety conditions As the population densities in the area increase, the probability of accidental loss of life would increase under the no-action alterna- tive. An accompanying increase in the number of safety features would not be expected. Implementing either alternative A or B would result in an improve- ment of safety conditions by installing a fence along both sides of the Government Highline Canal. Since neither alternative A nor B includes work on any other canals, the safety conditions along these facilities would be unchanged. Under alternative A, safety fences would be in- stalled along open laterals adjacent to schools and recreational areas which may be frequently visited by children. With alternative B, drown- ing incidents in laterals would be virtually eliminated in over 300 miles of improved laterals that would be placed in pipe. Social and economic conditions Population and Demographics Under the no-action alternative, the current economic downturn of the county is anticipated to stabilize and resume a moderately upward trend by 1986 due to moderate growth in nonenergy-related portions of the economy. The impacts from construction of alternative A or B would therefore occur in an environment showing moderate growth. The greatest population increase from either alternative A or B as a result of the inmigration of construction workers and their families is not expected to exceed 1 percent of the total population of Mesa County. These increases would occur in a population anticipated to be at nearly 100,000 and would have little impact. Employment and Income Construction would create direct (contractor and government) and secondary employment in service-related industries; however, at no point in the construction period would the increase in total employment from either alternative exceed 1 percent of the employment in the county. Housing • An excess of single-family dwellings for purchase and for rent pres- ently exists in Mesa County. Because of this, a decline in property values is occurring. The increase in households that would occur with the construction of either alternative would be a positive benefit in S-10