2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SIJNINIARY (Continued) • both stabilizing prices and reducing the present inventory; however, the increase in any one year of construction would not exceed 1 percent of the total number of households in the county. Short- and Long-term Impacts and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Short-term impacts of alternatives A or B would include increases in employment and population. The schools, housing, and other facilities in the area could easily support these increases. Construction impacts, such as traffic disruption, noise, dust, and soil erosion, would occur and could temporarily cause adverse impacts; therefore, provisions in construction contracts would be strictly enforced to protect against these problems. Summary Table 1 presents the short- and long-term impacts to various resources from implementation of alternative A or B. Comparison of Alternatives and Selection of Recommended Plan • The annual increases in operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for alternative B, selected as the recommended plan, are substan- tially less than for alternative A--$716,000 per year for B, $1,660,000 for A. Because alternative B uses pipe laterals, it is considered much safer than the open laterals proposed in alternative A. Through the Grand Valley Salinity Coordinating Committee, the water user groups strongly expressed a preference for using pipe laterals. The primary environmental impact of both alternatives would be to reduce the salt loading to the Colorado River. Alternative B would have a greater ef- fect in reducing salinity at Imperial Dam (13.1 mg/L compared to 12.6 mg/L for alternative A). Total investment costs for alternative B are slightly higher than for alternative A. The annual operation, mainte- nance, and replacement costs are, however, substantially less, and the annual salt reduction is greater; thus, alternative B is the most cost effective. It is also considered the environmentally preferred plan, mainly because it maximizes salinity reduction and also improves safety conditions along the canals and laterals. The no-action alternative would not result in any salinity reduc- tion. Summary Table 2 compares alternatives B (the recommended plan), alternative A, and the no-action alternative. L S-11