Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The project purpose, as stated in the EIS, is to allow the District to replace the existing <br />pipeline with a facility having sufficient capacity to meet the projected year 2045 peak <br />daily water demand. The EIS included several projections of population growth and water <br />demands for Mesa County and for the District's service area to the year 2045. The <br />adopted projection indicates a year 2045 Ute Water service area population of 197,000 <br />and an average annual demand of28,589 acre-feet. <br /> <br />After an extensive stakeholder involvement and public comment process, 16 preliminary <br />alternatives for meeting the project purpose were formulated and evaluated at the <br />reconnaissance-level of detail in 1994 and 1995. The 16 alternatives were screened to <br />three final alternatives and a no-action alternative that were evaluated at the feasibility- <br />level of detail in the EIS. A summary ofthe four alternatives is displayed in Table 2: <br /> <br />Table 2 - Summary of Alternatives from EIS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Item Alt. A AIt.B Alt. 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 (I) $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 />Alternative A is the District's preferred alternative because it has low overall <br />environmental impact and is consistent with the project purpose. It also has the lowest <br />estimated life cycle cost and least cost per acre-foot of the three alternatives (A, B and C) <br />which meet the project purpose. <br /> <br />The District anticipates a Record of Decision on the EIS and ROW permit application in <br />mid-May 1998, Project design work would begin shortly thereafter. Construction is <br />expected to begin in early 1999 and will require about two years to complete. <br /> <br />Section 7 Consultation <br /> <br />. <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. During 1996, BLM and the <br />District participated in extensive consultations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to <br />develop a mutually acceptable Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RP A) for the <br />proposed project. <br /> <br />3 <br />