PROJ00223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"Tt~~i~_' _:~~ ..:.' value to the five non-monetary factors. Monetary factors were divided into two categories, initial cost and annual cost. Although they are directly related, they represent different problems, Le., although two items may be equal in annual cost, a high front-end cost may make one of them less feasible. Annual costs combine the annual repayment cost and O&M costs. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7. Recommendation and Ra.is for Selection The decision matrix in Table V-D indicates that the pipeline would be the most appropriate method for renovating the Mutual Mesa Ditch. Since the decision matrix is somewhat qualitative, it is recommended that the selected alternative should have a point total about 10% higher than the second highest total. The pipeline has a total score of 109, compared to 79 for the concrete lined ditch, or a difference of 38%. Following is a brief explanation of the basis for scoring on Table V-D. a. Impact on Environment. The impact on the man-made environment, the natural environment and the social structure (Items 1, 2 and 3) should be the same for all alternatives. Since all alternatives go on the existing right-of-way, there will be no disturbances of man-made structures. There will be some disturbance of natural habitat under A- I and 2, which will be mitigated under both programs. The impact on existing neighborhoods and communities during construction of each alternative will be minimal. b. Institutional Considerations. The effect on the following will be the same for each alternative: water rights, land or right-of-way required, effect on growth, and conflict with bylaws (Items 4, 5, 7 & 8). Basically, there will be no impact on water rights, no additional right- of-way will be required for each alternative, neither is unlikely to have any impact on growth, and both are in compliance with all bylaws. No 404 permit is required since no wetlands are disturbed (Item 6). However, various construction permits will be needed for alternates A-I and A-2. The goals of the Salinity Control Program will be achieved to a greater degree with the pipeline alternatives (Item 9). The pipeline is expected to have zero leakage, whereas there will be some leakage through the concrete lined ditch. For the same reason, water savings will lie greater with the pipeline as compared to the ditch (Item 10). The open ditch presents a continual safety hazard for the nearby residents, and thus, scored considerably lower (Item 11). The pipeline will be easier to use for adjacent landowners since part of it will be pressurized, which may allow some of the water to be directly used for sprinkling without need V-16