PROJ00281

• Contract/PO #: C153670B
• Contractor Name: Ute Water Conservancy District
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 72
• County: Mesa
• Bill Number: SB 88-30
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

20

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Alternative B - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 48- and 54-inch
diameter pipeline mainly within the existing Highway 65 ROW along Plateau
Creek.

Alternative C - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 39-inch diameter
pipeline in the Alternative A alignment. This alternative includes a provision to
add a future booster pump station to meet year 2045 demands.

No-Action Alternative - Replacement of the existing pipeline with a 24-inch
pipeline using the existing alignment. This alternative does not meet the District's
stated purpose but was included as a requirement of the EIS process and as a
baseline for comparison with the other three alternatives.

A summary of the four alternatives evaluated in the EIS is displayed in Table 3:

Table 3 - Summary of Alternatives

Item
Nominal Pipeline
Diameter (Inches)
Pipeline Length
rMiles)
Caoital Cost
Life Cvcle Cost (l)
Water Supply (Acre-
Feet in vear 2045)
Cost per Acre-Foot $1,200 $1,648 $1,266 $2,335
(1) Present worth of all capital, operating, maintenance and replacement costs for
expected life of facilities.

Alt.A
48 and 54

Alt.B
48 and 54

Alt. C
39

No Action
24

15.4

15.6

15.4

13.9

$30,311,000
$34,300,000
28,589

$43,161,000
$47,100,000
28,589

$26,656,000
$36,200,000
28,589

$17,135,000
$29,900,000
12,807

Due to increased water demands over the 50-year planning horizon, all of the alternatives
would result in depletions to the 15-mile Reach of the Colorado River, which is
considered critical habitat for four species of endangered fish. Other impacts associated
with the four alternatives are considered to be beneficial, negligible or fully mitigated
with the exception of certain socioeconomic effects of the No-Action Alternative and
increased traffic safety risk associated with Alternative B which involves an alignment
generally along Highway 65. The EIS concluded that Alternative B is the least
environmentally damaging alternative since it minimizes overall impacts to natural,
cultural, and historic resources.

Preferred Alternative

Alternative A is the District's preferred alternative because it has low overall
environmental impact and is consistent with the project purpose of replacing the existing
pipeline with a facility having sufficient capacity to meet projected year 2045 peak

7.