Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />~ the function or integrity of the canal. Before any activity associated c <br />~ w.ith construction of the unit near sites that are eligible or listed on c: <br />CJ1 the National Register is undertaken, the Bureau of Reclamation 'will con-;.:. <br />~ suIt with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer and the Ad- <br />~isory Council on Historic Preservation. <br /> <br />Safety conditions <br /> <br />As the population densities in the area increase, the probability <br />of- accidental loss of life would increase under .the no-action alterna- <br />. ~ <br />t:lve. An accompanying increase in the number of safety features would <br />nbtbe expected.1 <br /> <br />Implementing either alternative A or B would result in.animprove- <br />m~nt. of safety conditions by installing a fence alqng both sides of the <br />G~vernment Highline Canal. Since neither alternative A nor B includes <br />w+rk on any other canals, the safety conditi.ons along these facilities <br />wijluld. be unchanged.. Under' alternative A,safety fences would. be. in- <br />s4al1ed along open laterals adjacent to schools and recreationd areas <br />which may be frequently visited by children. With alternative B, drown- <br />, <br />irig incidents in laterals would be virtually eliminated in over 300 ~iles <br />ofi improved laterals that would be placed in pipe. <br /> <br /> <br />Social and economic conditions <br /> <br />Porulation and Demographics <br /> <br />Under the no-action alternative, the current economic downturn of <br />th~ county is anticipated to stabilize and resume a. moderately upward <br />tr~nd by 1986. due to moderate growth in nonenergy-related. portions of' <br />th~ economy. The impacts from construction of alternative. A or B would <br />th~refore occur in an environment showing moderate growth. <br /> <br />The greatest population increase from either alternative A .or B as <br />a ~esult of the inmigration of.' construction workers and their families is <br />n04 expected to exceed 1 percent of the total population of Mesa County. <br />Th~se.increases would occur ina population anticipated to be at'nearly <br />10Q,000 and would have little impact. <br /> <br /> <br />Em~loyment and Income <br /> <br />. Construction would create direct (contractor and government) and <br />secPndary employment in service-related industries; however, at no point <br />in !the construction period would the increase in total employment from <br />either alternative exceed 1 percent of the employment in the county. <br /> <br /> <br />Hou~ing <br /> <br />An excess of single-family dwellings for purchase and for rent pres- <br />entlyexists in Mesa County. Because of this, a decline in property <br />va14es is occurring. The increase in households that would occur with <br />the: construction of either alternative would be a positive benefit in ,'" <br /> <br />S-IO <br /> <br />" <br />'i~ <br />~" <br /> <br />1 <br />