Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />:~!:)~b'oth stabilizing iprices and reducing the present inventory; <br />:::"":lncrease in any !lOe year of construction would not exceed <br />~he total number 'of households in the county. <br />oJ;i;. . <br />Ul <br />CO <br /> <br />however, the <br />1 percent of <br /> <br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />Short- and Long-term Impacts and Irreversible <br />an~ Irretrievable Commitments of Resources <br /> <br />Short-term i~pacts of alternatives A or B would include increases <br />in employment and ,population. The schools, housing, and.other facilities <br />in the area couldleasily support these increases. Construction impacts, <br />such as traffic d,tlsruption, noise, dust , and soil erosion, would occur <br />and could tempor~rily cause adverse' impacts; therefore, provisions in <br />construction contracts would be strictly e.nforced to protect against <br />these problems. <br /> <br />Summary Tabl~ I presents the short~ and long-term impacts to various <br />resources from im~,lementation of alternative A or B. <br /> <br />Comparison of Alternatives and <br />Selection of Recommended Plan <br /> <br />The annual increases in operation, maintenance, and. replacement <br />costs for alternat~ve B, selected. :asthe. recommended plan, are substan- <br />tially less than fpr alternative A~~$7I6,000 per year for B, $1,660,000 <br />for .A. Because alternative B uses."pipe laterals, it is considered much <br />safer than the op,n laterals proposed in alternative A.. Through the <br />Grand Valley Salit.ity Coordinating Committee, the water user groups <br />strongly expressed i a preference for using pipe laterals. The primary <br />environmental impa~t of both alternative's would be to reduce the salt <br />loading to the Colprado River. Alternative B would have a greater ef- <br />fect in reducing siaUnityat ImpedalDam (13.1 mg/L compared to' 12.6 <br />mg/L for alternati~e A). Total investment costs for alternative Bare <br />slightly higher th4n. for alternative A.. The annual operation, mainte-' <br />nance, and replaceIj1ent costs are,l\owever, substantially less, and the <br />annual salt reduct:l1onis greater;. thus; alternative B is the most cost <br />effective. It. is ;a190 considered . the environmentally preferred plan:, <br />mainly because it ~ximizes salintty reduction and also improves safety <br />conditions along the canals and laterals. <br /> <br />The no-action ~lternative .would not result in any salinity reduc- <br />tion. Summary Tabl!e 2 compares alternatives B (the recommended plan), <br />alternative A, and the no-action alternative. <br /> <br />S-l1 <br />