Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00 <br /> <br />... <br />c.-: <br />..-' <br /> <br />" <br />~ <br /> <br />SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY - TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION FACIUTY <br /> <br />of Alternative 51-1 C are summarized in Table 5-4. The potentially significant environmental <br />impacts of the other alternatives are compared to the Preferred Alternative in Table 5-5. In <br />Table 5-5, potential adverse impacts are listed for each discipline, and are compared to the <br />impacts of the Preferred Alternative through the use of "greater," "same," or "lesser." Each <br />alternative has a mix of positive and negative aspects related to the various issues, compared <br />to the Preferred Alternative. The summary tables and text for each of the five alternatives <br />indicates that the overall environmental impact for each of the five alternatives is similar. No <br />one alternative is clearly superior in terms of potential effect on the natural and human <br />environment, <br /> <br />In the spirit of the NEPA requirement to primarily consider alternatives which cause the least <br />damage to the environment and best protect natural and cultural resources, issue areas such <br />as effects on biological resources, cultural resources, and water resources were considered <br />primary issues from which to designate the Environmentally Preferable Alternative. Human <br />factors, such as aesthetics, recreation, risk of upset, traffic, noise, and compatibility with <br />existing and planned land uses were considered secondary, Air quality effects for all <br />alternatives were substantially similar because of the magnitude and extent of construction <br />of facilities for any of the alternatives. <br /> <br />Based on the results of environmental analyses <br />in the 11 issue areas as detailed in Tables S-4 <br />and S-5, and in the body of this EIS, and <br />considering only the narrow definition of <br />"preferable" as that alternative which causes <br />the least damage to the environment and best <br />protects natural and cultural resources, <br />Alternative 51-5 is marginally designated as the <br />Environmentally Preferable Alternative. It is <br />identified as such only for the purposes of <br />compliance with NEPA requirements. Alternative SI.5 has potential biological and cultural <br />resources impacts somewhat lesser than those of the Preferred Alternative. The total area <br />of sensitive habitat and numbers of the endangered desert tortoise potentially disturbed by <br />Alternative SI-5 are the lowest among the five alternatives. The number of potentially <br />significant cultural resource sites potentially affected is also the lowest of any alternative. <br />Secondary impact categories such as aesthetic disturbance and proximity to sensitive land <br />uses (including recreational facilities and noise-sensitive areas) for Alternative SI-5 display <br />similar impacts to other alternatives. Construction traffic impacts for this alternative are in <br />the middle of the range of impacts of the five alternatives. <br /> <br />Alternative SI-5 is marginally <br />designated as the Environmentally <br />Preferable Alternative. It is <br />identified as such only for the <br />purposes of compliance with NEPA <br />requirements. <br /> <br />THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (SI-1CI <br /> <br />Table S.4 presents the potentially significant environmental impacts of the Preferred <br />Alternative (Alternative SI-1 C) in the 11 environmental issue areas evaluated in the EIS: <br />Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Earth Resources, Energy <br />Resources, Land Use and Socioeconomics, Noise and Vibration, Recreation, Traffic, and <br />Water Resources. No potentially significant adverse impacts were identified for Energy <br />Resources. Potentially significant adverse impacts in the following disciplines were identified, <br /> <br />S-16 <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br />