Laserfiche WebLink
<br />...-..' <br />~' <br /> <br />cr: <br /> <br />- <br />~ <br />... <br /> <br />SOUTHERN NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY - TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION FAClUTY <br /> <br />Co- <br /> <br />but could be mitigated to a less than significant level by the implementation of suggested <br />mitigation measures: Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Earth Resources, Noise and <br />Vibration; Recreation; Traffic; and Water Resources. The following discipline areas would <br />have impacts that remained significant following implementation of suggested mitigation <br />measures: Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Land Use and Socioeconomics. <br /> <br />Beneficial impacts of the Preferred Alternative were identified for Land Use and Socio- <br />Economics, associated with provision of water to lightly-developed areas (obviating the need <br />for water wells, which exacerbate the existing groundwater overdraft) and provision of water <br />supplies for potential economic diversification of the region. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OTHER PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />Table S-5 presents the potentially significant environmental impacts of the other four Out- <br />Valley project alternatives in the 11 environmental issue areas evaluated in the EIS. The In- <br />Valley Transmission System would be the same for each Out-Valley alternative and is not <br />included on this table. For each discipline area, the magnitude of the potential impact is <br />compared to that of the Preferred Project alternative (i.e., greater, same, or lesser). <br /> <br />For all of the other four structural Out-Valley alternatives, no potentially significant adverse <br />impacts were identified for Energy Resources, Potentially significant adverse impacts in the <br />following disciplines were identified, but could be mitigated to a less than significant level for <br />all alternatives by the implementation of suggested mitigation measures: Biological <br />Resources, Cultural Resources, Earth Resources, Noise and Vibration, Recreation, Traffic, and <br />Water Resources. The following discipline areas would have impacts that remained <br />significant following implementation of suggested mitigation measures: Aesthetics (all <br />alternatives), Air Quality (all alternatives), Earth Resources (all alternatives), and Land Use <br />and Socio-Economics (all alternatives). <br /> <br />Beneficial impacts of the other project alternatives were identified for Land Use and Socio- <br />Economics, associated with provision of water to lightly-developed areas (obviating the need <br />for water wells, which exacerbate the existing groundwater overdraft) and provision of water <br />supplies for potential economic diversification of the region. This benefit was described for <br />the In-Valley portion of the water transmission system, and so accrues equally to any of the <br />Preferred or other Alternative Out-Valley systems. <br /> <br />For each structural Out-Valley alternative, an independent assessment of environmental <br />impact was performed prior to inclusion in Section 4, Environmental Consequences. To <br />eliminate repetitive text, references in Table S-5 are made to the results of impact analysis <br />of other elements within alternatives, or in separate alternatives, if impacts are similar. <br /> <br />THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Table S-6 presents the potentially significant environmental impacts of the No Action <br />Alternative in the 11 environmental resource issue areas evaluated in the EIS, For each issue <br />area, the magnitude of the potential impact is compared to that of the Preferred Project <br />alternative (i.e., greater, same, or lesser). Since the No Action Alternative is defined as not <br /> <br />SUMMARY <br /> <br />S-17 <br /> <br />r <br />