WSP07728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SUMMARY (Continued) . w ~ 0> -J and pIpIng the ftows for 116 miles to S5 evaporation ponds located on a J,790-acre site which would be constructed northwest of Mack near the Colorado-Utah State line. Construction of the ponds, transmission lines, and permanent operating facilities would be the same as with Alternative DG. Alternative G involves collecting 9.7 cfs at Gl.enwood JipringLand would result in an annual depletion to the Colorado River system of.7.020 acre-feet at a cost of $107 per ton. Construction of Alternative G would result- in a reductlon in salt loading to the Colorado River of 176,000 tons annua~. Wildlife measures, the same for both alternatives, would provide for two fresh water collection reservoirs, one 22 acres in surface area and one 10 acres, as well as 15 wildlife guzzlers which would be located at the evaporation pond site. Alternative G is considered more environmentally acceptable than Alternative DG because it would avoid p;peline construction in the envi- ronmentally sensitive Glenwood Canyon, require less acreage for evapora- tion ponds, and result in less depletion to the Colorado River. Summary Table 1 presents a summary comparison of the alternatives. . It should be noted that Alternative DG was developed to a higher level of detail than Alternative G. As a result, the designs, quanti- ties, and costs should not be interpreted as a precise comparison of the two alternatives although they are similar in concept. Design of the two major features, the conveyance system and the evaporation pond sys- tem, was developed only to the appraisal level. Four-Account Analvsis , In accordance with the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies ,11 four accounts were used to display information on the effects of Alter- natives DG and G and the no action alternative--the National Economic Development (NED), the Regional Economic Development (RED), the Environ- mental Quality (EQ), and the Social Effects (SE) Accounts. Each account describes particular aspects of anticipated effects of the alternatives. The NED Account measures costs and benefits in monetary terms; the EQ Account measures impacts on the environment in nonmonetary terms; the RED Account measures impacts on the local economy in monetary and non- monetary values; and the SE Account measures the impact on local resi- dents of the study area, on their customs, and on their way of life. An examinat ion of regional economic impacts concluded that an RED Account analysis would have no significant influence on selection of a recom- mended plan; therefore an RED Account was not prepared. A summary of the analysis for the NED, EQ, and SE Accounts is shown in Summary Tables 2 through S. . 11 Water Resources Council 1982. 5-5