|
<br />UO~tJ5,
<br />
<br />f'<>"~ !f'f>' ,:;">''''"'
<br />\li~i<~~:c 'i f' ~ if :1 ti ,.
<br />{;::<" . i I r. j! i i . I ;' ;:; ,
<br />
<br />S'~ \J:I';'~A@; 'J1l;;~~r ;<;apl t'tusage; .
<br />d~~~ite hi~tpric patterns of energy
<br />~"umPtio~"and of watgr.jcotisumptfon, . ,,0..
<br />. ~!'cqn~~ri~ft~on eth;je:l"o~r,i~~n by what",' '.'
<br />. f.r:tm9..~.\~;,v... ".;.~}.'p.n, h.'~.rt.~a....l.)te;.,...:r.~d; thos.epa. tt~r...n...s "c'
<br />,~~b~!JJ~ance~i:!' \~,f,;,.\.;' " . ", '.
<br />" ':d~_:_~l-t~~_-~-~:;,:';2t ",'. " -'.- ',' -
<br />lOH'" ~bler~;,~l;Jl!ms)i8:b~JiFtll! :c1~spute th.at ,
<br />Oenver wll1 requlre some addltions to its
<br />w~tl!1';' ~~pply system; the issue focuses on
<br />timing: We propose to evaluate this ques-
<br />tion llY a sO:'l:alled"sensitivity analysis."
<br />A. MW,P9PblaF*I1;. r~t!!,combined wi th a
<br />h~ gh' 'p~y. capitidemand, will provi de
<br />the upper bound of an envelope curve.
<br />A",lt!,ss~lj,r$l.t,\!, l:,Of!lb,jnE;!c1 with a lesser
<br />dB\jW~,9 .i!lfl,ueK~e~;by.c8nsery~ti on will
<br />glVe a J,Ql"ercllmlt, . Between the two
<br />they,:wiJlJI1c;:los\! a sPan of years within
<br />whi ch a' prudent manager confronted by
<br />these uncertainties would plan to make
<br />additions to his plant.
<br />
<br />
<br />The second aspect of need is based on
<br />the advantage which may accrue from
<br />maintaining an efficient and reliable
<br />system. Most people Uhder$tand why an
<br />electric utility chooses to build a
<br />mQ!)~qm..Q..lJe.. ~~,..p.i~.h. ,..!we."~~l/r..~(i.~t. e?m. turb~ne.
<br />tq '};~RlaC;:E1 s~venl.Jj $,(I}'Ill,e,r'ilgl ng reCl p- .
<br />ro2atingen~liXe$whi th' thep,'assume a
<br />role in reserve. Similar"evaluation
<br />caQnbe"\lJacle,,conpn;r;li I1g,~he ..effecti Veness
<br />~;~!~~~~~i~~~~;~B;~~~~~i~f~8lj~~~~~~cting
<br />a ~1. ~Ne.m.~...EB1.~al~.Hq~.re..)j?)~~J..l...q.,e...~e'bl.Such .
<br />~~I1~B~~y~~,~ ~~Rulis!jJ;O~l,,~,..X,... ~a.. e
<br />lnslgr'~"rHlt9 tp# flljtst1QQ,of tJmlng
<br />add"+;1M~"~Ri 9~~:-!~r,,: s,wate,X,?ystem.
<br />Th7'ri~,~~~'c~'St;RR'8~J1.~~,,*at~j;',,'s~stems1' ....... .'
<br />s~ cn~ils 5~lj,r.glja.:e>>af. tnf'!, ~l{~~ 1 ,1!1$ ~~na.l
<br />wll,t,ilJ?er!~e,~ypJu~Je~iJ;<." .....
<br />t~t~:8H~1h~~~t~~'da'}l~t'ef~.'~.~;~~ia -' .'.
<br />
<br />o !-<:,,' i !\ >1;' ~'l" - J ~::1;,,-,' - (;''-;. -.' .-.;, _
<br />Cl r<;t!;lff~lR:p;;,QfcJh,~,! arn-lt. ~I)v'ron:;- .
<br />menta 1 Impact Statement (EIS) and the
<br />public meeting held by the Corps and
<br />BtMa"dla:t;er by EPA, advocacy was
<br />expressed for an a lternate dam at the
<br />mouth of .wa terton Canyon associ ated
<br />with a new location for the treatment
<br />
<br />. ,- -" - ~ ','. j:-.. ~;,
<br />'plant, and also a plan'totitirftetliij~
<br />exi sting South' Pla tte'.div.ersion's'trtlc~,.,
<br />ture'cOnhected by a tunnel to' a reser"'c~
<br />'yoir adjacent to a similarly situated
<br />treatment plant; A third alternative
<br />ca 11 s for joi nt. use wi th Aurora .ofa .
<br />new diversion dam and the Rampart
<br />tunnel with eventual construction of
<br />another tunnel parallel to it. As a
<br />minimum we are committed to evaluate
<br />these alternatives as well as to
<br />review all alternatives identified in
<br />the EIS.
<br />
<br />A provision has been made in stipu-
<br />lations filed in the United States
<br />Di strict Court for Colorado, as well
<br />as in the construction permits pend-
<br />ing from the Bureau of Land Management,
<br />to insure reiteration of the entire
<br />process of impact analysis and permit-
<br />.ting before any additions beyond the
<br />125 mgd increase are made to the Water
<br />Board's system. Accordingly, we do
<br />not propose at this time to examine
<br />any alternatives greater than 125 mgd
<br />or the impacts occasioned by expanding
<br />anyone of the alternatives beyond 125
<br />mgd. We do, however, intend to
<br />eva 1 uate. the economi c and envi ronmen-
<br />tal consequences of project elements
<br />which are evidently over-designed for
<br />a 125 mgd treatment plan. For example,
<br />a greater quantity of spoil would be
<br />wasted from an 890 mgd tunnel than
<br />from a smaller bore. The impact of
<br />this added increment of spoil.would
<br />require identification and analysis..'
<br />
<br />STUDY OF ALTERNATIVES
<br />
<br />Alternatives not to exceed the 125
<br />mgd scale will be sUbject.to three'
<br />types of analysis: engineering,.'
<br />enVironmental and social. Engineering
<br />analysis will examine:
<br />
<br />. Feasibility and Reliability: Is
<br />the alternative one which can be
<br />built and, if built, is there a
<br />
|