Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />4GO: <br /> <br />alternate would require one more pumping plant than the pro- <br />posal. Although this alternate would require about 15 percent <br />less right-of-way and vegetative clearing than the proposal, <br />it would be more difficult to rehabilitate and revegetate <br />because all of the right-of-way would be dry grazing land <br />compared to about the first 3 miles of the proposal rights-of- <br />way being irrigated fields which could be rehabilitated within <br />1 or 2 years. This alternate would also require the construc- <br />tion of more miles of access roads than would the proposal. <br /> <br />The water quality at this diversion site would be significantly <br />poorer than at any of the other alternative diversion sites. <br />The outfall drains of four sewage disposal plants discharge <br />effluent into the reach of the Arkansas River between the <br />proposed diversion site and the alternate Eightmile Creek <br />diversion site. Storm drainage from 'Canon City and also <br />irrigation return flows discharge into this reach of the <br />A~kansas River; c~nsequently. the water treatment costs at this <br />site would be considerably higher than at the other diversion <br />sites. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The pumping plants of this alternative would require about 93 <br />million kilowatt hours of energy annually compared to about <br />85 million kilowatt hours annually for the proposal. The total <br />estimated cost of this alternative including capital investment, <br />operation, maintenance, and replacement cost excluding water <br />treatment cost would only be about 2 percent higher than the <br />proposal; however, the water treatment costs at this site would <br />be considerably higher than at any of the other sites. <br /> <br />c. Impacts Associated with Alternative Alinement from Red <br />Creek Canyon to Colorado Springs <br /> <br />The alternative alinement for the Fountain Valley Conduit shown <br />in brown on Exhibit IX-4 would be about 1 mile shorter than the <br />proposal and require less right-of-way. This alinement would <br />have required more rock excavation and vegetative clearing. <br />This alinement would have also required the construction of <br />more miles of access road. The areas of rock excavation would <br />have been very difficult to rehabilitate and along with con- <br />struction of the required access roads would have left a <br />definite scar on the landscape. This alinement would have <br />interfered more with present and future development of the <br />area. <br /> <br />The estimated cost of this alinement was less than that of the <br />proposal because much less high pressure pipe would be required <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />IX-34 <br />