Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />..." ' <br />iiu\E. <br /> <br />disposal. This alternative would require the same number or <br />possibly more pumping plants. The desalting plant would require <br />several million more kilowatt hours of energy annually than <br />would the treatment plant of the proposal. Neither the desalt- <br />ing plant nor the treatment plant of the proposal would be <br />constructed as a feature of the project. <br /> <br />This alternative plan would result in a loss of project water <br />equal to about 10 percent of the annual diversions for the <br />conduit (6 percent in the hrine and about 4 percent transporta- <br />tion loss from Pueblo Dam to Fowler) compared to only about 5 <br />percent for back flushing and sludge disposal from the proposed <br />treatment plant. <br /> <br />10. Granite Siphon Alternatives <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Two major alternatives to the Granite Siphon have been considered <br />and three methods of constructing the proposed siphon are presently <br />being evaluated. The two alternatives to the siphon were: <br />(1) construct an intercept tunnel from the point of diversion on <br />Granite Creek to the South Fork Tunnel; and (2) construct a buried <br />condui t along the south side of the Fryingpan River Canyon to the <br />inlet portal of Charles H. Boustead Tunnel. The three methods of <br />construction are shown on Figure IX-5. <br /> <br />a. Impacts Associated with a Tunnel from Granite Creek to the <br />South Fork Tunnel <br /> <br />Although the tunnel would have been underground, major impacts <br />would have been incurred in construction of access roads and <br />associated clearing. Construction scars would have presented a <br />major visual effect. Clearing and open cut would be necessary <br />at the inlet tunnel portal and a tunnel muck disposal area <br />would be required in the Granite Creek drainage. The cost of <br />constructing this alternative would be considerably more than <br />the proposal. <br /> <br />b. Impacts Associated with a Buried Conduit along the South <br />Side of the Fryingpan River Canyon <br /> <br />'Major impacts would be in the form of the clearing and construc- <br />tion scars associated with construction of the buried conduit <br />along the heavily timbered. steep and rocky canyon wall. The <br />cost of this alternative would also be considerably more than <br />the proposed plan. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />IX-36 <br />