Laserfiche WebLink
' <br />1 <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />Conclusions <br />The following preliminary conclusions are provided on the feasibility of the Grand Valley Lake Project: <br />� 1. The Grand Valley Lake concept is feasible from an engineering and construction standpoint, <br />however, the Project faces significant inter-related environmental and financial challenges. As <br />concurrently configured, (generally consistent with the Clay Report) much of the water supply <br />� developed by the Project is allocated to environmental uses. An inherent assumption with this <br />configuration is that project's capital and operating costs would be born by beneficiaries of the <br />Project in proportion to the volumes of water allocated to their uses. Since the Upper Colorado <br />, River Endangered Fish Recovery Program is currently proceeding with other sources of water, it <br />seems unlikely that environmental funding would be available for the project. <br />, 2. Based on available information reviewed for this study, site reconnaissance, and experience with <br />other dam sites in similar geologic settings, there are no apparent physical conditions that would <br />be fatal flaws to construction of a river diversion, conveyance system or earth dam at the site <br />� proposed in the Clay Report for the Grand Valley Dam and Reservoir. However, there are a <br />number of conditions and issues that will require thorough investigation, specialized design, and <br />close attention to quality control during construction. These conditions will result in higher costs <br />� during both design and construction to mitigate them than would be the case if they were not <br />present. <br />3. The ratios of the reservoir storage volume-to—reservoir yield (storage-to-yield ratios) for both the <br />large reservoir and the smaller reservoir (dam Alignments 1 and 2, respectively) are extremely <br />good for a a project that would develop a new water supply with a junior water right. The yield <br />ratio could change considerably from the conditions modeled if federal and state land <br />management and endangered species programs significantly restrict the legal availability of <br />water at the potential diversion locations. <br />4. The storage —to-yield ratio is based on demand patterns to enhance endangered fish recovery. <br />Changes to the timing and/or magnitude of these environmental needs will affect the Project <br />yield and, therefore, the cost per acre foot of yield. <br />5. From a cost perspective, Options 1 B and 1 C are the most attractive options. <br />6. Table E3 presents a qualitative comparison of the six alternatives: <br />AECOM <br />2/22/10 <br />