Laserfiche WebLink
4. The alternate operational scenarios are provided to Denver Water. Denver Water will <br />assess the effect of the alternative release schedules on the operation of its storage facilities <br />and upon the yield of its integrated water supply system. <br />5. Operational scenarios are revised as necessary and re-evaluated. <br />6. Results from the Ruedi Reservoir model and from Denver's analysis process are integrated <br />into the environmental evaluations associated with the Phase 2 alternatives assessment. <br />We believe that other operational alternatives could be assessed in a similar manner. Again, for the <br />purposes of allocating resources for the Phase 2 Scope of Work, we have assumed that resources of <br />Denver Water and other stakeholders will be available to assist in the simulation of the specific facilities <br />that these stakeholders own and operate. <br />There will be two work groups formed to review non-structural alternative operating issues. One will <br />focus on Colorado-Big Thompson issues and opportunities and the second will focus on Green <br />Mountain, Williams Fork, and Wolford Reservoir. 'These groups will meet after the Ruedi work group <br />has been established. <br />4.7 Feasi6ilitv Level Design and Cost Estimates (Structural Elements) <br />GEI Consultants will be responsible for the engineering and cost evaluation of all structural elements. A <br />separate Scope of Work will be prepared by GEI upon review of the completed Phase 1 report. A brief <br />overview and GEI scope of work will be provided to all funding partners in electronic form when it has <br />been executed. Additional information describing the assumptions outlined in the attached matrix is <br />provided in more detail below in section 4.7.1. <br />Subject to Work Group concurrence, feasibility level designs and cost estimates will be developed for <br />ten primary structural elements. These structural alternatives will be assessed at generally comparable <br />levels, using a variety of previously completed work and some new evaluations. A preliminary matrix of <br />assumptions about the work requirements for each alternative are provided in Table 1(attached), which <br />illustrates the additional study that will likely be required for each element. These elements may change <br />as direction is determined by the Steering Committee. <br />It appears likely that several alternatives may include sub-alternatives that would allow for additional <br />reservoir storage and benefits, take advantage of potential hydropower potential, or would be improved <br />with modifications in the dam alignments and the location of conveyance systems, and other features. <br />We expect that the conceptual design and cost information for the alternatives will be completed during <br />the frst half of the Phase 2 study. An important Steering Committee decision will be required after <br />review of this information in order to most effectively focus further work of the consultant team. <br />GEI will provide text and figures for use in preparing the draft and final reports for the Phase 2 study. <br />The report text developed by GEI will address a variety of factors such as costs, costs per acre-foot, <br />description of facilities, and assessment of technical and potential fatal flaw issues, and key construction <br />10825 Phase 2 Scope of Work Revised May 25, 2007 per CWCB request Page 14 <br />