My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Colorado - Upper CO River Endangered Fish Recovery Program_Statement of Work
CWCB
>
WSRF Grant & Loan Information
>
DayForward
>
ARK - GUNNISON
>
Colorado - Upper CO River Endangered Fish Recovery Program_Statement of Work
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2012 1:40:27 PM
Creation date
8/9/2011 3:08:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
WSRA Grant and Loan Information
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Applicant
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Description
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program - Alternative Analysis
Account Source
Statewide
Board Meeting Date
3/13/2007
Contract/PO #
150404
WSRA - Doc Type
Supporting Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
considerations. Factors that provide additional benefits that are beyond the 10,825 acre-foot requirement <br />will be displayed and discussed (e.g. additional water supplies, recreation). Grand River Consulting will <br />be responsible for the actual report preparation of the draft and fnal Phase 2 reports. <br />Please note that the scope of work outlined in Table 1 will likely fall short of the level of detail normally <br />developed for alternatives moving into the NEPA process. NEPA normally is based on feasibility-level <br />investigations, such as those completed in 2001 for Sulphur Gulch Dam. Typically, developing such <br />level of detail could require expenditures of $50,000 to $100,000 per site. Therefore, additional design <br />studies will likely be necessary for the inclusion of any structural alternatives into the NEPA or 404 <br />process with the Army Corps of Engineers. For the Phase 2 study outlined herein, GEI will provide <br />updated feasibility level structural designs and cost estimates, assessments of flood hydrology, geology, <br />land use, reservoir yields, and development of area-capacity relationships. <br />If the Steering Committee chooses to pursue exploration of alternatives that do not require fill or <br />dredging in waters of the United States, the 404(b)(1) permit requirements of the Army Corps of <br />Engineers will not be applicable for those alternatives and additional design studies may not be <br />necessary. <br />4.7.1 Key Engineering Assumptions <br />The preliminary assumptions regarding the scope of work provides for GEI to complete updated design <br />and cost estimates, assessments of flood hydrology, geology, water quality, land use, reservoir yields, <br />and development of area-capacity relationships. <br />During preparation of the preliminary assessment necessary for the Phase 2 study, GEI identified other <br />assumptions and project development criteria that should be considered in the engineering evaluation of <br />structural alternatives. T'hese include assumptions and criteria include: <br />1. The alternatives will be designed to provide 10,825 AF of dependable water supply for the <br />15-mile reach. However, some of the alternatives may provide additional storage and firm <br />yield, hydropower development, and water delivery opportunities. These additional <br />potential benefits may be identified and developed at the direction of Grand River. <br />2. Conceptual-level designs and cost estimates will be based on existing data to the extent <br />possible. Some new designs will be required for features that have had no previous <br />analyses. Field investigations are currently limited to site visits and no drilling or testing is <br />planned. Site visits will be made by technical staff and senior specialists, as appropriate. At <br />some later point, subsurface investigations may be needed in order to provide the data <br />required to differentiate among the alternatives, especially since some of the alternatives <br />have not been drilled as yet. <br />3. It may be that a structural alternative, that was previously considered, could be suitable for <br />several possible dam types and feature alignments. Given that costs are only one of several <br />factors to be considered in developing a"preferred plan," the goal will be to have a si'n�le <br />representative design for a dam and conveyance system confguration. We assume that <br />10825 Phase 2 Scope of Work Revised May 25, 2007 per CWCB request Page 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.