Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />~ <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />f <br />I <br /> <br />since rendered alternatives alon9 the South Canal economically infeasible; <br />hence, these alternatives will not be discussed in this report. Further, <br />investigations conducted by the Sponsors have considered several alternative <br />penstock routes. These alternatives are not discussed here, either, because <br />the route selected represents the best combination of cost, construction <br />conditions, and land acquisition factors. <br /> <br />This report considers ten possible alternatives, each of which is based <br />upon the general configuration presented in Section 1.2. The factors which <br />separate the various alternatives include turbine design flow, Tunnel <br />capacity, and instream flow commitments. These factors are summarized for <br />each alternative in Table 1.1. <br /> <br />1.5 Acknowledoements <br /> <br />HDR gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the Uncompahgre Valley <br />Water Users Association in the preparation of this report, and Mesa <br />Engineering for researching Association archives to locate input data <br />required by the model. HDR also wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the <br />Bureau of Reclamation, Grand Junction Projects Office, in providing the <br />necessary data and in the review of model output. <br /> <br />- 1.3 - <br />