Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Response: The point of diversion for all of the water that is owned by Jolmstown is the Home <br /> <br /> <br />Supply Ditch Headgate. Please refer to the response to comment 1 and 4 for further <br /> <br /> <br />explanation. <br /> <br />Comment 6. The report states that pipeline alternatives were documented in a separate report to <br />the Town. The alignment alternatives should also be documented in the feasibility <br />report. The rationale for the selection of the pipeline on page 11, Section 5.2, of the <br />report does not appear to justify the selected alignment. <br /> <br />Response: In reality, there was only one corridor that made sense for the pipeline aligmnent. <br />This pipeline corridor, illustrated in Figure 3 of the FS (PRC 1993), was a straight <br />line between Lonetree Reservoir and Jolmstown treatment facilities. Aligmnent <br />alternatives within this corridor, s/lown on Figure 3 and discussed in the text of the <br />FS, differed in ease of acquisition of right of way (ROW) rather than cost. <br />Westsearch Resources Company (Westsearch) was commissioned by Jolmstown to <br />determine which of the two propo$ed routes presented the least difficulty in ROW <br />acquisition. Westsearch's conclusion was that either route required dealing with the <br />same number of landowners (Westsearch 1993). J olmstown then examined the two <br />routes and decided that the Great Western Railway Route (Alternative 2 on Figure 3 <br />of the FS) made the most sense sirlce a major part of the aligmnent required <br />interaction with a single landowner, Great Western Railway. <br /> <br />Comment 7. More detail in the cost estimates would be desirable. <br /> <br />Response: The opinion of probable cost to construct contained in the feasibility study was felt to <br />be adequate at the time the feasibility study was published. Since the project has been <br />bid and a contract has been awarded, further elaboration on the feasibility cost opinion <br />is felt to be unnecessary. <br /> <br />Comment 8. There is no discussion of economic, social or physical impacts of the project or of <br /> <br /> <br />permitting requirements, if any. Are any court actions, contracts, agreements, <br /> <br /> <br />permits, etc. pending which would affect project implementation? <br /> <br />8 <br />