My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00106
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:06 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153494
Contractor Name
Loveland, City of
Water District
0
County
Larimer
Bill Number
XB 99-999
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
224
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
<br />I <br />I <br />J <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 />j <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Table 3. Social and environmental impacts of each viable Plan Element were <br />identified and assessed by the City Council and Yater Board. <br /> <br />Evaluations of Plan Elements performed in the Phase II study resulted, in <br /> <br /> <br />some cases, in different conclusions than the preliminary Phase I <br /> <br /> <br />evaluations. These differences were due to the revised operational factors <br /> <br /> <br />described above and the resultant impact on the performance of individual <br /> <br /> <br />Plan Elements. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Yater Treatment Issues - The capacity of the City's water <br /> <br /> <br />treatment plant at Chasteen Grove is currently 30 million gallons per day <br /> <br /> <br />(mgd). Based on water use projections under the moderate population growth <br /> <br /> <br />scenario, an analysis of the City's treatment capacity was made to <br /> <br /> <br />determine if, and when, future expansions would be required. The results <br /> <br /> <br />of this analysis are presented in Figure 1. Various alternatives for <br /> <br /> <br />increasing treatment capacity were developed and construction and <br /> <br />operational costs were estimated. The least cost treatment alternative <br /> <br /> <br />would include expansion of the City's existing plant to 46 mgd. <br /> <br />Evaluation of Alternatives - Based on the evaluation of the individual Plan <br /> <br /> <br />Elements, three additional alternatives were formulated for consideration. <br /> <br />The alternatives were formulated utilizing the following strategies: (1) <br /> <br /> <br />minimize cost, (2) improved management of the City's water supply through <br /> <br /> <br />diversification of raw water sources and increased storage of Transfer <br /> <br /> <br />Decree water, and (3) provide adequate emergency raw water storage supply. <br /> <br /> <br />Two alternatives were selected under these strategies: <br /> <br />1. Acquisition of additional CBT units and additional No.1 priority <br />direct-flow rights on the Big Thompson River (least-cost <br />alternative). <br /> <br />2. Acquisition of additional CBT units and increase the City's storage <br />capacity to provide an adequate emergency storage supply and <br />improve management of the City's Transfer Decree water. <br /> <br />-6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.