|
<br />Feasibility Report for Improvement ofPaonia's Water Supply System
<br />Town of Paonia
<br />April 21, 2000
<br />
<br />7,
<br />8,
<br />
<br />Constructing a reservoir on the Town's property near the Mays Spring; and
<br />Constructing a reservoir on private property near the Town's upper treatment
<br />plant.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />After discussing the potential institutional issues and likely water available (based on the
<br />judgement of Merritt Denison, local water cormnissioner), it was decided that further evaluations
<br />of three primary alternatives would be the best choices for further analysis in this study, These
<br />alternatives included the Todd Reservoir, Lone Cabin Reservoir, and a ,eservoir'on' the Town's IY
<br />.,'
<br />property (Stephens Spring Reservoir), .".:
<br />-------~,
<br />
<br />t., . '. ..'
<br />During the November meeting, the study group agreed thaffhe key decisioil[actors that shoul<;l
<br />be used in evaluating the primary alternatives are (listed'ih order of importallc~): ",f
<br />{,:;;'!i?
<br />J?~
<br />
<br />1.
<br />2,
<br />3,
<br />4,
<br />
<br />
<br />Total project cost;
<br />Water quality issues;
<br />Permitting issues; and
<br />Technical feasibility issues,
<br />
<br />fl'.,"
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />.~:;,.;;.,... /I,/{.;" e{!, If:.'.
<br />
<br />Study Approach for Evaluating the,Prim~~A.lternati~es}: . tP /?~h' 3 ?"
<br />
<br />~!)lil-:' ," ".~.';"~'_:-,:/;.'~:.i~;~" .,,_<--:."
<br />GEl's evaluation of the selected primary alternative$wase*e,cutedin a systematic manner with
<br />_~, ...., ,'_r ,_, _ '. / "'"'' t
<br />the goal of providing reasonably conservative,"'recoinial!isance-Ievel cost estimates, and i
<br />assessments of the performance qf the primary alternativ~s in meeting water management ;/
<br />objectives, Subsurface investigatiQPs, borrow"area studies; and site-specific, firm-yield analysis
<br />- ~~-". Co'., ,-
<br />were beyond the scope of this sttid.f TheseAwes of llJ.ore detailed studies are recommended for
<br />further development of the pref~ired altem~tl\Te.. ;,,;
<br />)J(J)r~:.~\~ ,"<i~~!'<' : <b~\ '~~S::rt<r~' '
<br />Our analY~l!?:focu~ed on developjhgadditional storage for the Town, However, because of the
<br />lack ofye~;'~~8.tiP4SIljta, we carut~'(estimate how much additional storage could be considered
<br />as firm yield dill'irilf(j&~year penod$;. Based on our experience with similar Colorado projects,
<br />. .;, ,"<,,"" ,'U' .;,~". '';'< _,__ .
<br />we have assumed.thar'haJf of all 'additional storage could be considered as firm yield for the
<br />. -"',.,'.: '.--. .v~, _';"':-;'" ; - . . .
<br />Town, TPis percentage.""illneed to be refined based on additional data obtained in the coming
<br />,~"f t:.e" ',_ .
<br />years'k~('" .. .
<br />"-?If
<br />Pelf! "
<br />Ge~f6g:ic ReconnaissaIlce
<br />~~f~~. ;. 'j
<br />pcii~g November W, 1999 and December I, 1999, one of GEl's senior geologists, Mr. James
<br />V{n~;~performeda reconnaissance-level assessment of the primary alternative sites, Prior to
<br />hi;)iiteSI1iit;:'Mr. Wright reviewed USGS mapping of the area, The objective of the geologic
<br />: "f"'~'~~"""
<br />reconnaissance was to identify key geologic features that would affect the technical feasibility
<br />
<br />7.2
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />J:\PROJECTS\9936I1\Repons\Fcasibility,wpd
<br />
<br />~
<br />~ GEl Consultants, Inc.
<br />
<br />7-3
<br />
<br />~
<br />~
<br />
<br />'"
<br />f::,
<br />~
<br />~
<br />~
<br />,\)
<br />
|