Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />9. Based on the existence of sensitive land uses near the area of potential diversion points <br />(the Colorado National Monument and existing or potential wilderness and conservation <br />areas), the Consultant will discuss the general feasibility ofless disruptive types of <br />diversion facilities (e.g. infiltration basins and radial collectors) versus diversion dams <br />impounding flow. <br /> <br />10. There exists a potential need for operational storage to enhance the reliability of the <br />conveyance system. The Consultant will review the potential magnitude of storage <br />facilities that may be needed near the diversion point and consider the potential use of <br />existing or future gravel pits. <br /> <br />II. It is the intent ofthe CWCB to size the project such that it is able to operate every year <br />and therefore, be economically sized for average annual diversion rates. The Consultant <br />will review annual and seasonal flows at the Utah state line. It is anticipated that the <br />project will operate as continuously as reasonably possible (except when maintenance is <br />required or adverse river conditions exist, e.g. extreme sediment loads). This will <br />minimize the need for operational storage in the Project and may allow existing or future <br />long-term carry-over storage reservoirs owned by Project participants separately from the <br />Project to typically operate as full as possible. This anticipated operational scenario will <br />also minimize the size of the physical components of the Project (versus designs for <br />higher flows and more infrequent operation). <br /> <br />12. The Consultant will only discuss potentia] diversion points upstream ofthe Gunnison <br />confluence qualitatively in relation to potential scenarios for developing the Project in <br />stages. More detailed analysis of upstream diversion points may be part of future <br />feasibility studies if the results of the Colorado River Return Reconnaissance Study lead <br />to further analysis. <br /> <br />13. Pipeline Routes - Formulation of the alternatives will be based on the following <br />considerations: <br /> <br />a. The Consultant will investigate 3 general pipeline corridors this reconnaissance <br />study, and an alternative in each corridor will be selected as being "representative" of <br />the potential alignments in each corridor. This will provide a reasonable range of <br />possibilities for this level of study. The 3 corridors are: <br /> <br />. North Corridor (extends north ofthe Flat Tops Wilderness Area) - may have <br />relatively low unit construction costs but won't provide water along the <br />Colorado mainstem in several high-need reaches. It also won't deliver water <br />physically to the Arkansas basin unless via exchange or a conveyance <br />system extension to the Upper Arkansas basin. <br /> <br />. Central Corridor - will generally follow the Colorado River mainstem from <br />the DeBeque area to Eagle, then continue up the Eagle River for potential <br />delivery to all 3 basins. <br /> <br />. South Corridor - will generally follow the Gunnison River, but including a <br />North Fork of the Gunnison river alignment. It has the inherent advantage <br />of being able to make physical deliveries to the upper reaches of the South <br />Platte and Arkansas basins, but the disadvantage of not supplying water to <br />the Colorado mainstem except via exchange. <br /> <br />Page 5 of 12 <br /> <br />Contract SCOPE 5-1-03 BND <br />