PROJ00455

• Contract/PO #: C153583
• Contractor Name: Ute Water Conservancy District
• Water District: 0
• Bill Number: XB 99-999
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

II

I

I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Junction Boxes - Costs are based on each box having a size of six feet by eight feet in plan
and six feet deep. The costs include $1,000.00 for concrete and forming, $500.00 for
earthwork, and $1,OOO.oofor valves.

Construction Administration - The lump sum amount given is based on labor plus expenses
for one engineer in the field full time for nine months. An additional cost of $30,OOO.oohas
been added for office support, project start-up and shutdown, and record drawings.

The steel pipe selected and priced includes a protective coating system which meets the American
Water Works Association standards. Due to dry, granular bedding along the tunnel alignment, use
of cathodic corrosion protection will probably not be required. However, during the design phase
of this project an electrical survey will be completed along the proposed pipeline alignment.
Depending on the electrical resistivity of the soils, it may be necessary to provide cathodic
protection for some sections of the pipeline. Part of the contingency portion of the cost estimate
presented in this report is intended to cover the costs of these special corrosion protection
requirements.

6.0 BYPASS PIPELINE ALTERNATIVE

6.1 General

As indicated in the background section of this report, WEI's recommended alternative consisted of
bypassing the existing tunnel via a new pipeline. The proposed route for this pipeline is presented
on Figure 6.1. WEI's recommended route presents special regulatory and engineering
considerations. This section outlines the permitting, design, construction and maintenance
associated with the subject pipeline. A cost estimate and construction schedule is also presented
based on the anticipated conditions outlined in the following sections.

In addition to the recommended WEI proposed river crossing route, several other alternative
alignments were considered in a attempt to eliminate the river crossings portion of the proposed
route. The following alignments were considered:

. A pipeline along SH 65 to 1-70 then along the east bound side of 1-70 to the west
terminus point. There is only a limited space of several feet available between the
edge of 1-70 and the Plateau Canyon walls along the east bound side of 1-70. The
limited space is not adequate to house a 42-inch pipeline. Furthermore, the canyon
walls could be destabilized in this area and would require special rock stabilization

24