My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00533
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00533
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:43:27 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:59:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153367
Contractor Name
International Engineering Company
Water District
0
County
Rio Blanco
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.
/
552
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 />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 />municipal and industrial water. The most efficient reservoir to accomplish <br />this purpose was found to be Avery Reservoir. <br /> <br />Avery Reservoir is located on Big Beaver Creek near the junction with the <br />White River. The existing reservoir would be enlarged from the present <br />capacity of about 6000 acre-feet to a capacity of over 60,000 acre-feet. <br />Inflow to the reservoir would be diverted from the North Fork at a location <br />three miles upstream from Buford. A four-mile gravity pipeline would convey <br />the diverted flows downstream and into the reservoir. <br /> <br />The delivery systems to the M&I demand centers would utilize the White River <br />as a conveyance channel. Water would be released from the reservoir and <br />picked up by pumping plants at four downstream locations. A pumping plant <br />just above Meeker would pump water through a three-mile pipeline to the coal <br />property and town of Meeker. The oil shale water would be delivered to <br />Sheep, Piceance, and Yellow Creeks as in the other options. <br /> <br />Comparison of Alternatives <br /> <br />The alternative plans were compared with respect to probable costs and the <br />physical data and problems associated with each site, Preliminary cost <br />curves were constructed. <br /> <br />Project costs were based on preliminary estimates of construction quantities <br />such as embankment volume and cubic yards of concrete. Constant unit costs <br />were then applied, regardless of the location. Preliminary designs and <br />dimensions were used, and local problems and settings were not taken into <br />account in this analysis. The cost estimates obtained by this technique are <br />preliminary but appropriate for purposes of comparison. <br /> <br />Table IV-l lists the physical data for the storage facilities and the water <br />delivery systems. For each dam and reservoir, values are shown for <br />rights-of-way (ROW), height of dam, embankment volume, location of the <br />reservoir on or off the mainstem, and the degree of hydropower potential. <br />The column showing ROW values includes all land and easement acquisition <br /> <br />IV-ll <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.