Laserfiche WebLink
<br />UMUT would develop feasibility level engineering and design data, in close coordination <br />with Reclamation. Feasibility designs will be developed to support Congressional <br />requests for project authorization and funding. This level of design provides a high <br />confidence in cost estimates and technical viability. The level of effort is greater than an <br />appraisal technical analysis, but less than required for final construction drawings and <br />specifications. . <br /> <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 />would be needed to assess the potential environmental impacts of the changes to the project since <br />the 1996 assessment was completed. Substantial data and analyses which provided engineering, <br />cost, and environmental information on many elements of the Administration Proposal and <br />alternatives already existed. The various tasks included, but were not limited to, the following: <br /> <br />Task 12.7 Appraisal Analysis. UMUT will conduct an in-depth analysis of alternatives, <br />using appraisal-level (reconnaissance-level) information developed for each alternative. <br />Alternatives would be compared to each other in terms of their environmental effects. A <br />recommended preferred alternative would then be selected. Nineteen different resource areas <br />were evaluated. <br /> <br />Task 12.8 Feasibility Analysis. A feasibility analysis is more detailed than the <br />appraisal analysis, and sufficient to fully evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the <br />construction and operation of the preferred alternative for the purposes of the SEIS, but less <br />detailed than would be required for final construction. The same 19 resource areas evaluated <br />under task 12.7 were to be evaluated under task 12.8. <br /> <br />One additional subtask was included - 12.8.21 - Engineering and Design. The scope of this <br />subtask included: <br /> <br />The results ofthis activitiy would provide the baseline information that defined the project and <br />basis for legislation. The design information for the preferred alternative was first provided to <br />Reclamation as a "Working Draft" dated October 20,1999, and then in November as part ofthe <br />Preliminary Draft SEIS. The cost estimates provided were surnmaries of feature costs. No <br />detailed quantities (units) or unit costs were available at that time. The information on the units <br />and unit costs came in the spring of2000. <br /> <br />5-3 <br /> <br />