Laserfiche WebLink
�: <br />I• <br />I• <br />I• <br />�� <br />�� <br />Alternatives Evaluated <br />A range of alternatives were considered including 1) take no <br />action and wait for diversion failure, 2) do remedial work on the <br />foundation of the existing structure to prevent further erosion <br />and stabilize the diversion system, 3) construct a whole new <br />river diversion structure ensuring proper foundation construction <br />and complete stabilization of the structure. <br />A subjective evaluation of the alternatives follows: <br />l. Take no action: <br />If this project was not pursued and the diversion failed <br />durinq the spring runoff, the UPBCC would be unable to <br />divert water and irrigate the 11,000 acres under their <br />system. This would be an annual loss of approximately 30,000 <br />acre feet of irrigation water. This event, if it occurred, <br />could lead to a major loss of crops under the UPBCC system. <br />The per acre value of farm ground in the UPBCC system could <br />potentially drop significantly. This alternative is not <br />acceptable to the Company. <br />2. Do remedial activities on the foundation of the existing <br />structure: <br />This alternative would be an immediate fix to the problem. <br />It would focus on filling the hole in the eroded shale and <br />creating a concrete floor to prevent future erosion. <br />Concrete could be forced back under the existing structure <br />forming a new stable connection between the diversion floor <br />and the remaining shale formation. A steel reinforced <br />concrete floor could be poured down stream of the existing <br />structure to prevent future erosion to the shale. This floor <br />would extend far enough so that that energy causing the <br />shale erosion will be dissipated prior to reaching the end <br />of the floor. This alternative could be performed quickly <br />and ensure that water could still be diverted this summer. <br />The cost of this alternative is approximately $95,000. <br />3. Completely rebuild the river components of the diversion <br />and continue to use the existing intake gates: <br />This alternative would consist of the reconstruction of the <br />river components only, consisting of a 100 ft section of <br />inflatable bladder gate instead of the two slide gates. The <br />ditch intake structure would remain untouched. This <br />Feasibility Study <br />Upper Platte and Beaver <br />Canal Company Diversion Structure <br />March 2002 <br />0 <br />