Laserfiche WebLink
<br />This alternative does not provide any measures for the Marshall Roberts or Gibraltar ditches. <br /> <br />The current estimated cost of alternative #5 is $1.353.000 <br /> <br />Alternative #6 <br />This alternative would include alternative #5. plus a diversion near the Marshall Roberts <br />Headgate. No enlargement of the Marshall Roberts would be needed. the Gibraltar Ditch would be <br />extended on the north side of the river. in an open earthen channel. riprapped as needed. The <br />Gibraltar Ditch extension w6uld be the same as proposed in alternative #4. <br /> <br />The current estimated cost of alternative #6 is $2.556.000. <br /> <br />Alternative #7 <br />This alternative would include alternative #5. plus a diversion near the Marshall Roberts <br />Headgate. The Marshall Roberts would be enlarged to carry the Gibraltar's water to a point <br />approximately opposite the existing Gibraltar takeout. The Gibraltar's water would then be <br />transported across the river through an inverted concrete pipe siphon buried under the river. <br /> <br />The current estimated cost of alternative #7 is $2.713.000. <br /> <br />Holderness: Will siphon be self cleaning? <br /> <br />Andrews: Yes it would. <br /> <br />Monger: Where on the Marshall Roberts would the siphon would be located? <br /> <br />Davey: The siphon inlet would be located somewhere in the vicinity of the Grassy Creek Wasteway. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Blakeslee: During one of the site visits he had attended. an option had been discussed that <br />proposed a single diversion at the Marshall Roberts Headgate. which would serve all the ditches <br />except the Gibraltar. Has an alternative had been developed for this option? <br /> <br />Andrews: No. an alternative for this option has not been developed at this time. It would <br />probably be the same as alternative #4. but minus the Gibraltar. (Alternative #4 minus Gibraltar <br />costs are $2.226.000 - $184.000 = $2.042.000). <br /> <br />Andrews stated that NRCS would like to see the alternatives narrowed down to two by the ditch <br />groups. rather than spending additional time fine tuning all the alternatives. <br /> <br />Haslem: Will siphon design include a sqfety grate to keep kids out? <br /> <br />Andrews: Yes. <br /> <br />Booco: Will the Shelton Ditch remain the Shelton Ditch. or will it would become part of a larger <br />entity? <br /> <br />Davey: This will be addressed later during Bob Weiss's presentation. <br />Bob Williams: The railrQqd runs ~hrough a portion of the Williams Ditch. how will the railroad be <br />handled if the Williams Ditch were to be enlarged? <br /> <br />Davey: The railroad was very cooperative on the Cary Ditch project. a large section of that <br />project was installed in the railroad right of way. <br /> <br />Monger: Seepage is already a problem. and any enlargement will only make it worse. <br /> <br />Bob Williams: The ditch seeps where its passes through gravel layers. especially after cleaning. <br />We need to know exactly where any new ditches will go. <br /> <br />4 <br />