Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />This report is summarized in the following. <br /> <br />D Existing Channel <br />./ Deteriorating <br />./ Not capable of passing design flood <br />D Replacement Option <br />./ Demolition of existing channel <br />./ Maintain existing channel alignment <br />./ New construction <br />./ Design discharge of 1,800 cfs <br />D Design Alternatives <br />./ Alternative 1, Existing trapezoidal channel shape <br />./ Alternative 2, Rectangular channel shape <br />./ Alternative 3, Partially full flowing precast concrete pipe <br />./ Alternative 4, Partially full flowing precast box culvert <br />D Appurtenance Structures <br />./ Vehicle guardrails <br />./ Pedestrian bridges for Alternatives 1 and 2 only <br />./ Safety cables for Alternatives 1 and2 only <br />./ Stilling basin <br />D Design and Construction Elements <br />./ Design data needs by NRCS NPET <br />./ Design data costs to WCRC <br />./ Construction drawings and specifications provided by NRCS NPET <br />./ Construction permits by NRCS and WCRC <br />./ Construction inspection to be provided by WCRC <br />./ Construction window <br /> <br />Through a decision matrix, see Table 5, NRCS NPET ranks Alternative 2 slightly ahead <br />of Alternative 1, and then Alternative 3 and 4 in order of perceived benefit to cost. <br />Therefore the recommended design alternative is Alternative 2, Rectangular Channel, <br />with a total field cost estimated at $3,527,600 which includes all appurtenances. <br /> <br />NRCS Northern Plains Engineering Team VI <br />