My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJC01798 (2)
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
0001-1000
>
PROJC01798 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2011 2:47:56 PM
Creation date
7/9/2008 9:29:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150265
Contractor Name
Supply Irrigating Ditch Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Boulder
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
Supplemental fields
Water Division
1
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.
/
229
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
SECTIONFOUR <br />4.1 OVERVtEW <br />Formulation of Alterna~iues <br />Several alternatives were considered during the development of the 2003 Report and one <br />additional alternative was developed for this study. The reservoir will remain at its present <br />storage capacity of 220 AF at gage height 20. The following alternatives were evaluated: <br />1. No Action, <br />2. Alternative 1- Complete Dam Rehabilitation, and <br />3. Alternative 2 - Maintenance. <br />4.2 NO ACTION <br />If the dam improvements are not completed, the SEO could effectively require the complete <br />breach of the dam. The costs associated with this alternative were related to the loss of the water <br />right. The loss of the water right was estimated to cost approximately $1,540,OQQ, based on the <br />annual reservoir yield for 220 acre feet at a rate of $7,000/acre-foot. URS believed that the No <br />Action alternative was not a viable alternative and it was precluded from further consideration. <br />4.3 ALTERNAT(VE 1- COMPLETE DAM REHABILITATION <br />The 2003 Study presented an alternative for the complete rehabilitafion of the dam and its <br />appurtenant structures. It included rehabilitating the dam to approximately its current height and <br />size which would store approximately 220 AF with three feet of freeboard. This alternative <br />included the following: <br />1. Reshaping the upstream face of both dams to flatten the slopes from approximately 2.3: i <br />to 3:1. This would require removing the existing riprap from the upstream face of the <br />dams, stockpiling, and replacing after placing fill and reshaping the upstream face. The <br />reshaping would be necessary to not only flatten the slope but to place a compacted clay <br />liner over the upstream face to reduce potential seepage through the embankment. <br />2. A cutoff trench would be excavated at the upstream toe of the north dam and tied into the <br />clay liner to reduce potential seepage through the dam foundation. The cutoff liner <br />would extend to the underlying shale which is approximately 15 feet below existing <br />~.,5 4-1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.