My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
C150244 feas study
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
C150244 feas study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2011 9:11:06 AM
Creation date
7/8/2010 1:53:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150244
Contractor Name
Wood Lake Mutual Water & Irrigation Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
0
County
Weld
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Feasibility Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
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
' <br />' the existing conduits will not be feasible and the only feasible way to line the outlets would be to use <br />the Insitu Form process. <br />' This would involve cleaning the existing pipes by jetting and installing the liner. The Insitu Form <br />liner is a polyester sock that is impregnated with a resin. The liner is installed in the pipe and the <br />resin cured with hot water pumped into the pipe. Lining in this manner will reduce the outlet <br />' diameter approximately 3-inches but would not be expected to reduce the outlet capacity from its <br />current condition. <br />' Additional work at the inlet and outlet of the of the two conduits would also be required to bring the <br />outlet up to current standards acceptable to the State Engineer. This would included some structural <br />repair of the inlets and the addition of an outlet energy dissipation structure. Some riprap and <br />' bedding would also be required at both the inlet and outlet to reduce the erosion potential. <br />, The estimated total project cost for this alternative is $ 162,000 as show in Table 2. A complete <br />breakdown of the work proposed and expected costs are included in Table 2. <br />' Alternative 3- No Action Alternative <br />For this alternative, the owner would chose not to repair or replace the outlet warks. This would <br />' ultimately result in the reservoir being restricted by the State Engineer which would result in the loss <br />of water each year. <br />' No analysis of the future costs to leave the reservoir as is was initiated for this study. Part of the cost <br />would be the loss of water and reduced crop yield in the service area. Some maintenance would <br />most likely be required to keep the reservoir safe and the need to install an emergency spillway may <br />' be required if the current service spillway were not repaired. If the dam were to fail due to piping <br />along the outlet due to a collapse, there would be liability and cost from the downstream damage. <br />' COST ESTIMATE <br />' <br />�' <br />, <br />' <br />' <br />' <br />The complete breakdown of the cost of the work proposed for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, <br />respectively, are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The costs are based on our past experience with similar <br />projects and also from data supplied by local contractors and suppliers. Quantities were based on <br />surveying and a topographic map of the dam outlet area that was recently conducted for this proj ect. <br />A summary of the costs for the two alternatives, including the engineering fees and contingencies, <br />is shown in Table 3. <br />Angel Lake Feasibility Study Page 5 <br />C J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.