My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01603
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:04:22 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:59:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/13/2004
Description
CF Section - Changes to Existing Loans - East Fork Mutual Irrigation Company Ditch Rehabilitation
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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 />~ <br /> <br />portion of the ditch. These slope failures were most likely caused by ditch flows saturating the surrounding __ <br />soil and becoming perched on top of the underlying bedrock layer, and the surcharge of the fill on the <br />downhill side of the ditch. <br /> <br />In the swnmer of 2003, the Company was in jeopardy oflosing a significant portion of their ditch. <br />In an attempt to address the problem the Company elected to enclose 1,060 linear feet of ditch where the <br />two slope failures had occurred, with 60-inch corrugated steel pipe. Additionally, to stabilize the slope <br />failure areas the Company installed soil nails to restrict the failed areas from migrating any further. <br /> <br />In the fall of 2003 the Company hired the services of Northwest Colorado Consultants, Inc., <br />Steamboat Springs, Colorado, to evaluate the slope failures, the improvements in-place, and to make <br />recommendations on how to stabilize the ditch on a long-term basis. In December of 2003, Northwest <br />Colorado Consultants completed a feasibility study to address these problems, which was submitted to the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board in January of 2004 for funding consideration. The report <br />recommended that the existing 60-inch corrugated steel pipe be modified with water tight bands, concrete <br />headwalls be constructed on the upstream and downstream end of the pipe to minimize water flow under <br />the pipe, failed slope areas be regraded and revegetated, and the exposed soil nails be covered with <br />shotcrete. <br /> <br />Table 1 below is a brief swnmary of the major project elements and their estimated cost as <br />presented in the original feasibility study: <br /> <br />Table 1. Project Cost Summary <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Item Estimated Cost <br />1. 1,060 1.f. of60-inch CSP (already constructed) $63,924 <br />2. Soil Nailing (already constructed) $38,000 <br />3. Water Tight Joint Bands $83,125 <br />4. Concrete Headwalls (liJ Inlet/Outlet $20,000 <br />5. Shotcrete Soil Nail Areas $18,000 <br />6. Remove/Regrade Failed Slope Areas $92,000 <br />7. Revegetation and Erosion Control $18,000 <br />Subtotal: $333,049 <br />8. Engineering $10,000 <br />Total: (Completed Proiect) $343,049 <br /> <br />Since the Board's approval of these improvements in January of 2004, the Company has had <br />concerns over the long-term performance of the failed slope remediation efforts proposed by Northwest <br />Colorado Consultants. Given the severity of the problem and the significant hardship and monetary loss <br />that the Company would incur if another failure would occur, the Company elected to obtain a second <br />engineering opinion on the failed slope areas. <br /> <br />In the spring of 2004, the Company hired the services of Kumar and Associates, Denver, <br />Colorado to evaluate the slope failure areas and to prepare an alternative analysis to address the <br />problem. Kumar's efforts involved exploratory borings and field reconnaissance of the surface and e <br />subsurface to determine the condition of the soils within the failed slope areas. Based on their soil <br />findings and field survey, Kumar recommended that stabilization measures be taken at the head ofthe <br /> <br />2 <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.