My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00235
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00235
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/1/2011 3:47:18 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:44:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153633
Contractor Name
Greeley, City of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
3
County
Larimer
Bill Number
HB 91-1006
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.
/
83
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 />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 />duplication of effort ~ addnlonal dam safety features are required or ~ the City wishes to use Hourglass <br />Reservoir as a long-term storage facility. If Option 1 Is built first as expected, the construction cost of <br />Option 2 Is reduced to $924,000. <br /> <br />The present administration of the Poudre River aIk7Ns Greeley and other storage facilnles to offset <br />seepage losses wnh Inflow to .hold point" at the storage level diverted while in priority, After inflows <br />diminish in late summer or fall, Hourglass Reservoir does sustain actual reservoir losses due to seepage. <br />Current operation has been to fill Hourglass Reservoir wnh native inflow and discharges from Comanche <br />Reservoir through the feeder canal in the spring and to release the water downstream as needed before <br />seepage losses occur In the fall, <br /> <br />Hourglass Reservoir has high seepage losses, based on the single simplified seepage loss investigation, <br />Apparent losses at elevation 9356,8 feet (24,0 gage) appear to be In the order of seven acre-feet per <br />day, or 200 acre-feet per month. Losses will be greater at higher reservoir levels. Very little of the <br />reservoir seepage loss returns to the stream channel above the measuring flume, <br /> <br />Hi(;'h s€'"pge iosses through the fall and wir,Ier amit the :"1i1~y d [he reservoir for :,,~g-!al m water <br />storage, especially at higher reservoir levels. The reservoir could continue to be used as n is now, <br />following construction of Option 1, as seasonal storage to offset peak demands or to facilnate <br />exchanges. <br /> <br />The altematives for rehabilitation recommended In this report are: <br /> <br />Option 1 . Downstream Drainage Construction, bmgIng the dam up to present safety stability standards <br />is recommended for flnal design and constructlon at a feasibility level construction cost of 328,075 <br />thousand dollars. This is the minimum rehabilitation to adequately Improve dam safety, Seepage losses <br />will not be reduced, but wRI be controlled, to enhance dam stability. <br /> <br />Option 2 . Partial Depth Slurry Wall Includes a partial slurry well seepage cutoff in addnion to the safety <br />Improvements Included In Plan " The estimated cost of construction Is 1,346,975 dollars. Such cost <br />for a potential savings of a few hundred acre-feet of water per year is not considered to be <br />economically attractive at present. If the cost at water does rise to justify a partial cutoff, n can be <br />placed at any lime after completion of Option 1 lor 995,500 dollars, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.