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 />Alternatives Evaluated <br /> <br />Several altematives were evaluated for addressing the instability problem, The altematives <br /> <br /> <br />evaluated included: 1) Do not build the project, 2) Reinforce foundations and continue use of <br /> <br /> <br />existing structures and, 3) Demolish existing structures and construct new ones. <br /> <br />The altemative concepts and costs were developed by the National Resources Conservation <br />Service (NRCS) offices in Sterling and Lakewood, Colorado, A qualitative discussion of these <br />altematives is presented below: <br /> <br />1) Do not build the project, <br /> <br />Shareholders would be able to continue irrigating crops if improvements were not <br />constructed, however there was a good likelihood that complete failure of the diversion <br />would occur during the next high-water condition, Should this occur, the users would no <br />longer be able to irrigate crops and a loss of livelihood would result. This alternative was <br />considered not feasible, <br /> <br />2) Reinforce existing foundations and continue to use existing structures, <br /> <br />The existing structure could be reinforced and stabilized through foundation improvements. <br />This would require placement of sheet piling, reinforcing steel and concrete (Appendix B). <br />This a1temative would produce a stable structure during periods of high flows, The cost of <br />these improvements was estimated to be $116,000. This alternative was considered <br />feasible and was considered the preferred alternative, <br /> <br />3) Replace dam and headgate works, <br /> <br />In lieu of reinforcing the existing structures as described in Altemative 2, the dam and <br />headgate structure could be completely reconstructed, This would provide improved <br />operability of the head gate and replaceIllent of aging structures, However, the current <br />operability of the headgate is perceived as adequate by the Company and replacement is not <br />considered necessary at this time, Estimated cost of this a1temative is in excess of <br />$400,000, This alternative was technically feasible, however it was considered <br />economically infeasible due to high costs, <br />4 <br />