My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJ00528
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
PROJ00528
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/5/2006 11:59:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C150019
Contractor Name
Pine River Canal Company
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
31
County
La Plata
Bill Number
SB 99-173
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.
/
98
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 />Project Description <br /> <br />The purpose of this project is to provide a means for the PRCC to continue providing irrigation <br />water to shareholders while minimizing the occurrence of future disruptions of water flow. Four <br />alternatives were considered: <br /> <br />1. Reline the existing tunnel. <br /> <br />2. Open up the tunnel by removing the overburden. <br /> <br />3, Relocate the canal approximately 150 feet west of the existing canal (tunnel) and lay <br />six-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe, <br /> <br />4, No action, <br /> <br />Alternative No.1 would involve relining the entire 600 feet of tunnel with treated timbers. <br />Based on past experience of relining 100 feet of this tunnel, the total cost of this project is <br />estimated at more than $500,000, In addition to the considerable cost to do the work, finding a <br />contractor to do the work is problematic, and in the end, the Company would still have a tunnel <br />with treated timbers and its attendant problems, This alternative was eliminated due to cost, and <br />because it did not provide a permanent solution to the problem. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2 would involve moving power utility poles at an estimated cost of $60,000, <br />removing the overburden from the tunnel and disposing of the excavated material at a cost of <br />$300,000, This alternative was eliminated due to cost, and because it is not desirable to the State <br />Highway Department. <br /> <br />Alternative No.4 would result in continually increased maintenance costs and the very real <br />likelihood of portions of the tunnel collapsing and depriving shareholders of irrigation water and <br />substantially reducing their farm and ranch income, The risks associated with this alternative are <br />not acceptable to the PRCC Board of Directors. (See Economic Analysis portion of this study.) <br /> <br />The selected alternative, Alternative No.3, involves the construction of a new canal <br />approximately 150 feet west of existing tunnel and laying six foot diameter reinforced concrete <br />pipe for a distance of approximately 700 feet, bypassing the tunnel entirely. <br /> <br />The pipe will have an inlet and outlet structure and is designed to carry 200 cfs with extra <br />capacity allowing for 25-year storm flow, The pipe will be designed for open channel flow and <br />will have a trash rack at the entrance of the pipe. <br /> <br />Engineering designs and cost estimates for the project have been prepared by the La Plata <br />County Office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Preliminary plans as <br />prepared by the NRCS are attached in the back pocket of this study, <br /> <br />Pine River Canal Company <br />Tunnel Hill Project Feasibility Study <br />January 1999 <br /> <br />Page 11 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.