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 />known to exist at several <br />corrective actions is not <br /> <br />sites, and the cost of detailed <br />included in the preliminary cost <br /> <br />investigations <br />estimates. <br /> <br />ana <br /> <br />Final Plans Selected <br /> <br />Following a review of the analysis and comparison of the eight alternative <br />plans in the Interim Report, the CWCB selected three alternatives for <br />detailed analysis. The three alternative plans selected were Avery, Sawmill <br />Mountain, and Warner Point. Avery was selected because it appeared to be <br />the most cost-effective plan. However, there are potential geotechnical <br />problems at the dam and possible ROW acquisition problems for the proposed <br />enlarged reservoir. Sawmill Mountain was selected as an alternative because <br />of the problems at Avery and because irrigation and coal water supply can be <br />delivered by gravity. The cost effectiveness of Sawmill Mountain ranked <br />third, slightly lower than the second-ranked Steeley alternative. Steeley <br />was eliminated because of significant geologic problems at the dam and <br />within the proposed reservoir area. It was also located high on the North <br />Fork in an environmentally sensitive area. The Warner Point alternative was <br />selected as the third plan to undergo detailed evaluation due to its <br />mainstem location and potential for hydropower production. <br /> <br />The three-reservoir, two-reservoir, and Miller <br />abandoned for reasons of cost. The M&I-only plan <br />information regarding the incremental cost of <br />considered a feasible plan for the final analysis. <br /> <br />Creek alternatives were <br />was designed largely for <br />irrigation, and was not <br /> <br />IV-15 <br />