C153705 Feasibility Study - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, , ~-, :;;',,' 7.3.4 Institutional Considerations Each alternative will require approval from the Colorado DWR, Office of the State Engineer and from the U.S. Forest Service. Obtaining these permits is not anticipated to be a significant barrier. Therefore, institutional considerations were not used as an evaluation criterion. 7.3.5 Technical Feasibility All of the options are feasible technically. Therefore, technical feasibility was not a consideration. 7.3.6 Technical Effectiveness and Implementability All of the options could be completed so as to be'effective in reducing seepage, piping and the potential for sinkhole development._.!:Iowever;the soil bentonite slurry cutoff wall would probably require the additiohof,spe~iar components such as drains or filters to control seepage gradients across the wall or prevent migration of the soil-bentonite backfill into the foundation bedrock. Therefore, technical effectiveness was a negative consideration for Altermitive2 but was not a consideration for the other alternatives. 7.3.7 Project Cost The project cost,was-an important consideration in the evaluation of the alternatives. Construction cos(estimates were developed for each of the rehabilitation options and are presented in Tables 7-1 through 7-5. The material quantities estimated were based on a limited survey performed on the dam and photographs taken at the site. Unit costs were der;~ed from construction projects either recently completed, presently under construction or scheduled for construction in the near future in the Colorado area. A summary comparison of the total project costs for each of the alternatives is presented below. It should be noted that the estimated project costs presented are for feasibility- level cost comparisons. 23067/Rl.7 09-03-93(3:24pm)/RP'T 7-4