Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Onn,... <br />h, 1:5 \J <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll W. Griffin <br />January 12., 1976 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />NARROWS DAM <br />DOH FILE 04-00-00 <br /> <br />concerns of the Commissioners that S.H. 144 should be relocated as a con- <br />tinuous loop around the north side of the reservoir. In considering County <br />Road U as a relocation for S.H. 144, I did not feel it was acceptable as it <br />is too close to U.S. 34. <br /> <br />In contemplation of the relocation of S.H. 144 around the north side <br />of the reservoir and County Road U as the south loop, I noted the following <br />points: <br /> <br />1. On the west end, we would want the relocated portion of S.H. 144 to <br />tie back into S.H. 144 in the vicinity of the present intersection <br />of S.H. 144 and U.S. 34. Any relocation west of this (primarily the <br />suggested relocation at Masters) is not acceptable as we do not feel <br />that it would serve the anticipated traffic and be too far out of <br />di recti on. <br /> <br />2. At the December 10, 1975 meeting, it was stated that the contemplated <br />relocations of the roadway systems across the west end of the <br />reservoir and County Road U extended eastward along County Road 5U <br />would have some sections at an elevation of 4410, which would subject <br />these sections to being under water an estimated one out of six years <br />for a period of possibly up to 35 days. This we do not feel would be <br />acceptable and would be particularly damaging to the roadway structure. <br /> <br />3. The bridge at the west end should be designated for a hundred year <br />flood and at an estimated elevation of 4434. This would keep the <br />girders clear of the top of the Flood Control Pool shown to be at an <br />elevation of 4428. <br /> <br />4. The design of the bridge at the east end below the dam should be <br />predicated on the anticipated maximum discharge from the reservoir. <br /> <br />5. Along the north side of the reservoir, whether the road is located <br />above or below the Riverside Canal would be up to the Bureau's dis- <br />cretion. Our preference would be for relocation above the canal. <br />We believe it ~lOuld be less costly to construct, out of the boggy <br />areas below the canal, better serve the land on the upper side (no <br />bridges required), the canal would provide a natural barrier to the <br />reservoi r thereby controll ing access, and for mai ntenance there <br />would be less snow drifting problems. However, we realize the Bureau <br />may have other overriding considerations to take into account which <br />might preclude putting the roadway above the canal. <br />