Laserfiche WebLink
earth fill/rock fill materials were generally the consistency of a loose to medium dense sand <br />with relatively low SPT blow counts, less than 10 per foot. The sound rock fill consisted <br />primarily of cobble and boulder size materials. It was estimated that more than 90% of the <br />sound rock fill is composed of sandstone. Other rock types, including claystone, limestone and <br />conglomerated were encountered, but comprised less than 10% of the recovered samples. The <br />overall quality of the sound rock fill zone considered to be average to good with respect to <br />strength and durabiliry. <br />An elevation-area-capacity and topographic survey was performed by Clyde B. Young & Co. in <br />2002 with an updated capacity spreadsheet table prepared by URS for the previous feasibility <br />study in 2006. The topographic survey is sufficient for planning purposes, but additional and <br />more accurate survey information will be required for detailed analyses and design purposes. <br />PROJECT ALTERNATIVES <br />A) ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS, CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS AND COMPARISONS <br />1. No Action <br />The SEO has placed a suspense date of October 1, 2010 to either rehabilitate the existing <br />dam, build a new one, or a"Zero" no storage restriction will be imposed followed by an <br />order to breach the dam and remove the hazard it represents. The no action alternative has <br />a significant cost associated with the breaching of the dam and effectively shows intent to <br />abandon a viable and valuable storage right. This is an unacceptable alternative because of <br />the high cost and no benefit associated with this action. <br />2. Sediment Removal <br />URS in their 2006 feasibility report estimated that there is over 8 million cubic yards of <br />deposited sediment in the reservoir basin. The determination was made that the costs, <br />environmental concerns and required permitting made this alternative unfeasible. No <br />further evaluation of this alternative was considered. <br />3. Construct a New RCC Dam Downstream of the Existing Dam <br />This was the recommended alternative of the 2006 URS feasibility report and remains a <br />viable long-term goal of the Company. The estimated 30 million dollar price tag of this <br />alternative is beyond the current financial capability of the Company. While the company <br />could qualify for a CWCB construction loan to build a new dam, they do not have sufficient <br />revenue generation to repay the loan. Collateralization of a loan of this magnitude is <br />problematic as well. <br />4. Rehabilitate the existing Dam to Allow Full Reservoir Stora~e <br />URS addressed this alternative in their 2006 feasibility report and determined that the costs <br />associated with this alternative were greater than construction of a new RCC dam <br />downstream of the existing dam. For this reason, no further evaluation of this alternative <br />was considered. <br />5. Rehabilitate the Existing Dam to Allow Storage at a Reduced Storage Level <br />Based on the other alternatives being unacceptable, this option appeared to be the only one <br />with any possible merit. One of the major problems with the existing dam, which has been <br />previously identified, was a significantly inadequate spillway. Under the previous SEO Rules <br />Cucharas Feasibility Study ~ Project Alternatives <br />