Laserfiche WebLink
South Gray <br />For South Gray, the work will be the same as outlined in Alternative 2 including the installation of <br />toe drains and an access ramp from the crest to the dam toe. <br />Alternative #4 <br />This alternative is to do nothing to rehabilitate the two dams. This alternative is not viable for either <br />reservoir. Gray No. 3 cannot be left as is forever as the State Engineer will most likely force the <br />Company to breach the dam at some time. <br />For South Gray, leaving the dam as is will most likely result in a decrease in the allowable storage <br />capacity. We would expect the State Engineer to place a restriction on the reservoir storage if the <br />seepage is not controlled. The dam is not safe as is with the quantity of seepage noted when the <br />reservoir is at full storage. <br />We would expect a storage restriction of approximate three feet for a loss of storage of <br />approximately 165 to 200 acre-feet. Doing nothing will have significant cost with no benefit. <br />COST ESTIMATE <br />The complete breakdown of the cost of the work proposed for each alternative is shown in Tables <br />5, 6, and 7. The costs are based on our past experience with similar projects and also from data <br />supplied by local contractors and suppliers. Quantities were based on surveyed cross sections of the <br />dam and downstream areas for Gray No. 3 and South Gray. <br />A summary of the costs for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are included in Tables 2 and 3. No cost analysis <br />was attempted for Alternative #4 as this alternative is not seen as a viable alternative. This <br />alternative would ultimately have costs associated with it due to loss of irrigation water and <br />potentially reduced crop yields on the irrigated lands and no benefit. <br />Gray Reservoirs-Feasibility Study Page 7 <br />TABLE 2 <br />TOTAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY <br />