Laserfiche WebLink
- 15 - <br />construction, flood pool increases, canal relocation, or borrow areas for construction <br />materials. <br />3. The maximum storage level increase evaluated was determined based upon providing <br />approximately 10,000 additional acre fee by raising the existing dam embankments, <br />and which roughly equates to the maximum enlargement attainable with the existing <br />inlet canal and the limited inlet canal relocation proposed in the report. Any significant <br />additional increase in the reservoir storage level may require relocating the entire inlet <br />canal and river diversion /check structures. <br />4. The costs for reconstruction of the dam embankment upstream slopes have been <br />evaluated assuming 3:1 slopes. Utilizing soil cement slope`protection, the slope could <br />possible steepened to 2.5:1.0 or steeper. However, the cost savings associated <br />with a steeper slope have not been evaluated. Offsetting the possible costs savings <br />with a steeper upstream slope is the possible need for a parapet wall on Dam Nos. 2 <br />and 3 to provide wave overtopping protection due to higher wave runup which would <br />accompany the steeper slopes. <br />5. It has been assumed that only a small percentage of the old dam embankment fill <br />materials would be usable as fill for new or reconstructed embankments. It is expected <br />that the existing saturated fill materials may not be economically used due to the need <br />for drying or other processing. <br />6. The new and reconstructed dam embankment fills are assumed to be homogeneous <br />fills; however, `is anticipated that the outer downstream shells may be constructed of <br />poorer quality material such as weathered bedrock. Incorporation of these materials <br />Would not significantly change the overall feasibility cost estimates. <br />2k'eports \97- 1- 500.nk <br />