Laserfiche WebLink
_. <br /> J. William McDonald <br /> February 22 , 1984 <br /> Page 2 <br /> feasibility of rehabilitating the dam when we were <br /> under a standing order to repair it. This would <br /> basically imply we were looking for a second opinion <br /> and why would we need a second opinion when to get <br /> one would serve no useful purpose? <br /> B. Response to Items of Similarities Outlined in WCB Letter of <br /> January 25, 1984 <br /> 1. The WCB letter attempts to correlate the dimensions <br /> of the reservoir construction project with those <br /> noted in the WCB enlargement study. By virtue of <br /> the fact that the size, height, length and etc. <br /> (noted in both projects) are within approximately 1 <br /> foot of each other, the WCB concludes that they are <br /> the same. We hope further examination of the facts <br /> clarifies this "less than accurate" logic. <br /> 2. The work performed on the reservoir was remedial in <br /> nature (i.e. correct deficiencies and bring it up <br /> to minimum standards) . There was no effort to increase <br /> or change its capacity. Therefore, there was no need <br /> to increase or modify the dam and reservoir's physical <br /> dimensions of height, width, length and etc. <br /> The dam and reservoir were approximately (as well as <br /> anyone can measure) the same size before and after <br /> the remedial work. The dam and reservoir are the <br /> same dimensions as they were before any study was <br /> performed. Each project took the existing dimensions <br /> of the structure as a basis from which to work. That <br /> is why they are within approximately 1 foot of each <br /> other. Had there been no project at all , the <br /> dimensions would have been the same . In other words , <br /> if you don't change things , they stay the same. <br /> 3. Additional items you outlined as being similar in <br /> scope included the following: clearing of trees and <br /> growth, seeding and mulching of dam, similar spillway, <br /> outlet. works and embankment riprap. We offer the <br /> following comments : <br /> Clearing of Trees and Growth -same <br /> RESPONSE: This was a specified requirement of the <br /> State Engineer. It was only referenced by the WCB <br /> study. <br /> Seeding and Mulching - same <br /> RESPONSE: It is standard engineering practice to <br />