Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />The second alternatives considers the minimum repair <br />necessary to keep the reservoir in service in the immediate <br />future. This would require the installation of a new outlet <br />works, installation of a toe drain, repair the upstream <br />slope protection as required, removal of trees and stumps in <br />the embankment, and some excavation in the existing <br />spillway. <br />The third alternative considers breaching the dam and <br />providing a system of ditcnes and structures to continue to <br />provide for distribution o! water to the current downstream <br />users. This would requi~e construction of new ditches, <br />several drop structures, an overflow spillway where the <br />existing ditch picks up Coal Creek, and a plan to seed the <br />existing reservoir to prevent wind erosion and dust <br />problems. <br />The alternative recommended is the complete <br />rehabilitation of the dam. This recommendation is based on <br />safety, the cost versus the future benefits, and because a <br />new dam with increased hea.d will provide the most useable <br />method for supplying the downstream users. The other <br />alternatives have several negative aspects which we believe <br />outweighs their benefits. <br />The rehabilitation proposed considers replacing the <br />outlet with a new 42 inch diameter outlet pipe, flattening <br /> <br />viii <br />