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 />considered to :be feasible. The drawing in <br />Appendix I shoWS the various dam section <br />alternatives con~idered and the plan view of the <br />dam. An alternative dam location was considered <br />for the central portion of the dam and is shown on <br />the plan view in Appendix I. This alternative was <br />considered because of the many problems in the <br />main portion of the existing dam. If the cost <br />were favorable, it was felt that total removal of <br />the old dam and outlet works may provide a much <br />safer dam. The significant cost differential, <br />however, eliminated this alternative. <br />As can be seen on the typical dam sections <br />shown, a downstream berm was added to the central <br />portion of the dam. The berm was added to provide <br />additional 'stability by confining the sand layer <br />in the foundation and to provide extra confinement <br />and mass to prevent a breach during an earthquake. <br />The riprap design for the upstream slope <br />consists of a twenty-four inch (2411.) layer of <br />riprap with a nine-inch (911.) layer of riprap <br />bedding. The riprap sizing will range from <br />eighteen inches (18 11.) to three inches (3 11.), and <br />the bedding from three inches (311.) to sand size. <br /> <br />V-6 <br />