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 />II <br />i I <br /> <br />A rockfill dam with a storage capacity of 39,600 acre-feet is over 50% <br />more costly than an RCC dam with the same storage capacity at the same <br />site. Since rockfill dam spillway costs would be higher for different <br />dam heights as discussed above, a curve of rockfill dam costs vs. <br />reservoir storage similar to those for RCC dams shown on Figure 3-1 <br />would be unlikely to approach the RCC dam cost curves. <br /> <br />A RCC concrete gravity dam at Site 8 was therefore recommended for Rock <br />Creek Dam. <br /> <br /> TA8LE 3-1 <br /> ROCK CREEK DAM <br /> ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS <br />PRELIMINARY COMPARATIVE COSTS <br /> Reservoir <br /> Res. W.S. Storage Comparative <br /> Elevation (acre-feet) Cost <br />Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam <br />Site A - High Dam 8715 89,710 $17,400,000 <br />Site A - Intermediate Dam 8695 61,17D 14,000,000 <br />Site A - Low Dam 8655 24,045 8,100,DOO <br />Site 8 - High Dam 8715 97,126 15, DOD, 000 <br />Site 8 - Intermediate Dam 8695 67,261 12,500,000 <br />Site 8 - Low Dam 8655 27,945 8,300,000 <br />Rockfill Dam <br />Site A - Intermediate Dam 8675 39,639 16,800,000 <br /> <br />3.2 RESERVOIR <br /> <br />8ased on the cost vs. reservoir storage relationships developed for the <br />Rock Creek Dam sites and project yield studies, the River District <br /> <br />3 - 6 <br /> <br />6819101 / 5020W <br />