Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />II <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />-2- <br />CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The following conclusions and recommendations were determined as part of <br />the engineering and economic evaluations completed for this feasibility study: <br /> <br />1. The probable maximum flood (PMF) resulting from a probable maximum <br />precipitation (PMP) event occurring in the catchment above Sheriff <br />Reservoir has a peak inflow to the reservoir of 20,000 cubic feet per <br />second (cfs) and a total inflow volume of 2500 acre-feet. <br /> <br />2. An Incremental Damage Assessment (IDA) of Trout Creek below Sheriff <br />Reservoir indicates that significant impacts to downstream areas <br />would occur in the event of a dam failure by overtopping during flood <br />events in excess of the current spillway capacity. Consequently, the <br />SEO has indicated that PMF flood routing protection is required for <br />Sheriff Reservoir. The SEO has indicated that flood routing protec- <br />tion for 50 percent of the PMF, in conjunction with an early warning <br />system, would also be acceptable. provided that the system would be <br />effective in evacuating downstream residents and provided that signi- <br />ficant cost savings over PMF protection would be realized. However, <br />the SEO prefers PMF flood routing protection for Sheriff Reservoir. <br /> <br />3. The flood routing capacity of the spillway at <br />need to be 17,000 cfs to safely pass the PMF. <br />capGcity is approximately 3,000 cfs. <br /> <br />Sheriff Reservoir would <br />The existing spillway <br /> <br />4. Four feasible alternative schemes for modifying Sheriff Reservoir to <br />provide the required level of flood routing protection were iden- <br />tified and evaluated. Two of these schemes were clearly identified <br />as preferred alternatives, considering cost and overall long-term <br />effectiveness and performance. The two preferred schemes are as <br />follows: <br /> <br />Option 1 - Spillway enlargement to provide the capacity to safely <br />pass the full PMF event <br /> <br />Option 2 - Overtopping protection (using soil-cement) to safely pass <br />the full PMF event <br /> <br />5. Feasibility level cost estimates of these options indicated the <br />following probable total costs for construction, including engi- <br />neering and administrative costs, a contingency of 20 percent, the <br />cost of this feasibility study, and other miscellaneous expenses: <br /> <br />Option 1 <br />Option 2 . . <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />$821,100 <br />$600,000 <br /> <br />6. Based on the engineering evaluations and cost estimates, the overall <br />preferred alternative for modifying Sheriff Reservoir to provide the <br />required flood routing protection is Option 2 - overtopping protec~ <br />tion using soil-cement. <br />