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 />o Uncontrolled embankment and foundation seepage. <br /> <br />o IIigh phreatic level In the embankment, creating potential instability <br />of downstream slope. <br /> <br />o Inadequate size of the rlprap at the auxiliary spillway overflow <br />section. <br /> <br />o Lack of an outlet structure for the outlet works. <br /> <br />o lack of freeboard on the dam and dike during the PMF. <br /> <br />Additional deflcfencfes, such as minor defects to the main olJt1et conduit, <br />Inadequate rlprap thickness at the upstream face, sparseness of grass slope <br />protection on the downstream face, and uncontrolled seepage through the <br />aUXiliary spillway dike were also noted. <br /> <br />Considering the project deficiencies listed above, thre!! alternative <br />rehabilitation designs were developed for Peterson lake Dam to establish a <br />wide range of possible solutions in terms of construction cotts, long-term <br />operation and maintenance, and technical confidence. Appraisal-level cost <br />estimates, Including a 25 percent tontlngency, were prepared for each <br />alternative. the principal features of each alternative and their respective <br />costs are summarized as follows: <br /> <br />vlf <br />