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 />channel does appear to exist. This alone is sueeicient justieication for <br /> <br />the recommended slope elattening. <br /> <br />It is our understanding from discussions with both Mr. Jay Olson and <br /> <br />Mr. Bruce Marvin at the site that the existing slopes of Borrow Area A will <br /> <br />be flattened substantially in the process of required borrow excavation for <br /> <br />Zone 2 material. It is recommended that final slopes within the limits shown <br /> <br />on Drawing Sheet 1 be not steeper than 3:1 and preferably 4:1. It would <br /> <br />appear that this excavation would not materially affect costs, provided the <br /> <br />requirements are clearly spelled out in the bid documents. Assuming scrapers <br /> <br />are used, a downhill loading operation would produce the required slopes and <br /> <br />tend to provide the vertical mixing of materials which the specifications now <br /> <br />require. Alternatively, ie the material is dozed to a scalping belt loader <br /> <br />for separation of oversize rock, this operation would be compatible with 3:1 <br /> <br />or 4:1 slopes, Even better vertical mixing would occur with this loading method. <br /> <br />Other Shoreline Areas, Other slopes adjacent to the reservoir are subject <br /> <br />to minor slumping as noted in the geologic report, However, the probable <br /> <br />volume of such slumps is small and the orientation of the slopes with respect <br /> <br />to the dam and spillway is such that no adverse consequences would be expected. <br /> <br />It is concluded that any efforts to reslope such areas would be unnecessary, <br /> <br />expensive, and of questionable value considering the disturbance to natural <br /> <br />cover that would occur. <br />