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 Uncertainties associated with overtopping of the emergency <br />spillway. <br />o Poor condition of the outlet works conduit. <br />o Inadequate ri prap protecti on and 1 ack of beddi ng between the <br />earthfi11 and riprap on the auxiliary spillway dikes. <br />o Uncontrolled seepage through the auxiliary spillway dikes. <br />o Inadequacies at the Chambers Lake inlet channel dike. <br />o Poor condition of the concrete service spillway. <br />o Sparse riprap slope protection on upstream face of dam. <br />o Undulations in dam crest. <br /> <br />Considering the project deficiencies listed above, three alternative <br />rehabilitation designs were developed for Barnes Meadow Dam to establish a <br />~ <br />wi de range of possi b 1 e sol uti ons in terms of constructi on costs, long-term <br />operation and maintenance, and technical confidence. Appraisal-level cost <br />estimates, including a 25 percent contingency, were prepared for each <br />alternative. The principal features of each alternative and their respective <br />costs are summarized as follows: <br /> <br />E-7 <br /> <br />1151c <br />