Laserfiche WebLink
<br />$71. A construction cost estimate breakdown may be found In Appendix <br />A. <br /> <br />2,3.7,2 Because Alternative B would Inundate a larger amount of coal <br />resources) the cost of mitigation or outright purchase of the mineral <br />rights would be substantially greater for this alternative. <br /> <br />2,4 ALTERNATIVE C: Smaller Dam at Taylor Draw; Crest El. 5321 <br />0622 m) <br /> <br />2.4.1 Location and General Description <br /> <br />2.4.1.1 The smaller dam at Taylor Draw would be located along the <br />same axis as Alternative A, <br /> <br />2.4.1.2 The capacity of the reservoir would be 9600 acre-feet <br />(11.8x106m3) at the nonmal high water line elevation of 5310 feet MSL <br />0618 m), The surface area of the reservol r at the high water line <br />would be approximately 500 acres (202 ha). The dead pool storage <br />volume of 2100 acre-feet (2.6x106m3) would Inundate approximately 257 <br />acres (104 ha) at an elevation of 5290 feet MSL (1612 m). Recreation <br />and flood control benefits would be essentially the same as <br />Al ternat Ive A. <br /> <br />2.4.1.3 A smaller dan at Taylor Draw would require less road and <br />utility relocation than either Alternative A or B, <br /> <br />2.4.2 Construction Methods, Features and Schedules <br /> <br />2.4.2.1 Dam Design - The dam would be Identical to Alternative A <br />except 8-feet (2,4 m) lower. The dan would require approximately <br />213)000 cubic yards (162)850 m3) of material. The construction <br />schedule would be the same as Alternative A. Figure 2 - 5 depicts the <br />dam concept and features. <br /> <br />22 <br />