Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2.5.2.2 Spillway Design - The spillway capacity Is assured to be <br />65,300 cfs (1849 m3/s) which Is the same as for the other <br />A ]ternat I ves. The crest 1 ength and the amount of concrete I n the <br />spillway Is the same as for AlternatlveA. <br /> <br />2.5.2.3 Out 1 et Works - The conf I gurElt Ion of the out 1 et works Is <br />simIlar to the other alternatives. The capacity of the outlet works <br />at the high water line Is approximately 940 cfs (26,6 m3/s). <br /> <br />2.5.2.4 <br /> <br />032,267 <br /> <br />Material Sources - The majority of the 173,000 cubic yards <br />m3) of material would come from within the reservoir basin. <br /> <br />Most of the gravel required for construction would come fonm terraces <br />adjoining the Immediate dam site, Rlprap for the project would come <br />from the same source area as for the other alternatives. Concrete <br />aggregate would be trucked from Jensen, Utah. <br /> <br />2.5.3 Reservoir Operation <br /> <br />2.5.3.1 The reservoir would be operated similar to Alternative C with <br />proportionally less water available for sale than Alternative A. The <br />flnm comparable annual yield of this alternative would be 14,100 AF <br />, 6 3 6 3 <br />07x10 m) requiring 6950 AF (8.5x10 m ) of storage. With the same <br />assunpt Ions ut 111 zed for A 1 ternat 1 ve A, the water budget for th I s <br />alternative would be: <br /> <br /> Year Year <br />Item 1990 2014 <br />Recreatlon/Dead Pool 2100 AF 2014 AF <br />Sedimentation 1512 AF 6622 AF <br />Rangely 1735 AF 1735 AF <br />Other Water Sales 3553 AF -0- <br /> <br />26 <br />