Laserfiche WebLink
<br />This plan removes the saline springflow from the river and transports it to <br />Purgatory Flat for disposal through total evaporation (Figure 5). ".s with <br />the desalinization plan, the system would not operate during high river <br />f1 ows. <br /> <br />Diversion Facilities: These would be the same as for the <br />desalinization alternatives. <br /> <br />Total Evaporation Facilities: The springflow ponded between the <br />diversion structures would be transported through a gravity feed water <br />pipeline (5,700 feet long and 24 inches in diameter) to small filtration <br />and pumping plants for removal of particles and some corrosives and for <br />transpurt through a corrosion resistant pipeline (8.95 miles long and 12 <br />inches in diameter) to Purgatory Flats for aisposal. No desalting plant is <br />involved. <br /> <br />Purgatory Flat Disposal Facilities: The saline spring water would be <br />evaporated by solar action in three ponds, 1,050 acres, formed by 5 dikes <br />01, Purgatory Flat. The dimensions of each dike are ind1cated on <br />Table 4 and their locations are shown on Figure 6. <br /> <br />Table 4 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />TOTAL EVAPORATION POND DIKES <br />PURGATORY FLAT <br />La Verkin Springs Unit, Utah <br /> <br />Dike Length Height Elevation Volume <br />1 4,OO~ ft. 15.0 ft. 2,920 ft. 72 ,OOG yd~ <br />2 2,OO'J ft. 50.0 ft. 2,920 ft. 315,000 Yd~ <br />3 2,700 ft. 90.0 ft. 2,920 ft. 1,300,000 yd3 <br />4 2,90C' ft. 90.0 ft. 2,880 ft. 1,400,000 yd3 <br />5 2,500 ft. 90.0 ft. 2,8&0 ft. 1,200,000 yd <br /> <br />The facilities for these two total evaporation alternatives are identical <br />v:ith the efception of the material used to 11ne the evaporation ponds. <br /> <br />~lternative 4 - CPE Linil~. The evaporc:ion ponds ~Dul~ nave a <br />40-mil reinforceo, chlorinated-polyethylene lining as described for <br />Alternative 2 and shown in Figure 3. Approxlffiotely 5.120,0~C ydl of liner <br />wu~~d be needed. <br /> <br />Alternative 5 - Clay Lining. <br />lined with a 2-foot-thick clay lining3 <br />in FigurE 4. Approximately 4,200,000 <br /> <br />The evaporation ponos v:auld be <br />described in AltErnative 3 and shown <br />of clay would be needed. <br /> <br />C. TOTAL EVAPORATION ALTERNATIVES (WITH QUAIL CREE~ PROJECT UPPER <br />DIVERSION STRUCTURE) (Alternatives 6-7). <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />0026~7 <br />