WPC  2BR Zp#|gArial ItalicArialArial BoldHP LaserJet 4 PlusIIHPLA4PLU.PRS2xCQ\'sZX2n X|TOO 9ND,C2xjAG;X1mC9,  Xm2PG;XP/qC:,cXq2pPG;X"4^DDV6OOYAOAADDAwDADn6wD66w6RwDwwwuR?ROAnOOODOOOOOOuOAwCCCCCCCCwwwwwwA6AAA6AAgww6A6[6RRRwwwwTDDwuuu6RwDwwDu414WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNTT~PYVPTO33PPPPTTyuu3OuO"uu~uu"m+^99Ipp.DDNt9D99pppppppppp99tttp̅}9ep}}999\p.ppepp9pp..e.ppppDe9peeeeE5EtD9sZDDD9DDDDDDpD|9pppppȰepppp99999999pppppppppepp|pepppppeeee|pppppppppppp9.999.99Xeep.p:p.pDp.pxppppȼDDDeeee}L}9}9ppppppe}e}e}epp.pDe}9ee|pp8dp,(,WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHlpD|pppppLJpDHpD,,DDpDDxppxHxxHsdd,DdD"dxdldtxxd"m+^:D`pp8DDLt8D88ppppppppppDDttt|Đ|8p|||D8Dtp8p|p|pD||88p8||||LpD|pppdL8LtD8ttDDD8DDDDDDpD|8pppppȰppppp88888888|||||||||pp|||p||ppppppppppp||||||||88888888ppp|8|L|8|`|8|||||ȼLLLpppp|`|D|D||||||p|d|d|d||8|Lp|Dpp||:dp,0,WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHppD|pppppLHpDPpD88ddpDDxppxHxxHs||8ddD"dxxldtxxd2  P #Xp2PQ XP#e  yxdddy Jicarilla LaJara|'`v(#5Conceptual Design   IX. EVALUATION OF CONCEPT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES  XThe differences in the three alternatives are the type of upstream slope protection and the method utilized to pass the inflow design flood. Alternative 1 utilizes waste sandstone for upstream slope protection. Alternative 2 utilizes quarried riprap for upstream slope protection. Alternatives 1 and 2 involve raising the middle dike to elevation 7340.5 and improving the existing dam spillway to pass the inflow design flood. Alternative 3 utilizes roller compacted concrete (RCC) on the downstream slope of the main dam to protect it against overtopping to pass the inflow design flood. (#  R A.` ` Constructability(#` XX` ` The remedial alternatives proposed for Lajara are all within the construction capabilities of most contractors. The RCC constructin utilized to protect the embankment from overtopping is somewhat specialized, but can be accomplished by an experienced earthwork contractor. Usually the most significant problem is maintaining continuity between placements to avoid cold joints between lifts. The relatively short length of the Lajara  R embankment should minimize the problem.3(#` (,))Ԍ R ԙB.` `  Cost of Construction(#` V!Table of Costs  Y ddx !ddxU:> Y  z  x &Alternative )*# 1 1Alternative U5# 2 dB <Alternative B @# 3z  r Improvements v ($);  ;  ;  q   Raise Middle Dike to 7340.5 '1,006,008 %21,006,008 B @q q ;   RCC on Dam for Overtopping f* 5 B =1,084,800q C    vRaise Diversion Dike and P Add Fuse Gate Spillway to Diversion  vDike Emergency Spillway` >(147,960` z3147,960` B >147,960C q   r Add Rock Fill and Drain to Toe >2106,920 z?106,920 B N q Z ` B Waste Sandstone for Upstream  Slope+ >2210,000+ A+ B OZ q   l Quarried Riprap for Upstream Slope f4 z?295,200 B Oq q +   All Weather Surface on Crest  33,120   @3,120  FB N3,120q q   Repair Structures under S.H. 537~ v219,200~ ?19,200~ B M19,200q q     Replace Outlet Works >2228,000 z?228,000 B M228,000q   ~  Total Cost ($) 11,721,208 %>1,806,408 B L1,483,080   $