WPC  2BR Zp#|Arial 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 #Xm2P XP#e  yxdddy Jicarilla LaJara|'`v(#5Conceptual Design   X. CONCLUSIONS  XThree alternatives are identified as feasible in this report. The alternatives differ in their approach to: (1) the type of upstream slope protection and (2) the method utilized to pass the inflow design flood. (# XThe remedial measures studied consist of relatively common construction practices, constructable by most contractors. The construction of stepped RCC overtopping protection is somewhat specialized, but should be within the capability of experienced earth fill contractors. The estimated cost for the three alternatives are very similar. However, alternatives 1 and 2 involve raising the middle dike for detention storage which would result in flooding of more upstream pasture land than what previously flooded. As costs are similar, and protecting the embankment with RCC to allow overtopping would allow protection even beyond the IDF, the recommended remediation is Alternative 3, shown on drawing LX222. (#