Laserfiche WebLink
Table 4- Milton Spiliway Alternative 2 Cost Opinion <br />~~~E~i3 ~lilt Qlfilltl't}t lJSlBt ~US~ ~tif]tQ~'d) <br />iL' ~0 ~Crl'ry~it~~ ' ~u~iC ~'a`u a~i~t:', ~3 L~ iJl'. ;a 5554,~~L''~ S.}~J <br />D=i~~lit~an _.~-n~~ S~n• i S 12,~C~ ~J~' S ~Z,L~~v.e7'.~ <br />jtP:~~Sl4`~ ~L7`P`=.arr i ;,:~~.J.~ C S 3.c.~~~v.~3~ <br />~~1Cr2`.'- ~l~~1.~4'a~ ~.0.i~16 4`3r~ Ili S S~l C~l:. ~ 54'3 t7~ <br />Fainf;,rc?d `cntr~'~ ~:ubic ~a~~ l.42 5 4C'"~.s~C S 1~7 =C^.4~ <br />ornut~~1 Ripra~ ~Ub~r '«-;; 1t?5 $ ~5 %i. °,. ~6.1~: i;3 <br />RJ~'.°, ~•p~F sc-aa~Q'f~rds _3C~ 5 ' ~C S ~,1~1~~+3'~ <br />t^:a~ar.°sg _~~-~~:~S-.iEr t S 1C,_~C3:>~C r ~~.~C~rC~ <br />~=e1 ~~ ai7d F;e~iar~a;:cn ~cre r 9 ~ _~r,'~.~~G $ ~3.CCG i,~ <br />Constructicen 5uk~total ~ 831,~25.00 <br />MoF=lizat~c°~ t3'~o cf ccns-ruc:'~cr~ rui~~-,t~li _~,:r~~ S.i~ L 5 2~,~~~..75 ~ ~~,:'4~ 7` <br />",-~t ~gPrcy 1_D~~c+f cas~s:r~c'ic~~ s~btota!; .VmF~S~~m t : 33.15:.5i7 ~ d3,15~.5~ <br />~S'l3terials T~sting C~'S ~i ~~.~str~ ~t ~~n s~t.c~'311 a- np Sam 't S 15.63J,`r '~ :b.~;~ 5~ <br />~~:~"!St'U~'CI1 ~~Il~ (~gc ~:~ Cu5'15:`U:`.3'f ~V~'stOt3~} _L.'T'1~'t ~3.tll' ~ .~.~.$'?1 5L < .".3~fiQj 5~l <br />Prt~j~tY Tt~ta; $ 1,Odfi~145.25 <br />A/ternative No. 3- En/arge the Spi//way with a Concrete Contro/ Structure <br />and Concrete Channe/s Upstream and Downstream from the Spi//way <br />Crest <br />The third alternative explored was to modify the existing spillway by expanding it. Similar to alternative <br />#2, the current spillway crest, which is 350 feet wide, would be widened to 587.5 feet. The crest <br />elevation of the existing and widened section would be set at elevation 4,802.95, which is 1.5 feet below <br />the existing spillway elevation. Areas upstream and downstream of the spillway crest would be graded to <br />provide an efficient flow path from the reservoir through the spillway crest and on downstream of the <br />dam. For this alternative the 400 feet channel of channel downstream of the spillway crest would be <br />armored with a concrete lining. This armoring would prevent erosion in the approach channel to the <br />spillway or the channel downstream from the spillway crest section. Were the event to occur, no spillway <br />maintenance is expected to be required. <br />This alternative would meet FRICO's objective of improving the spillway to safely pass the design storm <br />event as dictated by the SEO. Complying with the SEO's spillway requirement will allow FRICO to <br />continue to operate Milton Dam to its full decreed amount without the concern of dam overtopping. <br />Our opinion for the probable cost for Alternative No. 2 project is $3,869,296.00 as shown below on Table <br />5. <br />21 <br />