Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />with a dike at a location near Cross-Section 4 at the maximum <br />elevation of the super-elevated portion of U.s. Highway 6. <br />Table 2 summarizes hydraulic design features of Alternative 2. <br />3. Alternative 3 is essentially the same as Alternative 2, except <br />that the flow capacities of the North Fork Channel .and bridge on <br />County Road 21 would be scaled back. The flowline profile would <br />be improved as shown in Fi9ure 5. However, the North Fork Channel <br />between the B.N.R.R, bridge and County Road 21 would be excavated <br />to a bottom width of 50 feet rather that 100 feet for Alternative <br />2 (Figure 3). Soil excavated from the North Fork Channel would be <br />used for approaches to the new County Road 21 bridge and for raisin9 <br />the elevation of the east-west county road between County Roads <br />21 and 23. All other features would be the same as discussed in <br />Alternative 2. Table 3 summarizes the hydraulic design features <br />of Alternative 3. <br />Figures 7 and 8 show approximate flood areas for Alternatives 1 and 2 <br />respectively. Approximate flooded areas for Alternative 3 would also be as <br />shown in Figure 8. <br />Flood profiles for each alternative are shown in Figures III-C and III-D, <br />APPENDIX III. <br /> <br />PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES <br /> <br />Estimated costs for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are summarized in Tables 4, <br />5, and 6, respectively. Theses costs are adequate for planning puposes only. <br />Additional site specific engineering data will be necessary before more <br />detailed and accurate project costs can be determined. Not included in the <br />estimates are land acquisition costs for the proposed improvements. <br />