Laserfiche WebLink
· · · · · · · · <br /> <br /> ALTERNATIVE 2 - 225-FOOT GATED CREST AT ELEVATION 645 PLUS 300- <br /> FOOT ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE (RCC) SPILLWAY AT ELEVATION 650 <br /> PLUS 500-FOOT EMERGENCY SPILLWAY AT ELEVATION 655. (SEE FIGURE <br /> 2) <br /> <br /> An important consideration with either Alternative I or 2 is the flexi- <br /> bility provided by not having to install the crest gate until such time <br /> as water supply requirements mandate the higher normal pool level of <br /> elevation 650. In either case, however, the spillway would be fully <br /> designed to accommodate the crest gates either now or at some later date. <br /> This would include providing the block-outs in the weir crests for the <br /> gates and hydraulic operating cylinders. Conduits would be provided <br /> through the weir to the hydraulic control center so that hydraulic lines <br /> can be easily installed. <br /> <br /> III. RECO)4MENDATIONS <br /> <br /> Since Alternative 1 requires a considerable amount of waste of surplus <br /> excavation material not otherwise required for construction of the dam or <br /> roadway embankment, it is estimated to cost approximately $400,000 more <br /> than Alternative 2. The roller compacted section of Alternative 2 has <br /> been estimated to cost $50 per cubic.yard of RCC in place. This number <br /> should be conservative based on the quantities involved and the range of <br /> bid prices typically being received for similar projects. The actual bid <br /> price for RCC can, however, vary appreciably with familiarity and <br /> experience of the contractor and the competitive circumstances of the <br /> bidding. There will be additional design and coordination required <br /> during construction since t~is would be the first use of RCC on a <br /> <br /> -2- <br /> <br /> <br />