Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rr"F'.'- '0- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />0,8- <br /> <br />DAMES B MOORE <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Significant economies can be achieved by eliminating the service <br /> <br /> <br />spillway. For an IDF that is 75 percent of, the USBR IDF, the additional <br /> <br /> <br />investment cost to add a service spillway is $19 million. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Conclusions on Risk of Damage to Auxiliary Spillway <br /> <br /> <br />These facts lead us to the primary conclusion that a service <br /> <br /> <br />spillway is not justified; in effect, the combination of the large flood <br /> <br /> <br />control space and the large river outlet capacity take the place of a <br /> <br /> <br />service spillway. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />T:,e Narrows Proj ect should be designed on the basis of a cal- <br /> <br /> <br />culated risk of damage to the auxiliary spillway, with protection against <br /> <br /> <br />damage at approximately the same level as provided by the USBR in its <br /> <br /> <br />feasibility drawing no, 553~D-22. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In the event the District is held liable for a share of the cost <br />of:repairs to the auxiliary spillway in -the remote chance that significant <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />damage occurs duri.ng the repa)~nent period, the District should take <br /> <br /> <br />appropriate steps to protect its cash flow position. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It has been a pleasu~e serving you on this very interesting <br /> <br /> <br />, assignment. We will be pleased to ans<<er any questions you' may have <br /> <br /> <br />regarding our report. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />DA~lES & HOORE <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />..-, , <br />~v';;' V,j/:J.../ <br /> <br />Eric Will <br />Associate <br /> <br />EH:lb <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ene. Report <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />