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 />" <br /> <br />001119 <br /> <br />(H) Lake Avery Dam, the only off-channel project studied, was evaluated <br />for different storage capacities than the mainstem sites. The <br />results are summarized on Table E6. <br /> <br />TABLE E6 <br /> <br />COST COMPARISON: LAKE AVERY <br /> <br />Dam Storage Capacity Total Cost <br />Location (Acre-Feet) (Million $) Cost/Acre-Foot <br />LAKE AVERY 60,000 45.5 $758 <br />LAKE AVERY 40,000 30.7 $768 <br />LAKE AVERY 20,000 15.7 $787 <br /> <br />(I) The topographi c characteri sti cs of the vall ey are uni que at each of <br />the mainstem damsites. The change in the valley cross section for <br />the vari ous dam hei ghts, strongly i nf1 uences the re1 ati ve cost of <br />each reservoir size considered. The valley shape is also a <br />prominent factor in the location and resulting cost of the spillways <br />for each of the dam heights considered. <br /> <br />These topographi c changes, over the range of dam hei ghts needed to <br />form the 50,000, 150,000 and 300,000 acre-foot reservoirs, have <br />resulted in the Warner Point Dam being the least expensive at the <br />lower sizes while the Powell Park Dam becomes the most economical at <br />the larger sizes. The relative order of the dam location and types <br />by cost are not the same for any of the three reservoir sizes. <br /> <br />The Warner Point, Canyon and Powell Park dams are within 20 percent <br />of each other for any given size. It is concluded, therefore, that <br /> <br />E-16 <br />