Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />2891 <br /> <br />.,.8- <br /> <br />DAMES 8- MOORE <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' theUSBR IDF, the additional <br /> <br /> <br />investment cost to add a service spillway is $19 million. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />, Conclusions on Risk of Damage .to Auxiliary' Spillw"Y <br /> <br /> <br />These facts lead us to the primary conclusion that p 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 />The Narrows Project 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,prS'vided 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 />oLrepairs to the auxiliary spillway in the H,motechanee that significant, <br />damage occurs during the' repayment period, the District should take <br />appropriate steps to protect its cash flow position. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It has been a pleasure serving you on this very interesting <br /> <br /> <br />"assignment. We will be pleased to answer 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 />DAMES' 5< MOORE <br /> <br />~ [,U/:RJ <br /> <br />Erie Will <br />Associate <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />EW:lb <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ene, Report <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />;,j <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />.- -~ _.~,-'".; <br />