WSP09090 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Implementation Plan content, scale accuracy, or laboratory analysis errors. If the program on)y pays for salt as it is produced and weighed, there is no risk from pobr maintenance or management, ~ · Physical improvements, such as canal and lateral lining that are least c..o supject to "management" risk but are subject to hydrosalinity en mqnitoring and allocation errors. In the Grand Valley Unit, canal and la1terallining has proven to be very effective at eliminating seepage, Some uncertainty remains from the regional salt loading estimate and itslallocation, For example, in the Grand Valley Unit, the U,S, Geological Survey (USGS) estimated the regional salt pickup to be 'between 480,000 to 680,000 tons per year. Cost effectiveness sh~uld be based on the average regional salt pickup. In the case of tM Grand Valley Unit, this was 580,000 tons per year, equalizing the ups,ide and downside risk caused by the uncertainty of the regional salt pickup estimate, · Physical improvements, such as sprinkler systems or automated irrigation systems that are less prone to "management" risk. These types of improvements are subject to uncertainty in the actual m~agement of the system as well as the regional salt loading estimate and its allocation between sources, · Irrigation management, These types of improvements are highly seI1sitive to the degree of irrigation management and are much less reliable than automated improvements. These practices are easily abdndoned and require continued technical assistance to sustain in the; field, Irrigation management can be effective if its initial costs are low, and the technical assistance is provided through the project's life to l1ustain its benefits, Other Snvironmental Factors The Act lfequires the replacement of incidental fish and wildlife habitat values foregone by the program, The cost to the program of this mitigation is typicalJy included in the cost of the project and used in computing cost effectiveness, Any costs paid by the project sponsor or source other than the program \viII not be included in the project's costs nor included in the cost- effectiveness computation, Consideration for other environmental factors (nonsalinity) will be included in the ranking process. Typically, the cost of fish and wildlife mitigation required by the Act would be paid by the program and included in the cost- effectivedess computation. However, if the costs are borne by other entities or prograj:ns, such costs would be removed from the project's cost to the program, ,improving its cost effectiveness, Contributions for other purposes could be weated in a similar manner. For example, in the Ashley Valley 1 17 1 .< ~ ..u ~ ~~~_;-" i ,. oj -~:, )}' ~i~,.i