Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />IHl28u I <br /> <br />Summary <br /> <br />AssumptIOns whICh greatly influence the cost estimates In this document are shaded In the <br />followmg lable. Four of Ihese assumptions. 1) eXisting ponds that are undetected. 2) <br />failure to Include landowner incenlive fees. 3) underestimation of mean depth. and 4} <br />remvallon of previously treated ponds could increase the cost esiimate above the worst <br />case scenario for the enllre matrix. However. It is highly.likely 3cc6ss wIT!anot be permitted <br />on all ponds in the study area. therefore any ponds nonfCJaimed may aOlus! the overall <br />.., ...., . <br />estimate downward depending on other pond..climens,on and malerlal cost reallhes <br />~ I' .. <br />Undetected ponds. to a small degree, hmder an fccUralEt prediction of wor,:.t and best <br />case scenario cost estimates. E~isting ponds W~' have 'let been added to the matm <br />Include those overlooked in the Mitchell report (1996 e~nlly-e~cavated grayel pits, and <br />all ponds in the study area from Rifle to Palisa Though th&.ilumber of undetected <br />ponds is unknown, it is clear that some additio~~,llonds were OYetlOQked In both Walter <br />W."" 00' Hoc,,";.' SWA" E.", ""''''l~Od ""\:'odto tho.m""'. w;" m",,,. <br />lhe oyerall cost eshmatefor the entire mat(i)l'~ '.. ~ ,.. <br /> <br />An Incentlyes plan to encourage landt:er P!ltc~lion in nOnnallye fish control efforts <br />has been drafted by LanglOIS u~t), Th.J~atnx Idenlifi-es 846 surface acres (SA) of <br />standing water, If alllandown~~~ree t~sta~hs ~ easement In perpetully at a cost <br />of $5001SA (LangloIs 1997) ~~an addJtigpal S4 0 (846 SA x $5001SA = $423,000) <br />Should be a,i,ded to thls~~?ememPe~as-un entlfled ponds are added to the matri~. <br />tloththe.<2~el'allcostol ,~ivefishrefJlOvl!l;l d access fees may result thus increasing <br />the WOflie case cena cost &.~te <br /> <br />MOSI Ilk~ean, epth ~.m~ underestimates volume In large grayel pits, <br />Reclamall~C,r s sig'liilleanllywlth increased yolume, For example, all matnx <br />calculat~_:vwere originalJsed'!n a mean depth of six feet (Mafllnez and Nesler 1996), <br />Atter review by the brologis~e mean depth of small ponds (0-1 SA) was decreased to <br />four hiet and the mean\!epulbf large ponds (::> 5 SA) was Increased to tan feel The result <br />"' '", <br />of this correction to t malrix was an overall increase 01 the worst casa scenario cost <br />, " <br />estimateof$SS1,83 <br /> <br />II':' is 'e'!-~.bl~ assume ponds wllhln the ten-year flood plain will relnvade with <br />nonnativehsb., due to flooding. alleasl once every ten years, and therefore would require <br />rePt-.aled ~reatment. Additional treatments were not included in the linal COSI esllmata In <br />thiS report Therefore, an addllional $697,661 (best case scenano) to 52,315,468 (worst <br />case scenario) would be necessary for one addlhonallreatmenl of all ponds wllhin the ten <br />year flood plaln_ <br /> <br /> <br />8 <br />