Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />< <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Table 1.--Narrows Unit benefit-cost analys is <br />Item ( $I ,000) W,thout flood control <br /> As author, zed <br />Proj ect costs $ 300,174 $ 262,674 <br />less preauthorization investigations 1,716 - 1,716 <br />less highway improvement (includes <br />IDe) - 9,817 - 9,817 <br />Interest during construction 35,741 31,106 <br />Net proj ect investment $ 324,382 $ 282,247 <br />Annual costs <br />Equivalent of investment $ 10 ,991 $ 9,564 <br />Annual OM&R 1,403 1,403 <br />Tot a 1 annua 1 costs $ 12,394 $ 10,967 <br />Annual benefits <br />Irri9ation $ 6,732 $ 6,732 <br />direct 15,134) (5,134) <br />indirect and publ ic 1,562) (1,562) <br />OM&R savings (36) (36) <br />Flood control 836 <br />Fish and wildlife enhancement 916 916 <br />Recreation 2,144 2,144 <br />Municipal and industrial water 5,000 5,000 <br />Tot a 1 annual benefits $ 15,628 $ 14,792 <br />Benefit-cost ratios <br />Total benefits 1.26 1.35 <br />Direct benefits only 1.13 1.21 <br /> - <br /> <br />Power <br /> <br />An incremental benefit-cost analysis. was made to determine if addition <br />of a powerplant to the Narrows Unit would be economically justified as a <br />Federa 1 project. The anal ys is shows th at power wou 1 d not be econom- <br />ically justified as a Federal development. No invest igat ions were made <br />to determine if non-Federal power development would be viable. <br /> <br />The benefit analysis valued firm energy, which would be generated in <br />June, July, and August, at 54 mills/kWh and nonfirm energy generated <br />the remainder of the year at 29 mills/kWh. In addition, a $5/k~Umonth <br />benefit for dependable capacity was claimed for June, July, and August, <br />A 7.375 percent plan formulation rate and a laO-year period of analysis <br />are reflected in table 2, <br /> <br />7 <br />