Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />t"- <br />"" <br />C\1 <br /> <br />Costs and benefits <br /> <br />The net difference in total project construction costs with the <br />modified plan would be an increase of about 5.9 million, assuming the <br />costs for recreation facilities anJ fishing access easements would be <br />the Same as intended in the Lake Avery plan. Annual costs would be <br />greater by about $137,000 inspite of the elimination of substantial <br />pumping costs for the Avery Pumping Plant. With gravity outflow from <br />Sawmill Mountain Reservoir in the modified plan, pumping would be <br />unnecessary. <br /> <br />A summary of estimated costs associated with the modified plan is <br />shown in the table on the following pages. <br /> <br />Construction costs at the Sawmill Mountain site are estimated at <br />$26,600,000 or $4.7 million more than the enlargement of Lake Avery. An <br />increase of about $7.1 million in the cost of building the North Fork <br />Feeder Conduit is also estimated. This increase would result from the <br />change to a pipeline-tunnel combination in place of the total pipeline <br />intended in the Lake Avery plan. The feeder conduit cost of $26,210,000 <br />shown on page 12 consists of $16,500,000 for the Bob Raley Tunnel and <br />$9,710,000 for the buried pipeline portion. <br /> <br />Cost increases for the reservoir are partly offset by a redesign of <br />the North Fork Diversion structure, which would result in a savings of <br />~770,000, and by elimination of the Avery Pumping Plant and the Oil Shale <br />Diversion Dam from the plan, which would save $4.3 million and $0.9 mil- <br />lion, respectively. <br /> <br />Since the same project purposes would be served, benefits are expected <br />to remain essentially unchanged under the Sawmill Mountain plan. Benefits <br />for fish and wildlife and recreation under the new plan have not been <br />determined and are therefore not included in the table on page 12. Costs <br />for these features are also excluded. Benefits for municipal and indus- <br />trial water would be lower as a result of recomputing the cost of a <br />single purpose alternative. The lower benefits would not be a result of <br />adopting the new reservoir site. <br /> <br />10 <br />