|
<br />TABLE 2
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />.COMPARISON OF FORMULATION ALrERNATIVES
<br />LAKE ANDES-WAGNER UNI'f
<br />
<br />Net Benefitsll
<br />Benefit-Cost Ratio
<br />
<br />Alternat ive Alternative Preferred
<br /> I 2 Plan
<br /> 27,470 27,470 27,470
<br />$83,310,000 $ 95,620,000 $87,210,000
<br /> 13,9~O,486 15,110,994 14,523,919
<br /> J2,142 13,123 12,657
<br />$ 559,000 $ 571 ,000 $ 569,000
<br /> , 20.35 20.80 20.70
<br />$ 7,967,000 $ 7,967,000 $ 7,967,000
<br /> 201,000 231,000 214,000
<br />m8,000 $ 8,198,000 $ 8,181,000
<br />$ 6,2~8,000 $ 7,403,000 $ 6,624,000
<br /> 5p9,000 571 ,000 569,000
<br /> 139,000 159,000 148,000
<br />$ 6,9~6,000 $ 8,133,000 $ 7,341,000
<br />$+1,232,000 $ +65,000 $ +840,000
<br /> 1.2 1.0 1.1
<br />Future Alternative Alternative Preferred
<br />Without I 2 Plan
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-Number of Acres to be Served
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-Total Construction Cost~1
<br />
<br />-Energy Requiremen~1
<br />Average Annual (kWh)
<br />Peak (kW)
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-Annual OM&R Costs
<br />Annual Cost Per Acre
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-Benefit-Cost Analysis
<br />Annual Benefits
<br />Irrigation~./
<br />Unemployed Reaources
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Annual Economic Costs
<br />Investment
<br />OM&R
<br />External Costs
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-Four Account Analysis
<br />NED Account
<br />Net Benefits
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />i $+1,232,000
<br />
<br />$+65,000
<br />
<br />$+840,000
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />RD Account
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />Beneficial and adverse effects are
<br />similar for all plans.
<br />
<br />EQ Account
<br />Major concern is loss
<br />of habitat:
<br />multirow shelterbelta
<br />wetlands
<br />grasslands
<br />
<br />_ _ _ !!u~b!..r_o!. .!c!..e!. i.ml2.a~t~d_ __
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />2,300 acres
<br />1,350 acres
<br />4,900 acres
<br />
<br />300
<br />450
<br />1 ,8002.1
<br />
<br />300
<br />950!:/
<br />1,400
<br />
<br />300
<br />450
<br />1,400
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />! Beneficial and adverse effects for
<br />: other environmental factors are
<br />: similar for all plans.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Social Account
<br />Major concern is the
<br />number of miles of
<br />nonproject lands
<br />crossed by the main.
<br />canal
<br />
<br />Number of miles of non-project lands
<br />, _ _ _ _ _c!..o!,.s!..d_b1. ~~a.!. _ _ _ __
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />16
<br />
<br />6
<br />
<br />10
<br />
<br />i Beneficial and adverse effects on
<br />: other social factors are similar
<br />: for all plans.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />II
<br />21
<br />J/
<br />
<br />January 1982 price levels and 8-1/8 percent interest.
<br />Energy requirements fo~ project pumping only.
<br />The irrigation benefits are based on alternative benefit evaluation pro-
<br />cedures allowed by the P&G bec,ause they provide a'Ptore accurate metlliure
<br />of NED benefits.
<br />Plan 2 would impact 500 more acres of wetlands because the canal route
<br />would cross the Red Lake Game Production Area. !
<br />The canal route for Plan 1 would impact 400 more apres of grasslands
<br />outside of the irrigated area.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />y
<br />1/
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />22
<br />
<br />I
<br />
|