Laserfiche WebLink
<br />A risk analysis was completed assessin~ the likelihood of a drought <br /> <br />condition that would result in a reservoir drawdown below elevation 1335 <br /> <br /> <br />(during irrigation season) using presertt operation criteria. This analysis <br /> <br /> <br />shows that there is less than a 1 perCent :chance of such a drought <br /> <br /> <br />(4th year of severe drought) occurring. Should the pumping plant be <br /> <br />designed for elevation 1320, it would increase project costs by about <br /> <br /> <br />2.5 percent. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />channel for the pumping plant intake at the new site is not required and <br />the increased costs are minimal (see Table 4). <br /> <br />The new pumping site is located in the SEV4 sec. 30, T. 96 N., R. 65 W. <br />This location is about 1 mile north of the :old site as shown on <br />Drawing 922-600-203. The new pumping plant site will eliminate 8,500 feet <br />of the main canal and will require about 0.:6 addit iona1 mile of <br />transmission line and an additional 1,500 feet of 120-inch discharge line. <br />The total dynamic head of the plant would be reduced from 206 to 193 feet. <br />The new site will require longer intake fa~i1ities (600 feet) as compared <br />to the old site (240 feet) at a minimum de~ign water surface elevation of <br />1335. The reason for this is the natu~a1 810pe of the ground surface is <br />not as steep at the new site as at the old site; <br /> <br />Due to the hiah degree of risk for the old; site in terms of incteased <br /> <br /> <br />relocation anq right-of-way costs and ~ert~in litigation procee~ings which <br /> <br />could delay c~nstruction, the new site is considered to be the most <br /> <br /> <br />reasonable from an NED perspective. <br /> <br />Alternative BenefitiEva1uation <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Cu'stom benefits (alternative procedurEls) ~ssociated with livestock <br />enterprises were used in the formulation of alternative plans, including <br />the Preferred Plan. However, during the review of the requElst to use <br />custom procedures, it was determined that: benefits for livestock in excess <br />of those specifically allowed by the wac':s Principles and Guidelines could <br />not be supported by available informatio~ and could not be included in the <br />, <br />economic justification. The custom 1ives;tock benefits were eliminated from <br />the benefit analysis and the Preferred Plan was reevaluated. The Preferred <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br />'. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />