|
<br /> Candidate planal!
<br /> (J anuary 1981 prices)
<br />Unit A-I A-2 8 C
<br />acres 86,000 32.400 32.400 10.000..:!:.
<br />miles 514 254 235 98
<br />miles 32 0 19 0
<br /> 6.880 3,040 3.040 7,600
<br />acres 4,614 2.121 2,121 829
<br /> 15 15 15
<br />$1,000 289,300 133,050 134,100 91,050
<br />$1,000 13 .000 4.750 4,750 2.800
<br />$1,000 302,300 137,800 138 ,850 93,850
<br />$1,000 3,915 1,785 1,800 1,215
<br />$1,000 -2,460 -2 ,460 -2,460 -2,460
<br />$1,000 1 ,455 -675 -660 -1,245
<br />$1,000 303,755 137,127 138,190 92,605
<br />$1.000 23,059 10,410 10,490 7,030
<br />$1.000 23,059 10,410 10 ,490 7,030
<br />
<br />Features
<br />Project lands affected
<br />Length of lining proposed
<br />Length of piping proposed
<br />Number of structures affected
<br />Wildlife measures
<br />Wetland habitat acquired
<br />Deer escape ramps
<br />
<br />Costs
<br />Construction cost!!
<br />Mitigation cost
<br />Subtotal
<br />Interest during construction
<br />Cost of investigations prior to
<br />authorization
<br />Subtotal
<br />
<br />~
<br />00
<br />
<br />Total investment
<br />Annual equivalent cost (7 3!8 percent
<br />over 50 years)
<br />Total annual cost
<br />Cost-effectiveness summary
<br />Estimated salt reduction annually
<br />Reduction ~ffect at Imperial Dam
<br />Cost effectiveness
<br />
<br />115,970
<br />12,4
<br />
<br />l/567
<br />
<br />188.120
<br />20
<br />
<br />140,470
<br />15,2
<br />
<br />140,470
<br />15.2
<br />
<br />685
<br />
<br />690
<br />
<br />0)
<br />
<br />.
<br />,
<br />
<br />D E
<br />86,000 32.400
<br />514 235
<br />32 19
<br />7,600 3.040
<br />4,614 2,121
<br />302,650 135,250
<br />13,000 4,750
<br />315,650 140,000
<br />4,090 1,815
<br />-2,460 -2,460
<br />1,630 -645
<br />317,280 13~,355
<br />24,086 10,579
<br />24,086 10,579
<br />171,230 132,660
<br />18,8 14.4
<br />1,281 735
<br />
<br />tons
<br />mg!L
<br />$1,000/
<br />mg!L 1,153
<br />1/ Winter water delivery would be eliminated in lined canals.
<br />Descriptions of the plans are as follows:
<br />plan A-I involves the concrete lining of all Uncompahgre Project canals and laterals.
<br />Plan A-2 involves the concrete lining of all canals and laterals on the east side of the valley.
<br />Plan B recommends concrete lining adobe area canals and laterals on the east side of the valley and includes installation of about 19 miles of pipe.
<br />Plan C involves concrete lining deteriorated canals and laterals in the study area.
<br />Plan D proposes earth lining and piping of all Uncompahgre Project canals and laterals.
<br />Plan E recommends earth lining Uncompahgre canals and laterals on the east side of the valley and includes 19 miles of pipe.
<br />CPlhn F (Future without)--No salinity funds would he expended and no construction would occur. This alternative assumes that due to operation, maintenance,
<br />~ replacements and rehabilitBtion and betterment programs and irrigation management, some salinity reduction would occur.
<br />~ l! Winter water replacement costs are included in construction costs for all the candidate plans.
<br />~ ~! Although this alternativE: is more cost effective than plan A-2. an attempt was mad~ to maximize salt removal in a manner considered to be cost
<br />c.5fective when compared to other opportunities in accordance with the objectives of P.L. 93-320.
<br />
<br />F
<br />(future
<br />without)
<br />
<br />15,000
<br />1.6
<br />
|