Laserfiche WebLink
<br />co <br />~') <br />C""') <br />C',J <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />PLAN FORMULATION <br /> <br />Yellow Jacket and Oak Ridge Conduits <br /> <br />The Yellow Jacket and Oak Ridge Conduits would be buried pipelines <br />about 15 and 9.1 miles long, respectively. The Yellow Jacket Conduit <br />would have an initial capacity of about 140 second-feet, and the initial <br />diameter would be 60 inches. The Oak Ridge Conduit would have an initial <br />diameter of 42 inches with a capacity of 95 second-feet. The size and <br />capacity of each conduit would decrease with successive turnouts. <br /> <br />Josephine Basin Canal <br /> <br />The Josephine Basi~ Canal would extend about 22.4 miles west from <br />the terminus of the Oak Ridge Conduit., It would have an initial capacity <br />of 60 second-feet. It would be siphoned under White River and Flag Creek <br />and continue through the Grand Hogback in a tunnel to Josephine Basin. <br /> <br />Oil Shale Diversion Dam <br /> <br />The Oil Shale Diversion Dam would be a reinforced concrete structure <br />including a conduit headworks, sluiceway, and an uncontrolled overflow <br />weir. It would have a headworks capacity of 41 second-feet. More details <br />on this structure are not available, pending feasibility design studies. <br /> <br />Economic aspects <br /> <br />The estimated construction cost of the project under this plan is <br />$87,150,000. The annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs <br />are estimated at $338,000. Pumping costs included in this figure are <br />based on an average annual use of 1,208,000 kilowatt-hours of electrical <br />energy and a capacity of 12,000 kilowatts. <br /> <br />Estimated annual benefits of $9,610,000 and annual equivalent costs <br />of $6,668,000 result in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.44 to 1. <br /> <br />Environmental considerations <br /> <br />Environmental effects of this alternative would result from ~onstruc- <br />tion and operation of project features and from project use of water. <br />Reservoir impoundment would inundate wildlife habitat. Enlargement of <br />Lake Avery would increase its surface area and change it from a constant- <br />level reservoir to a fluctuating one, thereby reducing its fish produc- <br />tivity. Fishery habitat would be enhanced on Milk Creek where the <br />present fishery is poor; as Thornburgh Reservoir would be capable of <br />good fish production. The effects of alteration of river flows in the <br />North Fork and mains tern of the White River have not yet been evaluated <br />although planned stream bypasses are based on the most recent recon ~nda- <br />tions made by the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect aquatic habitat. <br /> <br />48 <br />