Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t,-" <br />. ~. r', <br /> <br />C-J <br />l.J? <br />...~ <br />C'J <br /> <br />-' <br />V.< X;r <br /> <br />Units 1, 2, and 3 (original studies) (Continued) <br /> <br />HATER SUPPLY: <br /> <br />Increased water supply for }~I annually, Unit 3 .... <br />Increased water supply for M&I annually, Units 1 & 2 <br />Total increased water sup~ly for M&I annually... <br /> <br />Other water data (See sunnnary sheets for Units 1 & 2 <br /> <br />Annual stream depletion ............................ <br />Minimum fish bypass at diversion Oct. - Mar. ....... <br />Minimum fish bypass at diversion Apr. - Sept. ...... <br /> <br />BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS: (lOO-year period at 3 percent) <br /> <br />Average <br />annual benefits <br />Primary (direct) $2,821,900 <br />Secondary 1,443,000 <br />Total $4,264,900 <br /> <br />50,400 A.F. <br />30.000 A.F. <br />80,400 A.F. <br /> <br />117,900 A. FlI <br />30 CFSf, <br />70 CF&=' <br /> <br />Average annual <br />equivalent costs <br />investment $1,975,900 <br />173,700 <br />GaSP costs 235.800 <br />$2,385,400 <br /> <br />Proj ect <br />OM&R <br />Share of <br />Total <br /> <br />BENEFIT-COST RATIOS: <br /> <br />Direct <br />Total <br /> <br />1.18:1 (+$436,500 net benefits) <br />1.79:1 (+$1,879,500 net benefits) <br /> <br />lIThese minimum fish bypasses would occur only two or three times <br />each year. The remainder of the year the flows would be greater than <br />these minimums. <br />