Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table S-l SUlTlllary of Alternath'es - Big Sandy River Unit Salinity Study, Wyoming <br /> <br />ITEM <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />3A <br /> <br />3B <br /> <br />8 <br />NED <br /> <br />9G!J <br /> <br />9PY <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />13 <br />ED <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />Annual Installation <br />Cost-$Million <br />Annual OM&R Cost - SMillion <br />AnnualCostWl1dlifeHabitat: <br />Mitigation 11 - $Million <br />Total Annual Cost-$Ml11ion <br /> <br />.042'Y <br />.058W <br /> <br />o <br />.lD <br /> <br />.08 <br />.04 <br /> <br />5.88 <br />.75 <br /> <br />2.71 <br />.71 <br /> <br />.14 <br /> <br />.99 <br />.62 <br /> <br />.14 <br />1.75 <br /> <br />.86 <br />.56 <br /> <br />.90 <br />.60 <br /> <br />2.20 <br />o <br /> <br />1.69 <br />o <br /> <br />.14 <br /> <br />1.42 <br /> <br />.58 <br /> <br />.83 <br />.32 <br /> <br />2.23 <br />.03 <br /> <br />2.S3 <br />.10 <br /> <br />1.42 <br />.76 <br /> <br />.04 <br />.16 <br /> <br />.14 <br /> <br />6.77 3.56 <br /> <br />.05 <br />1.47 <br /> <br />.09 <br /> <br />.14 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />.05 <br />1.47 <br /> <br />.05 <br />.63 1.15 <br /> <br />.14 <br /> <br />.16 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1.59 2.34 1.83 <br /> <br />2.40 2.79 2.18 <br /> <br />Annual Salinity Reduction <br />Benefitsy -$Million <br />Increased Agricultural <br />Benefits - $Million <br /> <br />ij <br /> <br />.10 <br /> <br />5.00 2.62 <br /> <br />2,62 <br /> <br />.27 <br /> <br />2.16 <br /> <br />2,42 7.51 7.51 <br /> <br />2.16 <br /> <br />1.01 3.36 <br /> <br />4.52 6.71 3.92 <br /> <br />.03 .03 .34 <br /> <br />Total Annual Benefits <br />$Million <br /> <br />4.55 6.74 4.26 <br /> <br />ij <br /> <br />.13 <br /> <br />.27 .27 <br /> <br />2.89 <br /> <br />.34 <br /> <br />.31 0 0 <br /> <br />.34 <br /> <br />o 0 <br /> <br />HetBenefits-$Milllon <br /> <br />- - ij <br /> <br />ij <br /> <br />.23 <br /> <br />5.27 2.89 <br /> <br />1.14 <br /> <br />2.50 <br /> <br />2.73 7.51 7.51 <br /> <br />2.50 <br /> <br />1.01 3.36 <br /> <br />2.15 3.95 2,08 <br /> <br />70.2 113.4 84.2 <br /> <br />Salt Load Reduction <br />(x 1,000 Tons) <br /> <br />(J) <br />.i>. <br /> <br />Salinity Reduction at <br />ImperialOam (mg/l) <br /> <br />Annual Cost Per Ton of <br />Salt Reduction ($) <br />Wetlands--Gain\ +} or loss( ~}; <br />(1,000 Ac,) A tered Only : <br /> <br />Mitigation--preserveand <br />enhance wet1ands(1,OOO Ac): <br /> <br />Increased Terrestrial <br />Habitat (adjacent to <br />wet1ands}--(l,OOO Ac.) <br /> <br />Streamflow Increase/Oecrease: <br />(1,000 AcFt) <br /> <br />-- ij <br /> <br />.07 <br /> <br />-1.50 -.67 <br /> <br />52.9 <br /> <br />33.00 <br />-2.77 : <br />T.1!f , <br /> <br />.86 <br /> <br />.43 <br /> <br />-.2 <br /> <br />42.5 <br /> <br />5.5 <br /> <br />34.40 <br />-.13 <br />= <br /> <br />.86 <br /> <br />.43 <br /> <br />-.2 <br /> <br />1.03 <br /> <br />1.14 5.17 5.68 <br /> <br />42.9 <br /> <br />34.40 <br />-.13 <br />= <br /> <br />+7.8 <br /> <br />1.03 <br /> <br />.38 2.21 <br /> <br />'.9 <br /> <br />'.7 <br /> <br />14.3 <br /> <br />8.2 <br /> <br />2.7 <br /> <br />96.3 52.9 <br /> <br />48.0 l24.9 124.9 <br /> <br />4.5 <br /> <br />5.1 <br /> <br />16,0 <br /> <br />16.0 <br /> <br />12.3 81.3 <br /> <br />4.5 <br /> <br />2.2 <br /> <br />14.20 <br /> <br />34.20 <br /> <br />24,50 <br /> <br />25.90 <br /> <br />ij <br /> <br />.2 10.5 5.5 <br /> <br />33.00 <br /> <br />18.80 <br /> <br />14.70 <br /> <br />46.90 <br /> <br />-.13: +a.02 -2.41: -2.77 <br />=, ..,,----, T.16, T.1!f <br /> <br />+4.01 <br />3.51i <br /> <br />.18 <br /> <br />,18 0 <br /> <br />.86 .86 0 <br /> <br />.43 .43 0 <br /> <br />+20.6 +21.6 -4.1 <br /> <br />- ij <br /> <br />59.30 70.20 67.20 <br />o : -2.77. -2.77 <br />J.b3 : --,-:or : I:oT <br /> <br />-1.20: -2.77: -2.77: <br />-=, T.1!f, T.1!f, <br /> <br />.18 <br /> <br />.36 .86 .86 <br /> <br />11 Good irrigation water management practices. <br />Y Poor irrigation water management practices. <br />:y Annual cost wildlife mitigation includes acquistion, installation, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />.18 <br /> <br />.86 <br /> <br />.09 <br /> <br />.18 .42 .42 <br /> <br />.09 <br /> <br />.Og 0 <br /> <br />4/ <br />C) ., <br />c....:. 'Y <br />r' <br />~~, y <br />...".ij <br />{.if <br /> <br />Annual salinity reduction benefits are based on $416,000 per mg/l change at Imperial Oam and $12,495 per 109(1 change at Green River, Wyoming. <br />See Page 4-7 for details. <br />Annual funds ellpended in the project area from ell1stfng Conservation Programs. These include $25,500 ($12,200 Agricultural Conservation <br />Program ASCS) ($13,300 landowners) for installation of conservation measures. Technical assistance pro't'ided by the SCS annually is $16,500. <br />Annual operation, maintenance, and replacenent cost of the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage 01strict. <br />Continued installation of conservation practices at the present level will maintain on-fann irrigation efficiencies at 35 percent. <br />Continuation of present level llH&R on the irrigation system will maintain the 82 percent conveyance efficiency. With conveyance, <br />and on-farm efficiencies remaining essentially the same in the future, no salinity reduction or agricultural benefits are shown in the <br />table. It is recognized that should the ongoing conservation program funding or OM&R be reduced, irrigat10n eff1ciencies ma.y reduce <br />a small amount which may result in a small increase of salt from the project area. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />.09 <br /> <br />.43 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />.7 <br /> <br />+4.2 <br /> <br />'.8 <br /> <br />+.6 +26.2 +26.2 <br /> <br />+.7 -13.4 <br /> <br />....-=,~,~....'"""" <br /> <br />~ ",' <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~- <br /> <br />,,,",,.- <br /> <br />, ,_ ._......-..,.,.",....,..._-.J <br />