Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1\ ,I'> ':' 1i"7 <br />;\) 'j ~",......' "I <br /> <br />2.6.4 Applications' Proposed Mitigation Measures <br /> <br />~ <br />, <br />, <br />I <br /> <br />2,6.4,1 The excavated portion of the streambed would be restored to <br />Its approximate original level. <br /> <br />2,6.4.2 Excavated material would be disposed of away from the <br />construction site. <br /> <br />2.6,4.3 Control and diversion of the stream would be accomplished <br />according to State and Federal water quality regulations. <br /> <br />2.6.4.4 Water pumped from the excavations during construction would <br />be piped to a holding pond from which there would be no surface <br />outflcw, <br /> <br />2,6,4.5 Disturbed areas would be revegetated after construction. <br /> <br />2,6.5 Comparative Cost <br /> <br />2,6.5.1 Estimated construction cost In 1980 dollars for Alternative E <br />Is $244,250. A breakdcwn of the cost Is contained In Appendix A. The <br />cost per acre-foot delivered to the filtration plant for this <br />alternative would be dependent on financing options and actual <br />delivery amounts. Assuming the total cost to be amortized at 12% <br />Interest over 30 years and the annual yield to be 7240 AF C8.9x206m3), <br />the construction-cost portion of the average annual cost would be <br />approximately $4 per acre-foot, Costs of maintaining the system and <br />providing for a greater filter-plant capacity must be added when <br />examining the total cost to Rangely. With these assumptions, 5505 AF <br />C6,8x106m3) of water would be available annually above the needs of <br />the tcwn of Rangely for other water sales. The cost cannot be <br />compared directly with other alternatives because the point of <br />delivery of the Infiltration gallery is fixed, whereas a reservoir <br />with storage could exchange water any where within the river basin. <br /> <br />31 <br />