WSP03981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,~ CD '~'-.l .--1 ::) plan. Although the discount and amortization period started in 1978. <::; cost and returns were based on 1974 as was agreed upon by the Field Advisory Committee and staff for the Rio Grande Type IV study. Since the analysis was primarily for the Type IV account displays no attempt was made to update to 1977 or 1978. In order to. make the evaluation, twelve linear programming projection runs were made (six for year 2000 and six for the year 2020). The first four runs were made to obtain the adverse monetary effect of the trans- ference of center pivot corners to wildlife cover in the absence of a plan. This was done through the land requirements. Ruo. /11 for year 2000 assumed 1.2 acres of land required to obtain 1.0 acre of. crop, the .2 representing the corner area transferred to wildlife habitat. For comparison, run #2 was made assuming that the corners would be cropped. The difference in net returns from the two ruo.s was meant. to represent the adverse effect without plan (output loss due to land conversion). Runs 113 and 114 repeated the same process for year 2020. Runs 5, 6, 7, and 8 repeated the process for the EQ plan. The EQ plan called for the transference of the center pivot corners to wildlife habitat plus. incorporating two sediment and water quality control projects. Runs 6 and 8 used 1.0 acres of land per acre cropped . (run #6 for 2000 and run U8 for 2020) and were ruo. only to get the net return comparisons for the adverse effect evaluation of the EQ plan. Runs 89 and Ull represented the alternative plan for 2000 and 2020 respectively. These rUns used 1.2 acres of land per acre of center pivot cropped and assumed that the center pivot corners would not be - 2 -