WSP03981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

00 CD (\1 " ...., ,-;l (~ as indicated by OBERS, a decline in the cost (adverse effect) is assumed until the end of the program life (year 2078). This assumed decline is at the same rate as the without program cost (adverse effect decline). Looking at Appendix figure 2, the area (O,a,b,c,f) discounted to 1978 and amortized for 100 years equalled $203,700. This was accounted as the, total cost (adverse effect) of placing all center pivot corners into wildlife habitat. Appendix figure 3 superimposes the without program cost (adverse effect) situation on the alternative plan cost (adverse effect) situation. From this figure it is noted that up until year 2003 the net cost (adverse effect) of placing the center pivot comers ia less than the without situation. This comes about because of the land resource limiting ,effect without the early action projects. This' means that the corner withdrawal without the early action planned projects cauaes. a greater reduction in net returns (by the amount of $74,000) than would be the case with the projects. The long run projects following year 2000 bring in conSiderably more center pivot irrigation so that the effect is reversed from the year 2000 situation. That is, the difference in net returns from withdrawing the corners is greater with the projects than without the projects by the amount of $457,000. Looking at Appendix figure 2, area (Oabcf) was discounted to year 1978 and amortized to year 2078, giving am annnual adverse effect of $203,700. The difference between the without plan adverse effect ($179,700) and the alternate plan adverse effect ($203,700) was deducted from the irrigation benefits in the alterpate plan ($24,000). - 9 -