Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:.?;~~ <br /> <br />SUMMARY (Continued) <br /> <br />Unit <br />Miles <br />Miles <br /> <br />Unit alternatives <br />Ex~st~ng No-act~on <br />condition alternative <br />o 0 <br /> <br />43.9 <br />11.6 <br /> <br />Comparison of Uints Basin <br /> <br />Category <br />Length of canal lining <br />Length of lateral lining <br />Right-of-way needed <br />Private land <br />Ute Indian tribal land <br />Forest Service lands <br />Total <br />Wildlife habitat gains or <br />losses along canal~/ <br />Wet land <br />Riparian shrub-tree <br />Desert shrub <br />Irrigated lands <br />Wildlife habitat--effect of <br />wildlife mitigation plan <br />Wet land <br />Riparian shrub-tree <br />Desert shrub <br />Irrigated lands <br />Total <br />Conveyance system seepage <br />Canal and lateral seepage <br />Seepage reduction <br />Salt loading~./ <br />Total average salt lda~/ <br />Salt load reductio~/ <br />Mean annual range in salinity <br />reduction at Imperial Dam <br />Maximum annual range in salinity <br />reduction at Imperial Da~/ <br />Peak employment increase <br />Project costs <br />Capit!!l cost,Y <br />Annual cost <br />Annual equivalenLLI <br />Operation. maintenance, and <br />replacement increase <br />Total annual cost <br />Average cost effectiveness $/ton <br />1/ Does not include impacts of wildlife mitigation. <br />21 NA indicates not applicable. <br />31 Salt loading from 17 irrigation subaress included in the study. <br />il Adjusted to account for the increase resulting from wildlife mitigation. <br />5/ Maximum annual range of salinity impact at Imperial Dam 8S predicted by the Colorado River <br />Simulation System (eRSS) computer model developed by the Bureau of Reclamation. The range of maxi- <br />mum annual reductions is greater than the range of mean annual reductions due to the wide range of <br />hydrologic and development conditions evaluated. The maximum annual range represents the widest <br />variation in salinity reduction possible by the unit in any 1 year of operation. The average im- <br />pact would fall approximately midway between these extremes. <br />6/ January 1985 price level. Does not include cost of investigation prior to authorization. <br />II. Computed using the fiscal year 1986 planning interest rate and a project life of 50 years. <br /> <br />Recommended <br />plan <br /> <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Ac res <br /> <br />15B <br />39 <br />17 <br />214 <br /> <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Acres <br /> <br />-353 <br />-256 <br />+384 <br />+200 <br /> <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Acres <br />Acres <br /> <br />o <br />61 <br />566 <br />o <br />627 <br /> <br />o <br />61 <br />566 <br />o <br />627 <br /> <br />250 <br />3B <br />39 <br />300 <br />627 <br /> <br />Ac. re-feet <br />Ac re-feet <br /> <br />18.400 <br />NAZi <br /> <br />18.400 <br />o <br /> <br />1,600 <br />16,800 <br /> <br />Tons <br />Tons <br /> <br />174,600 <br />NA <br /> <br />174,600 <br />o <br /> <br />149,100 <br />21,000-30,000 <br /> <br />mg/L <br /> <br />1.9-2.7 <br /> <br />mg/L <br />Jobs <br /> <br />.9-3.9 <br />70 <br /> <br />$23,752,000 <br /> <br />2.081,800 <br /> <br />NA <br /> <br />165,100 <br />2,246,900 <br />BB <br /> <br />UuC4 <br /> <br />,,\ <br />.:. <br /> <br />S-7 <br />