|
<br />\.i)
<br />o
<br />('\J
<br />C)
<br />C)
<br />
<br />CHAPTER IV
<br />
<br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
<br />
<br />Verification Memorandum Table 2
<br />Incremental cost effectiveness analysis
<br />Stage Two plan of study
<br />(as presented in the FEIS)'
<br />
<br />Costs
<br />Annual Total
<br />OM&R annual Tons
<br />($1 ,00013 ($1.000) removed
<br />7 468 19,500
<br />1 47 1,600
<br />9 578 13,000
<br />3 186 3,400
<br />-11 1,098 20,000
<br />-3 355 6,400
<br />55 496 8,500
<br />6 392 4,800
<br />247 2,191 23,300
<br />-20 1,948 19,800
<br />9 571 4,700
<br />3 138 900
<br />2 158 1,000
<br />8 550 3,400
<br />400 3,543 13,200
<br />716 12,719 143,500
<br />5/8 percent for a 50-year time period.
<br />Management Services, moss and debris removal
<br />
<br />Total
<br />investment
<br />lateral and canal increments ($1.000)~
<br />Price Ditch laterals 7,664
<br />5tubb Ditch laterals 765
<br />East End Grand Valley Mainline Canal laterals4 9,460
<br />Kiefer Extension laterals 3,043
<br />West End Government Highline Canal laterals 18,438
<br />East End Government Highline Canal laterals 5,952
<br />West End Government Highline Canal 7,332
<br />Grand Valley Highline laterals 6,418
<br />East End Government Highline Canal 32,320
<br />Middle Government Highline Canal laterals 32,720
<br />West End Grand Valley Mainline laterals 9,344
<br />Independent Ranchmens Ditch laterals 2,245
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No.2 laterals 2,594
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal NO.1 laterals 9,011
<br />Middle Government Highline Canal 52.255
<br />Total 199,561
<br />I Based on January 1984 appraisal-level data at 5
<br />~ Includes prorated share of wildlife, Irrigation
<br />structures, and interest during construction.
<br />3 Represents increase or savings in operation, maintenance, and replacement
<br />compared with the present system.
<br />4 Includes the Mesa County Ditch laterals.
<br />
<br />FE15 Table 13
<br />Canal increments not i ncl uded under
<br />alternatives A and B (Grand Valley Unit)\
<br />
<br />Cost effectiveness
<br />Incre- Incre-
<br />
<br />ment
<br />($/ton)
<br />24
<br />29
<br />44
<br />55
<br />55
<br />55
<br />58
<br />82
<br />94
<br />98
<br />121
<br />153
<br />158
<br />162
<br />268
<br />
<br />expenses as
<br />
<br />ment
<br />($/ton)
<br />24
<br />24
<br />32
<br />34
<br />41
<br />43
<br />45
<br />47
<br />58
<br />64
<br />67
<br />67
<br />68
<br />70
<br />89
<br />
<br /> Sal initv reduction Cost
<br /> Imperi a 1 effect i veness
<br /> Length Rounded Dam by increment
<br />Canal (mi les) (tons/vear) (mo/Ll ($/ton)
<br />East End Grand Valley Mainline Canal 12,5 23,500 2,1 111
<br />5tubb Di tch 10,2 2,800 0,3 135
<br />Pri ce Ditch 9,1 5,800 0,5 140
<br />Kiefer Extension 15,4 4,900 0,4 256
<br />Grand Valley Highline 23,S 11,100 1.0 311
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No, 1 16,3 2,900 0,3 380
<br />West End Grand Valley Mainline Canal 14,0 2,600 0,2 507
<br />Independent Ranchmens Ditch 11.8 800 0,1 1,390
<br />Orchard Mesa Canal No, 2 17,3 200 0,0 4,645
<br />\ Based on January 1984 appraisal-level data at 5 5/8 percent over a 50-year time period.
<br />
<br />42
<br />
|