Laserfiche WebLink
pumped. Another attribute of this plan is that rather than having transfer culverts between ponds <br />the pond-to-pond transfers would be made by the use of a portable diesel pump. The pumping <br />cost figure presented in the table is for the transfer of Kehn owned augmentation water only. A <br />consequence of this plan is that over half of the storage within the ponds would be completely <br />dead. Most of the purchasers of storage volume would not only have to foot the cost of <br />transporting the water into the ponds, but also would have no option but to bring in their own <br />pumps to remove the water from storage. This proposed configuration is marketable, but may <br />make the ponds look less attractive to potential buyers. Another consequence is that a large <br />portion of Kehn owned augmentation water may end up in dead storage and would have to be <br />pumped twice to get it to the outlet. This, of course, eliminates the principal reason behind <br />having a gravity outlet. The last consideration that discounted Option 1 is that the benefit-cost <br />ratio is lower than that for the proposed layout. <br />Option 2 is essentially a combination of the proposed layout and Option 1. The principal <br />features of this plan are an 8 inch PVC pipeline following essentially the same alignment of the <br />outlet in Option 2 and an electric pump station similar to that in the proposed layout. In contrast <br />to the proposed layout, the pump station in Option 2 would have only one 465 GPM pump. The <br />option would also include the pond-to-pond transfer culverts like the proposed layout. A <br />proposed alignment and elevation data for Option 2 are presented in Figure 4.2. The system has <br />two main pros. First, the augmentation plan could be operated entirely through the 8 inch gravity <br />outlet and no pumping costs would have to be incurred. Second, with the combination of the <br />pump station and drainage culverts there will be no dead storage and Kehn Augmentation water <br />that ends up in dead storage will only have to be pumped once to reach the outlet. The con to <br />Option 2 is that major capital cost will be initially incurred to have a system that is, essentially, <br />no better than the proposed layout. The construction costs for Option 2 were the primary <br />discounting factors. For the cost difference in up-front construction, one could pay to pump <br />water for the augmentation plan for 36 years. The benefit-cost ratio, 1.8, is also the lowest of the <br />three layouts presented due to the high construction cost. <br />T.~IOPEMCadkcOllcodkc0/firmlrepor7.doc 1g ANdERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ANC. <br />