Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o The non-Federal user's cost of reallocated storage will <br />normally be established as the highest of the benefits or <br />revenues foregone, the replacement cost, or the updated <br />cost of storage and, <br />o Users are responsible for specific costs (mitigation, <br />conveyance, treatment, etc.) and, <br />o Users are responsible for OMR&R of specific and joint <br />project costs <br /> <br />. Period of analysis <br />o Set at 50 years (m ax 100 years) <br />o All alternative costs over the period should be included <br />(construction, O&M, interest during construction, <br />replacement, etc.) <br />o Historically COE does not consider inflation during the <br />period <br />o Present value costs over the period are used to compare <br />alternatives <br /> <br />. Tom B. summarized that these numbers look good-the Large Chatfield <br />option is looking like the lowest cost alternative and that is what <br />everyone's been working for all along. He wants all the potential costs to <br />be identified before this goes to the COE internal review. Tom also <br />wanted to urge to the COE to carefully define usable space in the <br />reservoir. <br />. Question from Ann Bonnell (South Platte Sierra Club and Audubon <br />Society of Greater Denver) Are the Environmental Mitigation costs <br />included in these numbers? She pointed out that the price of land in the <br />Chatfield area has increased in value over the last few years and that <br />purchasing it could be a major expense. Eric answered that those <br />numbers are included in the Large Chatfield and Small Chatfield estimates <br />but the number is conceptual-it is an ongoing progress to determine the <br />costs of mitigation. <br />. Katie pointed out that the Environmental Mitigation costs for the Status <br />Quo and Penley No Action Alternatives are not included in the numbers <br />Chuck presented. She said these costs need to be added because for the <br />Cooperators it is a significant cost and needs to be looked at. Chuck said <br />that the COE has to come up with the estimates for mitigation on the No <br />Action Alternatives. <br />. Gary added that the estimates could go up when final mitigation costs are <br />calculated. The No Action Status Quo estimates might not go up as much <br />because mitigation for these areas may not have to include Preble's <br />mouse and significant wetlands. <br />. Eric pointed out that if the Large Chatfield cost gets bigger than the Status <br />Quo options then we will have to start rationalizing why it makes more <br />sense to continue with the option. The cost of groundwater development <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Tetra Tech <br />