FLOOD03116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

demand in~rcascs estimatc~ ann~al follows: Re~reatlnn benefits were ~omputed on the basis of attendance, using a unit value per visitor-day, as General recreatIOn fisherman-day Watcrfowlhunti.ng Wil~lifc-oriented recreation $1.00 1.50 4,50 0.50 consldercd mInor and therefore not evaluated. ~cgative benefits would accrue as a result of the required realignment of Interstate High way 1.25, immediately north of Pueblo, which would increase the travel distance by about 3/4 of a mile. Using an estimated average annual traffic ~ount over the next 100 years and $0.10 per mile as the cost for operating a vehicle, the negative benefit would amount te $36,200 on an average annual basis. The recreatlon benefits creditable. to the project amount to $746,000 on an aVe rag e annual bas is ~ Detail s of the analysis are g Hen in A ttach- ..entIH. 33. The estimated benefits that would accrue to the Fountain Reservoir Proje~t arc summari;ed in Table 6. 30. The Arkansas River subbasin above John Martin Dam is ln~luded in the Four CornerS_Economic Development Region whiCh includes ~ounties designated as having substantial and persistent une~ployment, in accord~ anCe with P.L" 87_27,1 The Fountain Reservoir Project ~'ould be lo~ated within reasonable commuting distance of these areas and lts construction, operation, and maintenance would provide additional job opportunities whi~h would have benefi~ial effe~ts on both the national and regional economies. The national account reflects wages and salaries paid to all persons engaged in the supply of goods and services to the natlonal economy. The Tcgional account_reflc~ts net benefits accruing locally, regardless of their orlgin. Utili;ation of the unemployed resources of thearcawou1dpTovidebenefitsofbothnationalandreglona1signifi- cance, measured as wages and salaries paid to workers hired from the unemployed or underemployed labor force... Benefits from this SOUTce were diyi~ed into two categorics, those to be derived from construction of the proje~t and those to be gained from operation and rnalntenance, in accordan~e with procedures des~ribed in Atta~hrnent V. The average annual national benefits, estimated over a 100-year period of analysis, would a~ount to $309,180, of which $219,500 would be attrlbutable to construc- tion of the proje~t and $89,680 for operation and rnalntenance. The average annual reglonal benefits. from tbis source would amount to $564,110, of which $414,210 would be creditable to construction and $149,900 to operntlon and maintenance. TABLE 6. ._ Summary of Benefits - Fountain Reservoir Project (1st-added) Annual Benefits Class of Benefits Natlonal Re lonal Flood control $1,234,230 $1,234,230 Sediment retention 46,240 46,240 Recreation 746,000 746,000 Unemployed resour~es: Construction 219,500 414,210 0," 89,680 149,900 Negative ~36,200 _36,200 Total 2,299,450 2,554,380 34. ECONOMIC FtASIBILlrr.- The estimated annual charges for the Fountain Reservoir Project amount to $1,882,000. The average annual national benefits are evaluated at 52,299,450, yielding a benefit- cost ratio of 1.2. The average annual regional benefits are estimated at $2,554,380, yielding a benefit~cost r:ltio of 1. 4. In addltion, the project would provide substantial unevaluated and intangible benefits. 31. There arc 600 acres of urban deYelo~ent in the city of Pueblo that would be afforded flood prote~tion by the plan of improvement. However, it does not appear that the threat of fJooding has in anyway been a deterrent to.development.;_therefore, protection from Ii flood hazard would have no appreciable effect on land. values in the urban area and no benefits would be creditable to land enhancement _%_ COBT AU.OCATTO~'._ A co~t "lloc"t_lo" wa~ l'''''l'~,.pd fo,.. thp multiple-purpose Fountain Reservoir Project to determine the portion of costs chargeable to each function in a~~ordan~e with the separable costs~remaining benefits method. Recreation ~'as included as a project purpose in COnSOnan~" with provisions of the Federal liater Proje~t Recreation Act (P.L. 89-72) and first costs allocated to this purpose were ~on5;dered to be the specific costs to develop the facilities. The cost allocation is given in Table 7. 32, Although construct1on of the Fountain Reservoir Project would take some land$ off the ta~ rolls, they arc for the ~ost part low value river bottomlands of low productivity This negative benefit was IArca Re~evelop"'cnt Act. 87th Congress, 1st session B ., "