Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lA8LElX-2 <br />AN~UAL OPERATION AND MAINTENA~E COSTS <br />(Doll~rs per line~r foot of cMnnel) <br />Grass-Lined Ch~nnels <br /> <br />It~ <br />TriiCtori'\:l"ing <br />H~ndcutti ng <br />loIeedControl <br />Seeding/Mulching <br />Dt>brisRernoval <br /> <br />lOTALO&MCQS15 <br /> <br />Rock-Lined Channels <br /> <br />]tem <br />3'iITectiveRockReplacement <br />Debris Removal <br /> <br />TOTAL 0& \1COS1S <br /> <br />Structural-Walled Channels <br /> <br />Design <br />1,000cfs <br />$ 2.02 <br />0.30 <br />0.15 <br />0.23 <br />0.30 <br />$ 3.00 <br /> <br />Design <br />I,OOOcfs <br />11.20 <br />0.30 <br />$ 1.50 <br /> <br />]tern <br />Ri"ii"OrConcrete <br />Selective Rock <br />OebrisRe:noval <br /> <br />Rep~irs <br />Replacement <br /> <br />ruTAL 0 & M COSTS <br /> <br />N~turdl Floodpl ai n <br /> <br />lt~ <br />-s:e;;aing <br />Debris Removal <br /> <br />TDTA~ 0 & \1 COSTS <br /> <br />Design <br />l,ooocfs <br />S 1.30 <br />0.40 <br />0.30 <br />$ 2.00 <br /> <br />Design <br />T;06i5Cfs <br />$ 0.70 <br />2.30 <br />$ 3.:Al <br /> <br />IX_3 <br /> <br />iX-4 <br /> <br />BENEFIT/COST COMPARISON <br /> <br />Flo" <br />10,000cfs <br />$ 2.33 <br />0.34 <br />0.13 <br />0.26 <br />0.34 <br />$ 3.50 <br /> <br />Tab I e IX-3 prov Ides ~n important compar ison between al ternatives _ Given no <br />other Input, tne Eng ineer wi 11 norm~lly sel ect the ~l ternative "hiCh overall <br />gives the nighest bend I t/cost r~t io when moderated by inni al cap. tal cost. <br />Ilowever, tneoest alterncltivefor the commun1ty may be one of the otner al- <br />ternatives. For eX<1ll1ple, a multipurpose project with multiple funding <br />sources, such as a combination f lood"~y ~nd com.llunity park, may eff"ctively <br />increase the cost/ benef i t rat io and be super ior to the <II ter ~at ive wh i ch was <br />solely for flood control purposes. <br /> <br />Flo'o'/ <br />lO,OOOci> <br />$ 2.66 <br />0.34 <br />$ 3.00 <br /> <br />Following is <I description of each column hiOclding u,ed in theoenef,t/cost <br />analysi,table. <br /> <br />Re~ch (Column 1) <br />The lowerCle<lr Cred study <lr"cl"as divided into three re<lches as described <br />in Section III. Tn" reaches are defined as folloWS. <br /> <br />Flow <br />10,000,fs <br />$ 1.79 <br />a.S7 <br />0.34 <br />t 3.00 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />R"~Ch 1 _ U~stredm Golden Clty Limit to luc~er Gu!cn <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />R\'ac~ 2 _ f\,Ck",r GHle!'> tn Wlntyre Str"et <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Reach 3 _ McIntyre Street to Youngfleld Stred <br /> <br />Flo" <br />10,000cfs <br />$ 0.d2 <br />2.68 <br />$ 3Sl <br /> <br />Alternative (Column 2) <br />Th" al ternatives se lee ted for invest 19ation for eclcn reach hav~ been pr'''. <br />sented and described in Section ~llL <br /> <br />Note: Total Annual 0 &, M is based upon figures obtained from the Urban <br />Drainage and Flood ContrOl District, andmQdified to fit the larger flows on <br />CleM Creek. The costs asslIhe tne channels are constructed with a low flow <br />channel. <br /> <br />Design Frequency ~umn 3) <br /> <br />The 100-year design frequency nas been u<,ed in tne de~elOlJ1lent of tne bene- <br />fit/cost analy,lL <br />