Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />TABLE 6 <br />ROSEVALE ALTERNATIVES1 <br />($1,000) <br /> <br /> Alternative <br />Item #l #2 #3 <br />First Cost 840 1,350 560 <br />Annual Cost 73 118 49 <br />Average Annual Benefits 40 44 36 <br />Net Economic Benefits -33 -74 -13 <br />Benefit-cost Ratio 0.5 0.4 0.7 <br />1100-year Level of Protection, October 1990 Price Levels <br /> <br />The highest benefit-cost ratio--0.7--was identified for <br />Alternative #3, which would elevate the structures above the 100- <br />year flood plain. This alternative has been identified as an <br />unacceptable solution by the sponsor, in addition to being <br />economically infeasible. <br /> <br />Alternative #l, a structural measure for the Rosevale area, <br />would require that Rosevale Road be elevated a significant <br />amount. Such an elevation would require significant <br />modifications to the driveways and, possibly, structures close to <br />the road. The plan is also clearly not justified economically. <br /> <br />Alternative #2 would require the purchase of all structures <br />in the lOO-year flood plain in the Rosevale area. This plan is <br />unacceptable to Mesa County at this time, and it too is <br />economically unjustified. <br /> <br />l1. Conclusions. <br /> <br />Based on the information available and on the studies <br />conducted for this reconnaissance level effort, the following <br />conclusions can be made: <br /> <br />. There is a significant flood damage threat to the <br />Riverside and Rosevale communities as evidenced by the damage <br />analysis performed for this study. The flood threat would begin <br />at about the lO-year event. Emergency efforts at avoiding flood <br /> <br />l5 <br />