Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'1111-2 <br /> <br />structures associated with draInage works Is estimated to be fifty <br />years; therefore, Initial costs were amortized over a fifty-year perI- <br />od usIng a seven per cent interest rate. Construction costs were esti- <br />mated using the unit prices I isted In Table '1111-1. The I'eader may <br />note a difference in prices for bridges between the Phase A and Phase B <br />reports, which is due to the fact that Phase A costs included road re- <br />grading while Phase B costs do not. <br /> <br />Annual damages were estimated by eX<lmInIng the resul tlng flo()ded <br />areas for the flood plain alternate <1nd estimat"ng the value of struc- <br />tures, the degree of damage, and the percentagE of the structure val ue <br />Invoived In repal r or replacement. !\nnU<lj oper<ltIons and maintenance <br />costs considered IrrIgation releases,. ch<lnnel clnd flood pialn costs <br />assocIated with erosion and siltatIon, and cost.s associated with Irri- <br />gation ditches and ditch dIversIon structures. The latter costs would <br />genera 11 y be the respons I b I i I ty of the ditch OI.,ner j however, the re- <br />location of the German Ditch headgate was assumed to be a drainage cost. <br /> <br />Each of the alternates differ In thoe amount of flood-oriented land. <br />Table '1111-2 summarIzes the annual costs of constructIon, flood damage, <br />and operation and maintenance for each of the aiternates. This table <br />also shows the annual costs of the applicable alternates without the <br />brIdge costs. This is necessary for a f,3ir compal-Ison of alternates. <br />Tabie VII 1-2 also contains a column showing the amount of requIred land <br />for each alternate. <br /> <br />For comparative purposes only, Table VIII..3 shows the cost per foot <br />of each alternate for selected dIsch<lrges. Tabie VII 1..4 shows another <br />form by whIch cost comparisons can b(~ made for the various alternatives. <br />