|
<br />Alterr.~~ij.C_L' [l.cncfits Cost, SIC R~t io !Iet Benefits
<br /> ^_~"H' -.----
<br /> RCdch S 440,2iJO 425,000 J.04 15,200
<br /> 6 175,300 463,000 ,38 'Icq~t i ve
<br /> 1 - I'~A- 2,959,000' - ~If\- -f;A-
<br /> S 2,742,000 1,541,000 1.71l 1,201,000
<br /> 9 _:;A_ -NA- -tl,~- -tM-
<br />~:o t~ : ~/C Ratio ~'as c~ 1 cu 1 ~ teJ U5Tr,g benefits fcc tile lOa-year detained flo'lI and
<br /> cos ~s w th, lCO-year detained flow.
<br />
<br />A sUnlllary of all nine reaches for edch alternati ve follow~:
<br />
<br />Alterniltive#l
<br />-~--
<br />
<br />This alternative i, the fion,truct~ral alternative with costs limited to administerin
<br />
<br />the floodplain mdoagement program. The floodpla in m~n~gel~cnt al ternative does not
<br />
<br />lend itself to a traditiooal beoefit:cost analysis bec<tlJse tllere are no strJctural
<br />
<br />improvements invo 1 ved. However, there are many types of costs ~ ssoci ated wi th thi s
<br />
<br />Ch~nfiQl inpt'overr,,"nts in tlli s area art' difficult to determine "ithout detai led in-
<br />
<br />program. Some of these costs include: costs for initiating the program, costs for
<br />rranaging the program, decreased property values. along with cost s for actual Flood
<br />Insurance. Tilesetypes of costs are difficult to determine and were not addre ssed
<br />lfithisstudy.
<br />
<br />* Cos ts of 2, 959 ,aco a re at tr i buted to n.c I~oore Park detent ion fad I i ty, along
<br />
<br />'tlithchannel improvelltentsalld irrprovencatlal<:rossings. 8enefitsofMoorePark
<br />
<br />are incllJde~ in reaches 1 through 6. Benefits from improved cana 1 crossings and
<br />
<br />vestigation of the canals, which was rtot a part of this study.
<br />
<br />r,lterndtive ~_5 Benefits Costs BLS--B;l!-~ig r,et Senefits
<br />--~-
<br />R~,lcr 1 -tIA- -I,A- -NA.- -NA-
<br /> 1 1,163,660 306,800 3. 79 856,860
<br /> ; -t1A- -NA- -NA- -NA-
<br /> " -;"'- -1,;<- -:iA- '"
<br /> -",,-
<br /> , 4'0,200 359,400 1.22 80,800
<br /> 6 - ~:^- -N,~- - r~A- -NA-
<br /> 1 - ~:A- 242.JOO* -NA- -NA-
<br /> B 2,742,o;){) 30,500 7.46 2.374,50G
<br /> 9 -Ij,~- -NA- ,-, -;1~-
<br /> -,,,",-
<br />
<br />Tile economic loss which the coomunity will experience becomes the average ann~al
<br />
<br />rMm~qes irlr>ntifi~d for tlw Hourly n>ach ~e, 5355,580. Tllis figurf' will di'crf'a<;f' aver
<br />
<br />a long period of tillieasthe floodplain mallage:'lentprogram progresses.llGwever. for
<br />
<br />all pr~cticdl purposcs, the cast of this illtemativ(' is the ~~nual daITIag(' figure.
<br />
<br />Tllis represents a su~star.tia 1 cost to the co~munity.
<br />
<br />Alterndti.-ei2
<br />
<br />Tnis improvement plan profX)seschann€l mQdifications to contain thevnrletainedlOO-
<br />
<br />yedr flood event throughout developed a,'edS of tl1e study reach. fh€benefit;cost
<br />
<br />ratio for the total alternative is 0.63 altd t~e net benefits ue neqative.
<br />
<br />Note: B(C Ra tio ';IdS ca lcOll~ted I,sing benE'fi tS for the lC~J-year deta ined flow and
<br />
<br />costs fO~ the 100-year undeta int'O flow.
<br />
<br />This improvenlent pl an removes all 5tnJctvres from th(' floodpl~ in whiCh '~i 11 exist
<br />
<br />. CO;c, of S2~2 .3GG ore ilttril:c.ced to il7,pr(Jv~d c~na 1 t)^<l5<,ing,. 'If'nrfits froTT, tr,ese
<br />
<br />OJlce 'lltir:1aL~ <.Ievelop<ilf>"L i, redd".'!} in the basin. The plon dlso accounts for ;11-
<br />
<br />i:~pro ..e::,en ts are d i fficlJ 1<. lo Jetermitle and ~'" re na t i dent ifi ed in thi S study.
<br />
<br />creasedf1ows\'ll1ichwillberealizedoncee.istingdetention!lehindTdftHillllo<ld
<br />
<br />and both of the Co 1 orado ?, Southern Ra il roads i,. e 1 i~lind led.
<br />
<br />- ~.. -
<br />
<br />- 68 -
<br />
|