Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />x. <br /> <br />ECONOMIC ANALYSIS <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />An economic analysis to further evaluate the alternative improvement <br /> <br /> <br />plans to alleviate ponding and roadway overtopping along Fossil Creek is based <br /> <br /> <br />on the benefit-cost ratio and net benefit of each alternative. <br /> <br /> <br />The cost of each alternative is based on the annual cost estimates pre- <br /> <br /> <br />sented in the previous section. The benefits, the average annual flood damage <br /> <br />reduction derived from the alternate improvements, were based on damage <br /> <br /> <br />discharge curves established for each reach. Damage discharge curves present <br /> <br /> <br />damage in dollars for existing conditions as a function of discharge. Damage <br /> <br /> <br />discharge curves for reaches 1, 2, 4 and 5 along Fossil Creek are shown in <br /> <br />Figu~es 33 and 34. Measurable flood damage along reach 3 was negligible. The <br /> <br /> <br />average annual flood damage reduction of an alternative is the difference bet- <br /> <br /> <br />ween the damage of a given flow rate without improvements and the residual <br /> <br /> <br />flood damages with improvements in place. The residual flood damage is the <br /> <br />damage from the damage discharge curve associated with the flow rate in excess <br /> <br /> <br />of the design diSCharge. <br /> <br /> <br />Table 35 presents a summary of the economic analysis. It shows annual <br /> <br /> <br />net costs (difference between annual improvement cost and average annual <br /> <br />benefits) and benefit-cost ratios for each reach and each alternative. The <br /> <br /> <br />results of the economic analysis show the benefit cost ratios to be less than <br /> <br /> <br />one for all alternative improvements along each reach. The range was from <br /> <br /> <br />0.04 for channelization along reach 4 to 0.85 for enlarging culverts along <br /> <br /> <br />reach 4. The benefit-cost ratios are low because the flood plains are narrow <br /> <br /> <br />except behind road embankments where ponding occurs. Also, there is little <br /> <br /> <br />development in the basin. <br /> <br /> <br />Table 36 shows a summary of net benefits and benefit-cost ratios for the <br /> <br />Fossil Creek study reach bY alternative. The benefit-cost ratios range from <br /> <br /> <br />0.08 to 0.43. Annual net costs range from $164,000 to $1,507,800. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />66 <br /> <br />FIGURE 33. <br /> <br />DAMAGE DISCHARGE CURVES, FOSSIL CREEK <br />REACHES I AND 2 <br /> <br />~ <br />o <br />o <br />O. <br />o <br />'" <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Ul <br />ILl <br />(!) <br /><( <br />::e <br /><( <br />Cl <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1000 <br /> <br />2000 <br /> <br />3000 <br /> <br />4000 <br /> <br />5000 <br /> <br />DISCHARGE (cfs) <br />