Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />'"'.....'(.'1 <br />~'f' j:0 <br /> <br />FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Cost a:11ocation <br /> <br />Project costs~ interest during construction~ and OM&R for <br />the Fr,yingpan-Arkansas Project have been allocated concurrently by <br />the separable costs-remaining benefits method. The allocation to <br />fish and wildlife is limited to separable costs of features designed <br />to prevent future fishery losses on the western slope. Other func- <br />tions to which costs are allocated include irrigation, municipal and <br />industrial water~ power~ and flood control. As no project pumping <br />is involved~ the power allocation is wholly for commercial power. <br />No costs have been allocated to recreation. <br /> <br />Estimated costs of single-purpose alternatives were developed <br />for all functions except fish and wildlife. The alternatives for muni. <br />cipal water and power have been described previously. <br /> <br />The single-purpose alternative fOr irrigation includes a <br />western slope replacement reservoir of 28~000 acre-foot capacity~ a <br />western slope water collection system, a transmountain diversion <br />tunnel~ the Snowden diversion works and canal, and three eastern <br />slope reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 549~000 acre-feet. <br />The total estimated construction cost of those features is $85~534~000. <br />Interest during construction is computed at $3~345,ooo~ making a total <br />inv~stment of $88~879~000. Annual OM&R on this system is estimated <br />at IWll8,850. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />FOr flood control, estimates of a single-purpose alterna- <br />tive at the Pueblo site were developed. Capacity was set at 190~000 <br />acre-feet to provide for both flood storage and sediment. The total <br />investment amounts to $27~691~500, consisting of $26,690,500 for <br />construction and $1,001,000 for interest during construction. OM&R <br />on this feature would be $11~020 annually. Separable costs were <br />determined for all purposes. In the case of municipal water, those <br />costs are limited to specific costs of the delivery systems. No <br />increment,s of cost could be omitted from the basic project for this <br />purpose without impairment of operations for the remaining functions. <br />A tabular segregation of separable and remaining joint costs follows, <br />excluding the assignments of costs to western slope uses of Ruedi <br />Dam and Reservoir I <br />