Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />Economic and Financial Analyses <br /> <br />r... ,t.-.- <br />...U -' ... <br /> <br />in the reservoir area to current standards as contrasted with <br />replacement in kind. About 23 miles of this highway, exclusive <br />of sections across the crest of the dam and the Riverside dike, <br />require reconstruction. Most of the highway presently has a <br />28-foot Width or more and the entire relocation would be con- <br />structed with a 30-foot .~dth. The cost estimate for replacement <br />in kind is $3,540,000 and for reconstruction to current standards <br />is $3,679,000, Under provisions of Public Law 87-874 the <br />incremental cost of $139,000 is set out as a nonreimblITSable <br />allocation. The associated interest during construction amounts <br />to $11,600; hence, both of these costs are netted from the project <br />investment in benefit-cost analysis as it is presumed that the <br />unevaluated benefits of the highway improvement would equal the <br />costs. <br /> <br />COST ALlJJCATION <br /> <br />Costs of the Narrows Unit, consisting of project costs, interest <br />during construction, and annual OM&R are allocated concurrently among <br />the functions of irrigation, flood cuntrol, recreation, and national <br />and local fish and wildlife enhancement by use of the separable <br />costs-remaining benefits method. To establish ceilings for allocated <br />costs for each of the. multiple purposes a comparison is made between <br />benefits, which previously have been presented, and the costs of the <br />most economic single-purpose alternatives. The lesser of these two <br />amounts for each purpose is identified as the justifiable investment <br />and it establishes the upper limit for the allocation. <br /> <br />Single Purpose Alternatives <br /> <br />Considering the limits placed upon the allocations to recreation <br />and fish and wildlife enhancement by the benefits accruing from those <br />purposes, it is not possible to conceive of single purpose alternatives <br />for either purpose at costs which would be justifiable. An alternative <br />for either necessarily would involve water impoundment on the South <br />Platte River at costs obviously in excess of the benefits. <br /> <br />Cost estimates for irrigation and flood control alternatives, <br />however, are described subsequently. These alternates would provide, <br />as nearly as possible, service and benefits equivalent to those <br />arising from the multiple purpose Narrows Reservoir. The same site <br /> <br />90 <br />