Wash. Mkt. Co. Prop., 295 F.at 957-58; see United States v. Certain Interests in Prop. in Cumberland Cty., 296 F.2d 264, 266 n.1 (4th Cir. 1961) (“replacement cost, or reproduction costs, may be considered only when proper deductions are made for physical and economic depreciation and obsolescence”); cf. United States v. 3,727.91 Acres of Land in Pike Cty. (Elsberry Drainage Dist.), 563 F.2d 357, 360 n.4 (8th Cir. 1977) (noting challenged finding on depreciation was “supported by substantial evidence”).