WSP08921 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

21 G .~~ . 8 Recommendation No. I. No cost problem. Recommendation No.2. From our understanding of the project opera- tion, there probably is no cost problem. Recommendation No.3. We understand that the National Park Service recommends a recreation area below Narrows Reservoir Dam. Thus, the access can be provi~ed at no additional cost and the annual benefit of $6,000 would be realized incidentally. On the other hand, if there is to be no recreation area, access easements would be re- quired to realize the benefit. What the cost of such easements might be has not to date been ascertained by our 8ureau. Recommendation No.4. An estimated cost of $125,000 to rehabi litate Ja~kson Reservoir Dam would serve both general recreation (boating, swimming, picnicking, ~t cetera) and fish and wildlife (fishing). The annual fishing benefits accruing from such rehabilitation are estimated at $15,000. For purposes of allocation, the cost of $125,000 can be divided equally between the function of general recreation and the function of fish and wildlife. This total cost, however, would be cost shared equally by the Federal Government and the Colorado Department of Game, Fisr and Park~" . The annual 0, ~, & R of $18,000 for Jackson Reservoir Dam and re- lated works would be borne by the Colorado Department of Game, Fish and Parks. Recommendation No.5. As indicated in Table 2, the estimated specific cost of acqui ring sufficient land and developing it amounts to a capital cost of $2,265,000, with an annual OM&R of $37,000. As noted earl ier, the wildlife management area is expected to miti- gate wi ldlife losses as well as produce benefits. Since the same land and the same development do both, it seems only proper to identify the portion of the total cost that should be attributed to mitigation and the portion to be attributed to enhancement. Oor estimates indicate that 47.3 percent of the total cost of $2,265,000 or $1,071,000 shooid be attributed to mitigation and thus be included with joint costs, and that 52.7 percent or $1,194,000 should be attributed to enhancement. Of this $1,194,000, 41.6 percent or $496,700 should be nonr~imbursable (producing water- fowl use benefits of national significance in the amount of $30,600), and $697,300 sl-ould be cost shared (producing upland-9ame hunting benefits of $4,500; waterfowl hunting benefits of $27,000, and wildlife-oriented recreation benefits of $11,500). . Revised 12/12/66