Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.;'.' <br /> <br />.'). <br />'~".: .- ~ <br />"'.- "'-.~ <br /> <br />FISH AND WILDLIFE COST ALLOCATION <br />PROCEDURE PROPOSED <br /> <br />The following examples show, how the proposed' cost allocation <br />procedure could be applied t'o three' hypothetical s1tua tions. The Sub- <br />work Group proposed that commercial fish and fUr production be evaluated <br />in the manner recommended by the Subcommittee on Benefits and costs, <br />FIARBC. Such values have been omitted from the examples. <br /> <br />Example I <br /> <br />1 <br />~ <br /> <br />Example I is illustrative of a case' in which the recreation, <br />fish and wildlife opportunities afforded by a multiple-purpose project <br />answers a need and benefits based on the justified alternative cost <br />exceed the separable costs of the basic facilitiss required to realize <br />the benefits. In this case, recreation, fish and wildlife will bear a <br />proportionate part of the cost of the joint facility. This is illustra~ <br />tive of the upper limits of cost ,allocation to recreation or fish and wild- <br />life. <br /> <br />~ <br />1 <br />:~ <br />~ <br />:1 <br /> <br />, ' <br />.' .. . <br />a. Assume, that the prOject wili provide irrigation, hydroelectr,ic <br />power, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. <br /> <br />b. Assume that the project will satisfy definite recreation, fish <br />and wildlife needs in the area and that specific fish and wildlife <br />features would cost $10,000, and specific recreation ,features would <br />cost $100 ,000. ,The lowest alternative cost of providiIig comparable <br />fish and wildlife benefits would be $100,000 and the lowest alterna- <br />tive cost bf providing recreation benefits would be $500,OOO"and <br />that; on the basis of judgment, the benefits are believed at' least, <br />equal to their costs, and the costs are considered justified. <br /> <br />c. Assume that 'the total project benefits are $17,600,000, the <br />total project costs $16,000,000, the total separable costs <br />$6,610,000, and,the total joint costs $9,390,000, with the Various <br />benefits and costs broken down as shown in Ex~ple I. <br /> <br />d. Using the Separable Costs - Remaining Benefits method of cost <br />allocation described iIi Chapter V of the May 1950 report of the <br />Subcommittee on Benefits and'Costs, FIARBC, "Proposed Practices <br />for ~conbmic Analysis of River Basin Projects", the allocation would <br />be as shcwn in Example I. <br /> <br />.:~ <br />~~ <br />~ <br />':j <br />:'j <br />;'~ <br />;~ <br />')0, <br />.;:-,j <br />......, <br />V <br />.:; <br />,',j <br />.Of <br />:'~) <br />~"S <br />~~ <br /> <br />~~ <br />.rJ <br />H <br /> <br />~.' ., <br />'.'. <br />..':,; <br />'. <br />:,1 <br />>-:{ <br />.'.'; <br /> <br />.::...< <br /> <br />:'1 <br /> <br />L.": <br /> <br />" <br />, " <br /> <br />.;". ',~ <br /> <br />.. ,:~ <br /> <br />.'" <br />, <br /> <br />'3 <br /> <br />-: .~ <br />