WSP10931 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, ; : . ;~~.\ . ~. - J ,,-7.'. < -:', 1 "-F ;:- Benefits assi~nable to a specific function of a given proj- ect shall include not only those benefits individunlly otteinsble by the project itself but elso those identifiable and valus:Jle adcJ.i- tional benefits which mc,y be realized at existin;; or eonter'lplated projects or facilities elsewhere i.n the river system G.na vrhic.h would be due solely and entirely to the construction and opera ti Oi1 of tho specific function in the given preject. Certain functi on"l benef'its as may be necessarily due to the coordinated and dependent operation of several pro,:;ects for' the same function, or an adjunctive function, are gene!'0.11y and mo!'''' readily eV8.1u'lted on an areal basis. However, for purposes of ~.ost alloaation, distribution of these basin-wide benefits should be made so as to assiGn" definite benefit value to each individual project ,,!hich. contributes to tho system benefit. Development of the mettJod by :neans of which basin-wide benefits are to be distributed amongst individual contributory projects is under study by a task force of the Benefits and Costs Yior'k Group. Until Its findings and reco"'-l- mendations ar0 made knovm, it is here recommended tl,at the work groups, established to study the functi.ons whose benefits may thus require distrI butIon, be charGed with tile responsibility 0." allocating, each vlithin its judgment and kno'Nledge of the subject, thA basin-wide benefits as may be appropriately anj specifiolllly d~e to the funet; o:lel operation of each contributory project for purpusss of tGntC1.tivc cost allocation studies. Since the benefi t.s due to the rl'lcreation functj on and the fish and wildlife functions In a multiple-purpose r" servoir aro not. susceptible of monetary evaluation to the same def~ree a~ are other benefits, special consideration was e;iven h-J the SubGroup on Hecrefltion, Fish and "'ildlife to the problem of how, then, could these ftIDctions be included in Clost allocation G.Ilal ::~e s. Tl1ese stud- ies produced the rocollTInondation that in projects in whici~ fj.8ll and wildlife and/or recreation benefits accrue the Alternative Jtlstif'iuble Cost will be used for these functions in lieu of an expression of monetary benefIts. The AlternatIve Justifiable Cost I s here defined as the estimated cost of provIding equIvale:1t benefits by the lea~t costly alternative means that in the considered judGment of qual- ified tecrmicians i~ justifiable. Additional explal,atory material is attached as 3xhibit A. Alternata Co~ts: In the Separable Costs-RemainIng Benefits method of CC1~t i1llo~tioIi,the amount of project benefits used as a basis for allocation of costs to any purpose should not exceed the cost of providing e'luivalent services for the same area from tl,o most likely econo!:lic'.lll:; feasiblo alternative sotlree In the area to be served, The alternative pro.4ect mayor may net be ce.pable of physical co-existence with the multi"le-purpose project under allocation. -4-