Laserfiche WebLink
<br />en <br />0") <br />If') <br />.-j <br /> <br />CHAPTER II <br /> <br />BASES FOR ANALYSES <br /> <br />Fisheries and Wildlife. The evaluations were based on existing use of rec- <br />lamation reservoirs on the western slope in Colorado, including Crawford, <br />Jackson Gulch, Lemon, Rifle Gap, Vega, and Vallecito Reservoirs. It was <br />determined that there was an average of 40 man-days of reservoir fishing <br />on each acre of water surface in these reservoirs in 1972 and this aver- <br />age was used as a basis for projecting recreational use of the potential <br />reservoirs. A value of $1.50 was placed on each man-day of reservoir <br />fishing. No estimates were made of potential losses of stream fishery <br />as a result of development. <br /> <br />Cost Estimates <br /> <br />Construction costs <br /> <br />Construction costs of principal features for each unit studied were <br />estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation and costs of recreational facili- <br />ties were estimated by the Forest Service. The Bureau I s estimates were <br />made on the basis of January 1973 price levels. The estimates were made <br />from feasibility designs providing for a useful life of at least 100 years <br />and include costs for rights-of_way and relocation of existing facilities. <br />Each of the units was assigned an appropriate share of the costs of basic <br />permanent operating facilities. Such facilities would be needed regardless <br />of the number of units developed and would be centrally located in Gunni- <br />son where they could be shared by any units constructed. Costs of past <br />investigations also were allocated to the individual units and included <br />in the construction costs. <br /> <br />Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs <br /> <br />The operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for all potential <br />features were estimated by the Bureau of Reclamation on the basis of <br />1970-72 prices. The estimates include costs of personnel, equipment, <br />materials, supplies, and replacements. The estimates were based on the <br />assumption that responsibility for the operation and maintenance would <br />be assumed by the Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District. The costs <br />were estimated as if all units were integral parts of one plan. They were <br />then allocated to each unit according to its increased water supply. <br /> <br />Benefit-cost Analyses <br /> <br />The benefit-cost analyses were made for a 100-year period of analysis <br />with interest at 5! percent. Estimates were made of average annual ben- <br />efits from various project purposes. Consideration also was given to <br />direct and indirect benefits that would be lost in reservoir basins or <br />along canal lines. The losses of direct benefits were calculated only <br />for public or forest lands since private lands would be purchased and the <br />cost of purchases was considered equal to the direct benefits lost. <br /> <br />16 <br />