Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS <br /> <br />Fish and vildlife benefits <br /> <br />Effects of participating projects on fish and wildlife resources, <br />both beneficial and adverse, have been partially evaluated by the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service. The total adverse effecte for the projects studied <br />were found to exceed the total benefits by an average of $5,000 annually. <br />No evaluation, however, has been made of the effects of the storage units <br />on fish and vildlife. The example of Lake Mead suggests that the net <br />benefits of the large storage reservoirs lJIIl,y be substantial. Further <br />evaluation of fish and wildlife benefits will be made as a part of pre- <br />construction surveys. <br /> <br />Recreational benefits <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The National Park Service estimates the recreational benefits of <br />the authorized projects and units studied to date at $698,000 annually. <br />The estimate is generally based on the Service's jueement that annual <br />benefits of the specific (Feaeral and non-Federal) recreational facili- <br />ties included in preliminary plans are at least equal to the annual <br />equivalent coet of constructing, operating, and lJIIl,intainiD5 the facili- <br />ties and that a like benefit value will accrue from the recreational use <br />of dams and reservoirs. The evaluation of recreational benefits will be <br />continued in preconstruction surveys. <br /> <br />Other benefits <br /> <br />A number of minor benefits in addition to thoee mentioned may be <br />e^~ected from project development. The only one so far evaluated is a <br />sediment control benefit in connection with a potential reservoir of the <br />Central Utah project which, according to an estimate by the Bureau of <br />Indian Affairs, vill have a value of $2,000 annually in preventing sedi- <br />mentation of Indian irrigation oanals. <br /> <br />Average Annual Equivalent Costs <br /> <br />Determination of costs <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />For comparison with the average annual benefits, an estimate was <br />made of the average annual equivalent Federal cost of development. This <br />cost includes the Federal investment amortized over the 100-year period <br />of analysis at 2 1/2 percent interest and annual operation, maintenance, <br />and replacement costs. Construction costs used in the benefit-cost <br />analysis do not include past investigation costs since these do not <br />near on the adviaability of future expenditures. Also they do not <br />include contributed fUnds for the Glen Canyon bridge and highway nor <br />costs of constructing certain Central Utah project features to ultimate <br />phase capacity since no evaluations have been made of benefits from such <br />~xpenditures. Intereat on expendituree during the construction period <br /> <br />30 <br />