Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Table B Continued. <br /> <br />Recreation <br />Wilderness <br />Nonwilderness <br /> <br />36.8 29.9 0.0 <br />-0- 5.0 23.6 <br />38.0 39.0 30.5 <br />12.1 15.9 18.2 <br /> . <br />25.9 23.1 12.3 <br /> <br />Total Benefits <br /> <br />Total Forest Service Costs <br /> <br />Net Present Value - 7 1/8% <br />Discount Rate <br /> <br />Incremental PNV of <br />Wilderness 1/ <br />Designation - <br /> <br />+13.6 <br /> <br />+10.8 <br /> <br />Benefit/Cost Ratio <br /> <br />3.14 <br /> <br />2.45 <br /> <br />1. 68 <br /> <br />II Incremental from base as unsuitable <br /> <br />As displayed in Table B, resource values were assigned to timber, <br />water, range, and recreation outputs. Wildlife benefits are <br />included in the recreation visitor day outputs. Mineral outputs <br />Were not valued in the analysis because only their probabil ty of <br />existance was estima ted. Quanti ties of various mineral resources <br />were not estimated due to the lack of detailed information. <br /> <br />", <br /> <br />The economic efficiency analysis was based on a planning horizon of <br />50 years. Benefits and costs were estimated for five 10 year <br />periods from 1980 to 2030 and discounted back to the present using <br />a 4 percent and a 7 1/8 percent discount rate because mOre emphasis <br />is placed on inunediate use of resol,lrces than future values are <br />lower using the 7 1/8 percent discount rate uses, the higher the <br />discount rate. <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />(\ r' ') 6 3 2 <br />" "-''-' <br />