| OCR Text |
Show Fish and Wildlife Benefits from fish and wildlife projects are deter- mined by particular conservation needs and are not expressed in monetary terms. The Fish and Wild- life Service exercises its judgment as to whether benefits will exceed costs once it has been established that a given project will fulfill a given need. For commercial species of fish, benefits or losses are measured in terms of gross prices received by com- mercial fishermen. In connection with multiple- purpose projects of the Bureau of Reclamation, the method of allocating costs is such that fish and wildlife benefit-cost ratios are approximately one to one. The justification for this procedure lies in the fact that although direct and special costs to attain fish and wildlife benefits are commonly small in connection with a reclamation development, at- tainment of the benefits by any alternative method requires an expenditure greater than the capitalized value of the benefits. Hence, the capitalized value of these benefits measures the alternative justifiable expenditure which would be needed to achieve them. At present, the Fish and Wildlife Service is em- barking on a 20-million-dollar program to try to develop important salmon runs on the tributaries of the lower Columbia. Since the degree of success that the project will attain cannot be determined even approximately in advance, the costs of the project were set at approximately 10 percent of the estimated value of the salmon catch during the 10- year life of the program. Sports fishing also has an important place in the basin. Use of Intangibles as Justification for Construction Wide variations exist in the extent to which in- tangibles are weighed in the justification of various water control and development projects. The Bu- reau of Reclamation cites intangible benefits which will accrue from its projects but they are not used as a basis for justification. The Corps of Engineers uses the possibility of saving human lives as an in- tangible benefit justifying a project; justification is made on the basis of "sound judgment." Safety and convenience to existing navigation facilities establishes the basis for such projects as the removal of rocks, shoals, and other navigation hazards in the vicinity of navigable waterways. The construction of small-boat facilities for pleasure craft and fishing vessel use in the lower Columbia along the coastal section of the Columbia Basin is justified as an aid to general commerce, or as an aid to the efficiency of the commercial fishing fleet. However, the increased possibility of saving lives by having more harbors of refuge available to ships in distress in time of storm is also taken into account in establishing the project location. For some projects recreation seems to have been ac- cepted as justification, while in other similar in- stances it has not been. A small-craft harbor used largely for recreational purposes was provided at Federal expense as a river and harbor improvement above Bonneville Dam, but similar facilities were not made available at Federal expense on Lake Roosevelt above Grand Coulee Dam.8 Among the intangible benefits resulting from flood control are the prevention of loss of life and human suffering which result from floods, the pre- vention of flood-borne epidemics, and the promotion of general health and welfare in the flood suscepti- ble areas. The loss of 50 lives in the Columbia flood of 1948 indicates the justification for the in- clusion of such an intangible in a consideration of flood benefits or preventive measures on the lower Columbia. The heavy pollution on the Willamette, combined with its high flood frequency, shows the importance of considering the prevention of epi- demics in an analysis of flood control benefits. Intangibles of necessity are heavily weighed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Much of its work is associated with recreational purposes, with pres- ervation and creation of special types of wildlife areas, and the preservation of various plant and animal species at varying levels of abundance, none of which can be measured accurately in an eco- nomic sense. Consequently, projects have often been justified on the basis of intangible need and a rule-of-thumb judgment as to benefit-cost ratio. Other recreation benefits also must be weighed as intangibles, on multiple-purpose developments and elsewhere. They have not been evaluated in economic terms for projects in the Columbia, nor used in justification. 8 It may be noted that small-boat traffic is heavier in the Bonneville vicinity, and that Bonneville Dam has navigation locks, whereas Grand Coulee does not. 33 |
