Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o <br />---:) <br />(:.J <br />;. \; <br />~) <br />~ TillIe EX-1 Pnxat VIhIe cd AIIInIItizcd IaCl'UltllUll Critical BlIlitat Impaeta for <br />Tribal LaDdI (J~ DiIcoulIt Rate) <br /> <br />hundredths of one percent, which represcolll about 16 jobs foregone per year in the tribal <br />coonomy u a result of aitical habitat designation. <br /> <br />pEVlA TlONS over Baseline (Tribal Lands) <br />output Million 1110$ Perunt <br />NPV 3 percent -18.498 -0.079 <br />il.nnualizell values -0.935 -0.113 <br />Employment penons Percent <br />",wrage AnnuallnaemQntal <br />obs Foregonll 111 -0.039 <br /> <br />'Thus, the overall economic impacts associated with critical hlllilat designation represenl I <br />small fraction of the regional and tribal economies. In no instance are the impacts grelder tbaz1 <br />1% of the total regional, or total tribal, economic activity. <br /> <br />Between 1959 and 1991, the growth rale of the national economy varic:d from -2.2% to 6.2%. <br />Impacta within this range arc within the llOnnal fluctuations of the ec:ooomy lIIId ClII1 be <br />absorbed by the ewnomy. A conservative threshold for significant impacts would be a ClIle- <br />perceut deviation from the projected baseline (SO CPR 17). If changes in employment Of <br />output due to critical habi1at ClIcml this thn:ahold, then the aml of ennui habitat should <br />possibly be coaaidered for coooomic exclusion. <br /> <br />viii <br />