Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N. V. of output by -$13.7 million, a change of less than -0.00046 percent from the baseline. In <br />tenns of output, impacts are actually positive after the year 2025, when increased construction <br />costs for more efficient buildings are offset by reduced expenditures on water. The designation <br />of critical habitat will reduce the number of employed on average by four. <br /> <br />For the Virgin study, the regional impacts due to the designation of critical habitat is projected to <br />decrease output by an N.V. of -$59.8 million for the construction scenario, a deviation of -0.0001 <br />percent from the baseline. For the conservation scenario, the N.V. oflost output is -$20.9 <br />million. a deviation from the baseline by less than -0.0001 percent. <br /> <br />Estimates of the direct economic impacts of critical habitat designations for the four Colorado <br />River endangered fishes are presented in Table 4 (A, B, and C). These impact estimates reflect <br />annual output changes in directly-affected industrial sectors in the various states without <br />considering indirect effects on production in other sectors of the state economies. The impacts <br />are a direct reflection of the resource allocations described in Section 3. <br /> <br />Critical habitat designations in the upper basin (Table 4-A) would tend to shift irrigation water <br />use to lower basin states relative to baseline conditions. As a result, Colorado and Wyoming <br />would experience reduced output in the livestock feed and other crop sectors totaling about -$2 <br />million annually by the year 2020. New Mexico would suffer a -$10 million annual output <br />decline in those sectors by the year 2020. Those declines would be more than offset in the <br />Lower Basin (Table 4-B), however, by a $13 million increase in California's agricultural output <br />by 2020. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />28 <br />