9391

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9391
• Author: Watts, G., W. R. Noonan, H. R. Maddux and D. S. Brookshire.
• Title: The Endangered Species Act and Critical Habitat Designation
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: An Integrated Biological and Economic Approach.
• Copyright Material: NO

effects, however, with California experiencing increased economic output relative to baseline by
the year 2020 while most of the other states show declines.

TABLE 4-C
Colorado Study Direct Economic Impacts
for Critical Habitat Designation for the Colorado River Basin (1991$ Millions)
Year
Sector 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Colorado River Basin
Livestock Feed -0.205 -0.882 -1.680 -2.217 -3.022 -3.720
Other Crops 0.552 0.967 1.438 1.372 2.336 3.530
Recreation -0.243 -0.372 -0.409 -0.435 -0.461 -0.487
Electric Power -1. 752 -1.806 -2.372 -1. 961 -2.546 -1.465
Non-petrol Mining 0.277 0.398 0.561 0.433 0.262 0.457
Oil and Gas Mining 0.128 0.093 0.295 0.213 0.688 0.143
Construction 0.788 0.804 0.844 0.844 0.844 0.844
Combined Mfg. 0.753 0.768 0.807 0.807 0.807 0.807
Local Amusements 1.863 1.863 1.863 1.863 1.863 1.863
Total Direct Impacts 2.161 1.833 1.347 0.919 0.771 1.972

The overall direct and indirect sectorial impacts of the critical habitat designations are presented
in Table 5. These impacts include the direct and indirect effects of critical habitat as estimated
from an 1-0 model for the seven-state basin. As can be seen the impacts are both positive and
negative across sectors reflecting the reallocation process of resources that is required for the
recovery of the endangered fishes. Thus, one outcome of the analyses is that there are sectorial
distributional consequences. The largest negative impacts were projected for the electric power
production sector and the livestock feed sector. The electric power sector must adjust to the
changes in the flow regimes of the river system and the livestock feed sector represents a low
value of water use so these uses are the first to be retired.

31