Laserfiche WebLink
<br />within the study region. Among the seven states, the largest positive impacts accrue to <br />California, resulting in a increase in output of 0.00 13 percent over the baseline. This corresponds <br />to an increase of$335.0 million. Impacts to New Mexico result in a reduction of output by <br />-0.0280 percent, equivalent to lost output of -$245.5 million. In either case, changes over the <br />baseline are still very small. The impacts of the other states lie between these two values. IS <br /> <br />TABLE 6 <br />Direct and Indirect Spatial Distribution of Critical Habitat Impacts for the Colorado Study <br />Output: Percentage <br />N.V. @ 3% Deviations from Baseline <br />(1991 $ Millions) <br /> <br />Upper Basin <br /> <br />Colorado <br /> <br />-17.0 <br />-245.5 <br /> <br />-72.6 <br /> <br />-7.2 <br /> <br />-0.0006 <br /> <br />-0.0280 <br /> <br />-0.0060 <br /> <br />-0.0020 <br /> <br />New Mexico <br /> <br />Utah <br /> <br />Wyoming <br /> <br />Lower Basin <br /> <br />Arizona <br />California <br />Nevada <br /> <br />-21.0 <br /> <br />335.0 <br /> <br />140.3 <br /> <br />-0.0008 <br /> <br />0.0013 <br /> <br />0.0150 <br /> <br />Colorado River Basin <br /> <br />Colorado <br /> <br />129.4 <br /> <br />0.0003 <br /> <br />For the Colorado study, impacts at the regional levels are positive. At a 3 percent discount rate, <br />the N.V. of the listing plus critical habitat regional impacts for the study period are $129.4 <br /> <br />18 The regional impact and the sum for the individual states will not match exactly since the state impacts <br />were computer from state-level 1-0 models while the region was modeled as a complete entity as well. The <br />differences are due to leakages at the state level that are captured by the larger region. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />33 <br />