8197

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8197
• Author: Martinez, P. J.
• Title: Development and Application of Procedures for Stocking Nonnative Fish Speacies in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
• USFW Year: 1997.
• USFW - Doc Type: Grand Junction, CO.
• Copyright Material: NO

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 13379
comment period, the Service has
determined that some areas are not
required for the survival and recovery of
the fishes because they do not contain
the constituent elements, meet the
additional selection criteria, or are not
in historical habitaL In addition, other
areas may contain constituent elements
but may contribute little to the prospect
of recovery for one or more of the four
fishes. Some of these areas are within
sections of designated critical habitat
and will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis. Five stream sections are separable
and have been removed from
consideration as part of critical habitat
because ofe lack of biological
importance. These five areas are:
• Davis Dam to the upstream end of
Topock Marsh on the mainstem
Colorado River (AZ, CA, NV) (bonytail
chub)
• Bonita and Eagle Creeks, tributaries
to the Gila River (AZ) (razorback sucker)
• Cherry-and Canyon Creeks,
tributases to the Salt River (AZ)
(razorback sacker)
• Sycamore, Oak, and West Clear
Creeks, tributaries to the Verde River
(AZ) (razorback sucker)
• The Verde River from Sullivan Lake
to Peddnsville (AZ) (razorback suck")
The Service reiterates that any or all
of these sections could contribute to the
recovery of one or more of the fishes;
however. they do not provide a primary
recovery-area and are considered only
marginally important. The Service also
notes that some of these areas may_not
have been historiml habitat for the
razorback sucker, a further indication
that these areas may have only limited
value in the recovery of these fishes.
Economic Impacts
Introduction
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
consider economic and other relevant
impacts in determining whether to
exclude proposed areas from the final
designation of critical habitaL The
Service, as delegated by the Secretary,
may"odude areas from critical habitat
designation when the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion; provided that exclusion will
not result in extinction of a species. An
economic analysis (Brookshire et al.
1994) was conducted on the
consequences of this action (critical
habitat designation).
The study region for the economic
analysis includes the seven States of the
Basin: Arizona, California, Colorado,
New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and
Wyoming. The timeframe chosen for the
study, 1995 through 2020, encompasses
the time period projected for the
recovery of the endangered fishes.
Linkages between the biological
requirements for recovering the
endangered fishes and economic
activities in the region formed the basis
for the economic analysis. As an index
of these biological requirements,
adjustments made in the operations of
Federal reservoirs in the Basin and/or
mitigation of nonflow related activities
along the river's 100-year flood plain
were included. The effects of recovery
efforts on future water depletions in the
Basin also were taken into
consideration. The direct and indirect
impacts of these possible changes on
current and prospective economic
activities were then estimatedfor each
State, the region, and the national
economy.
It is impossible to predict the outcome
of future section 7 consultations
involving endangered fishes in the
Basin. If the Upper Basin and San Juan
Recovery Implementation Programs
(RIP) do not show sufficient and timely
progress in recovering the endangered
fishes, some planned water
developments may be modified, scaled
back, delayed, or foregone. This -
assumption provides an upper bound on
the potential magnitude of economic
impacts associated with the critical
habitat designation. If the R111's are
successful in achieving their objectivm
many of the negative economic impacts
can be avoided.
Economic Modeling
Two types of economic effects are of
interest when considering the economic
impacts of critical habitat designations:
regional economic impacts andnational
economic efficiency impacts. Regional
economic impacts refer to the direct and
indirect impacts of the critical habitat
designations on specific geographic
regions, such as States or other
subregions of the country.
Regional economic impacts were
analyzed using input-output (1-0)
models that organize the basic
accounting relationships that describe
the production sector of the economy
(Brookshire et aL 1993). The 1-0
method is based on the assumption that
all sectors of the economy are related,
and the production of a good or service
can be described by a recipe whose
ingredients are the outputs from other
sectors of the economy. The primary
inputs are labor, capital, and other raw
resources. Through its multiplier
analysis, the 1-0 model is capable of
generating estimates of the changes in
output for economic sectors, changes in
employment and changes in income
due to the critical habitat designation.
The models report total impacts
resulting from interactions among the
sectors of the economv.
National economic efficiency impacts
refer to the overall net impacts on the
national economy after the effects of
interregional transfers have been
accounted for. The goal of a national
efficiency analysis is to determine
whether an action would have an
overall positive or negative impact on
the national economy.
National economic efficiency impacts
were analyzed In this study using a
Computable General Equilibrium (CGE)
model. The CGE model captures the
economic interactions of consumers, the
production sectors, and the government
sectors. The CGE model also analyzes
resource reallocations (e.g.. changes in
river flows as represented by-increased
or decreased hydroelectric generation)
in a manner such that the net effects,
not just the total effects. are calculated.
Given this capability, the CGE model is
able to estimate net-national efficiency
impacts.
Modeling Approach
A separate 1-0 model was-developed
for each State, and focused on the direct
and indirect impacts generated by the
critical habitat designation (Brookshire
et at. 1993). In most cases, impacts in a
given State generated impacts in
neighboring States. Thus, it-was
necessary to investigate potential
offsetting impacts. As a result, an 1-0
model -was constructed that investigated
the impacts of the entire region (all
seven States). In addition to the State
and regional 1-0 models, a CGE model
was developed for the economies of the
seven-State area and the rest of the
United States. This model provided a
comprehensive aggregate assessment of
the national economic efficiency
impacts.
Economic activity for the models was
estimated using Impact Analysis for
Planning W,(Pl AN)1982 data sets that
were updated and projected through the
year 2020, using data from the Bureau
of Economic Analysis of the U.S.
Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN
data set contains 528 economic sectors
that were aggregated to 20 sectors
(Brookshire et al. 1994).
Without Fish and With Fish Scenarios
Two scenarios were used to evaluate
economic activities associated with the
critical habitat designation (Brookshire
et aL 1994). The -without fish"
economic scenario consisted of .
projections of the level of economic
activities that would be observed over
the study period if no action was taken
to recover the endangered fishes. The