My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8197
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
8197
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:33 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:37:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
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
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 54 /Monday, March 21. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 13381 <br />TABLE 2- IMPACTS OF THE C:Rar-AL HABITAT DESIGNATION ON EMPLOYMENT IN EACH STATE AND THE COLORADO <br />RIVER BASIN.- EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS REPRESENT JOBS FOREC OR GAINED IN THE FuTuRE THROUGH THE YEAR <br />2020. (AFTER BROOKSHIRE ET AL 1994)-C n inUed <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />Stem 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 <br />CoWado 8 <br />91 18 <br />5 -6 <br />93 19 <br />69 3 <br /> <br />Nevada + <br />. <br />34 <br />85 + <br />. <br />71 <br />52 . <br />108 <br />03 . <br />- <br />322 - <br />6.88 -55.60 <br /> <br />New Mexico . <br />+ <br />-2 <br />17 + <br />. <br />-2798 + <br />. <br />-110 <br />71 +14 <br />-239 <br />60 +17725 <br />-415 <br />21 +20x.,69 <br /> <br />Utah . <br />-1091 <br />-22 <br />30 . <br />-34 <br />56 . <br />71 <br />-47 . <br />-81 <br />06 -612.64 <br /> <br />Wyomirg CdoadaRiver Bestt <br />-0.40. <br />+50.94 . <br />-1.40 <br />+116.15 . <br />-2.41 <br />+178.70 . <br />-3.45 <br />+236112 . <br />-4.35 <br />+29426 -74.13 <br />-622 <br />+39267 <br />National Economic Impacts <br />The r+es<rlts below are from the <br />Computable General Equilibrium model <br />and repremm economic output for the <br />Basin (Table 3). Although the projected <br />national economic impacts were <br />positive for all variables, there is almost <br />no change in the regional economy. <br />TABLE -3.-RESULTS of COMPUTABLE <br />GENERAL EODUBFMN MODEL FOR <br />THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN. <br />(AFTER BADOlCS1 M ET AL 1994) <br />Variable Economic Im- drarge <br />pax in scan- <br />COMY <br />Regional Prod- +$7.92 ffalon .. 0.0013 <br />oci <br />Employment _. +710 Jobs 0.0047 <br />EamkVs " +38.82 ..dM n 11=7 <br />Govt Revenue . +3320 million _ 0.0016 <br />Exclusion Process <br />Badggtmd <br />Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, <br />critical habitat is designated by using <br />the best scientific data available, and in <br />full consideration of economic and <br />other impacts of designation. The <br />determination on whether to exclude a <br />reach or portion of a reach considers: (1) <br />The benefits of including that reach, (2) <br />the benefits of excluding a reach, and (3) <br />the effect of that reach. or the <br />cumulative effect of excluding more <br />than one reach, on the probability of <br />species extinction. If the exclusion of a <br />river reach or portion of a reach would <br />result in the eventual extinction of a <br />species, the exclusion is prohibited <br />under the AcL <br />Exclusion of an area as critical habitat <br />would eliminate the protection <br />provided under the destruction ar <br />adverse modification provision of <br />section 7 for critical habitat However, it <br />would not remove the need to comply <br />with other requirements of the Act for <br />that area, such as the "likely to <br />jeopardize" prohibition of section 7 <br />consultation (for Federal actions) and <br />section 9 (take). Section 7 consultation <br />requirements apply to Federal actions <br />regardless of whether or Dot crttical <br />habitat is designated for a particular <br />area. <br />The Service determined whether the <br />benefits of inclusion of critical habitat <br />areas would outweigh the benefits of <br />their exclusion, by using five sequential <br />ste <br />Step 1-Identify areas that meet the <br />definition of critical habitat in section <br />3(5) of the Act and that are considered <br />essential to the conservation of the <br />species. This was accomplished, and the <br />areas needed for ovation were <br />published in the proposed rule to <br />designate critical habitat on January 29, <br />1993 (58 FR 6578). Justifications for <br />these areas were presented in the Draft <br />Biological Support Document. which <br />was made available to the public an <br />September 15,1993 (58 FR 48351). <br />Step 2--Conduct an eeomomric <br />analysis to determine the anticipated <br />economic consequences of designating <br />areas as critical habits. A draft report <br />on the economic analysis was - <br />completed and made available to the <br />public for comment on November 12, <br />1993 (58 FR 59979). <br />Step 3--Develop economic criteria or <br />thresholds to help identify those areas <br />.that would be significantly affected by <br />the critical habitat designation. <br />Comments were requested from the <br />public to aid in developing the criteria <br />(November 12, 1993; 58 FR 59979). <br />Step 4-compile the biological <br />information that should be considered <br />to determine whether excluding an area <br />would result in extinction Primary <br />consideration was given to information <br />contained in published recovery plans. <br />The Service determined whether <br />exclusion of an area will result in the <br />extinction of a species, <br />Step 5--Conduct the exclusion <br />process. The Service has evaluated <br />which areas, if any, should be excluded <br />due to economic or other relevant <br />impacts. Prior to this evaluation, <br />economic criteria in the form of <br />thresholds (Step 3) were developed to <br />provide a method by which the severity <br />of economic impacts could be assessed. <br />Those areas that exhibited economic <br />impacts above the thresholds were then <br />examined to determine if the biological <br />threshold of extinction would be <br />exceeded (Step 4) if the specific area in <br />question was dropped fram <br />consideration as critical habitat <br />Benefits and Casts of Designation <br />A public sector analysis examined the <br />allocation of scarce resources regarding <br />economic efficiency and distribution or <br />equity (Brookshire at aL 1993.1994). <br />The efficiency criterion addressed <br />whether designating areas as critical <br />habitat produces greater net benefits <br />than costs. The equity criterion looks at <br />the resulting distribution of gains and <br />losses. The Act tegWm the Service to <br />protect threatened and endangered <br />species for all dtimena, now and in the <br />future. This mandate-falls tinder the <br />national economic efficiency concern, <br />where policy adjustmem seek W <br />minimize eaanomic efficiency losses for <br />society while-preserving endangered <br />The Service does not have a mandated <br />requirement to conduct an efficiency- <br />based benefit-cost analysis when <br />carrying out its resource protection <br />activities. This is particularly true for <br />species listing activities under the Act, <br />where economic considerations are <br />explicitly prohibited. During critical <br />habitat designation. however. <br />consideration of benefits and costs can <br />occur when "economic and other <br />relevant impacts.. are specifically <br />included as part of the process of final <br />determination. <br />The economic analysis (Brookshire et <br />al. 1994) only addressed market-related <br />benefits and costs. No attempt was made <br />to estimate nonmarket values associated <br />with the preservation of the endangered <br />fishes. However, the Service recognizes <br />that the benefits of preservation are <br />positive. The extant literature <br />addressing the value of wildlife <br />resources documents positive benefits <br />for consumptive and noncoawmptive <br />uses of wildlife species. The legislative <br />history of the Act indicates that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.