8197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 13395 11 1 t, c' 1 direct impacts in almost all cases extended beyond those immediate boundaries. Further, the indirect effects were State-wide and region-wide. Issue 49: Concern was expressed that tribal economics are distinctly different than surrounding economics in that factor mobility (such as employment) is limited. Service Response: While it is true that there are fewer opportunities for displaced workers on tribal lands, very few of the direct impacts, other than the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, are tied to tribal economics. In the case of the Navajo Tribe. the impacts are reported in the New Mexico results. Issue 50: Small distributors and users of hydroelectric power expressed concerns regarding the computation of and the use of the electric power impacts in the economic analysis, as well as issues regarding sunk cost. thermal replacement (fuel substitution), and the amount of thermal replacement required. Service Response: The electric impacts. were. computed by Stone and WebsterVanagement Consultants, Inc., utilizing a model developed for the Glen Canyoul amThe model development effort wasfimded by the Bureau. of . Reclan± ii ^*'--The Service use to use this model after determining this was themosti4k to and comprehensive model available. Sh d in hydroelectric capacity fitreated as a sunk cost in the analysis following accepted economic theory. Gasand coal activitiesare. projected to expand to provide thermal power _replaoement Existing exoess - capacity in these sectors meanC that this expansion is a benefit to the regional economy:. ?e analysis of Stone and . Webster yielded a result that 121 megawatts of additional thermal generationrapacity would be required to offset the reduction of hydrogeneration capacity. The small systems impacts were not available for inclusion in the Economic Analysis released November 12, 1993. The econnmcc analysis was updated to include impacts associated with small systems as well as large system impacts. The updated results were used in the exclusion process and are included in the final rule Issue 51: Public comments expressed concern that all economic sectors and impacts of designating critical habitat were not addressed-in the economic analysis- Service Response: All models used in the economic analysis are general equilibrium in nature. That is, all impacts are represented through linkages aigong economic sectors. For example, both the direct impacts to hydropower m-oduction and the indirect effects on all other sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and finance are represented- Thus, changes to one sector of the economy and the resulting impacts within all other sectors are fully captured in the economic results as indirect impacts Issue 52: Questions were raised concerning the reallocation of water and the sectors that were projected to utilize the reallocated water. Sen-ice Response: In all cases, the reallocated water represented a benefit and thus was placed in a relatively low value use. For instance. in California, which incurs positive impacts, the choice for the sector to receive the reallocated water was the agricultural sector. If municipal and industrial had been chosen, then the.positive impacts would have been much larger. Issue 53: Concern was expressed regarding the lack of economic impacts resulting from flood plain designation. Service Response: Information received during the public comment periods and previously available data did not indicate any major economic impacts related to flood plain designation. The Service rocognizes that individual projects located in the flood plain may experience economic. impacts. Issue 54: Concern was raised by the Navajo Nation and its representatives regarding the expansion of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIJP} Service nse:Based upon,.: information provided during the public comment period, the New Mexico analysis was revised to include an additional 52,000 arse-feet of future water depletions foregone. Additionally. cropping patterns and yields for NIIP were adjusted based on information supplied by the Navajo Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs during the comment period. Likewise, when data provided during the comment periods seemed reasonable, those economic data were incorporated into the models. Issue 55: Concerns were raised by several commenters about the lack of economic impacts identified in the Lower Basin. In some cases, hypothetical changes to existing Lower Colorado, Salt, Verde, and/or Gila River operations %yer e provided to estimate economic impacts to agriculture and mining-activities. Service Response: At present, the Service does not foresee changes in current hydrological operations of these rivers occurring as a result of recovery efforts for these fishes. The impacts predicted by the commenters and the scenarios used to generate those impacts are not envisioned by Service biologists in the Lower Basin as necessary for recovery and survival of these fish. Issue 56: One commenter indicated that the transfer of Colorado Eastern Slope agricultural water rights to municipal use would be impracticable or impossible due to endangered species constraints on the Platte River system- Service Service Response: Construction of conveyance facilities to transfer Eastern Slope agricultural water to municipalities may require section 7 consultation with regard to Platte River endangered species. However. several such transfers have already occurred without any Federal action, demonstrating the feasibility of such transfers. Issue 57: Concern was expressed regarding the comparability of the Input-Output (1-0) and Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) results. Service Response: The underlying model assumptions differ. CGE models allow for greater factor mobility and substitution. 1-0 models do not permit impacts to communicate and adjust with geographic areas outside the State or region; thus negative impacts are overestimated- Therefore, due to these differences, results hom-these models are not directly comparable. Issue 58: Concerns were raised regarding changes in governmental revenue flows from hydropower impacts. Service Response. Such revenues represent transfers of economic resources, not real resource costs. The models capture changes in government revenues Issue 59: Concern was raised regarding a variety of projects planned for the region that were not specifically addressed in the analysis. Service Response: Projects not specifically identified in the economic analysis were presumed to be undertaken and appear in the baseline projections. Further, some future projects have already undergone section 7 consultation and as such do not represent an impact. Future projects for which little or no information is currently available will be subject to section 7 consultation and as such it is premature to judge whether thev will be affected. Issue 60: Concerns were raised regarding the omission of the cost of capital facilities to use water such as planned municipal diversions. Service Response: These costs would be incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is designated and as such are not an appropriate cost for inclusion in the analysis. Issue 61: Respondents recommended that the economic benefits of listing and