Laserfiche WebLink
recovery. At different points in time, various impacts will be associated with the fishes' <br />recovery. To compare the WOFBA with the WF projections requires that all future values be <br />discounted to yield present-value estimates. <br />D. Data Sources <br />1. Baseline Model Data <br />The data used to construct the baseline model for 1990 were derived from the U.S. <br />Department of Agriculture IlVIPLAN data sets for Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. <br />These data sets provide consistent county-level data from which to construct a set of I-O <br />accounts for the region. Because the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic <br />Analysis (BBA} national projections of economic activity do not capture localized projects, <br />the baseline was adjusted to include planned local water development projects. This <br />additional development of water supplies leads to increased economic activity in the region <br />due to increases in agriculture, municipal, industrial, and water sales/leasing. Existing <br />cropping patterns were used to project increases in economic activity due to the potential <br />increases in irrigable acreage that new water development projects would bring. Individual <br />tribal projections for future cropping patterns, water leasing, etc. were used where available. <br />2. Survey <br />A survey was sent to the four tribes for whom the study was conducted in May of 1995. The <br />survey is included in Appendix A. Information about on and off-reservation employment, <br />incomes, and planned development projects was requested. Only a few pieces of requested <br />information were forthcoming from the tribes. Of the information provided, the following was <br />used: Jicarilla Apache: Water development plans; Navajo Nation: Water development plans, <br />on-reservation employment. Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute: Bookman-Edmonston report <br />titled "Animas-La Plata and Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement Act." <br />3 <br />