My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9392
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9392
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:36:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9392
Author
Brookshire, D. S., M. McKee and S. Stewart.
Title
A Four Corners Regional Focus on the Economic Impact of Critical Habitat Designation for the Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, Colorado Squawfish, and Bonytail.
USFW Year
1996.
USFW - Doc Type
Albuquerque.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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
hundredths of one percent, which represents about 16 jobs foregone per year in the tribal <br />economy as a result of critical habitat designation. <br />Table EX-2 Present Vatue and Annualized Incremental Critical Habitat Impacts for <br />Tribal Lands (3% Discount Rate) <br />DEVIATIONS over Baseline (Tribal Lands) <br />utput Million 1990$ Percent <br />NPV 3 percent -18.498 -0.079 <br />nnualized values -0.935 -0.113 <br /> <br /> <br />Employment Persons Percent <br />verage Annual Incremental <br />obs Foregone 16 -0.089 <br />Thus, the overall economic impacts associated with critical habitat designation represent a <br />small fraction of the regional and tribal economies. In no instance are the impacts greater than <br />1% of the total regional, or total tribal, economic activity. <br />Between 1959 and 1991, the growth rate of the national economy varied from -2.2% to 6.2%. <br />Impacts within this range are within the normal fluctuations of the economy and can be <br />absorbed by the economy. A conservative threshold for significant impacts would be a one- <br />percent deviation from the projected baseline (50 CFR 17). If changes in employment or <br />output due to critical habitat exceed this threshold, then the area of critical habitat should <br />possibly be considered for economic exclusion. <br />viii <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.