My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9387
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9387
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:35 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 11:37:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9387
Author
Brookshire, D. S., M. McKee and S. Stewart.
Title
A Four Corners Regional Focus on the Economic Impact of Critical Habitat Designation for teh Razorback Sucker, Humpback Chub, Colorado Squawfish, and Bonytail.
USFW Year
1997.
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.
/
94
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
?I <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />H <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />B. Listing and Critical Habitat Impacts for the Ten County Region <br />In the following sections, overall impacts are reported for the 10-county region and then for the <br />tribal economies. The total regional impacts (direct plus indirect) are reported first followed by <br />the shared-down tribal impacts. In this section, the impacts reported refer to the sum of listing <br />and critical habitat impacts for the actions to protect listed fishes. Critical habitat impacts alone <br />are presented in Section D. <br />Tables 6-B-1 and 6-B-2 report the total output in millions of 1990 dollars and employment in <br />person-years, respectively, for the WOFBA and WF scenarios. In the tables, a negative sign <br />indicates a reduction in the level of a particular variable, while a positive sign indicates an <br />increase. For example, in Table 6-B-3, which reports changes in output, fish protection measures <br />impose an impact to agriculture of -$10.12 million in the year 2000, which represents a decline in <br />projected agricultural output of 2.6%. In other words, the aggregate agriculture sector is $10.12 <br />million smaller under the WF scenario than under the baseline scenario. In 2010, for example <br />total output falls by $119 million, a 0.8 percent reduction from the baseline level of output. By <br />2040 the output reduction is $218 million (1.3 percent ). Table 6-B-4 reports changes in <br />employment. Employment declines in proportion to decreases in output. For example, in 2010 <br />aggregate employment is projected to decline by 1,902 jobs (0.7 percent) as a consequence of <br />actions taken on behalf of endangered fishes. <br />The agriculture and construction sectors are reduced the most by the fish protection measures. <br />WF output is reduced toward the end of the study period by as much as nine and one-half <br />' (denoted 7). <br />' 24 This study values all changes in constant (1990) dollars; hence the discount rate is referred to as a real <br />discount rate which is net of inflation. All of the dollar values are converted to present values for purposes of <br />comparison. Present values are reported for discount rates of 0, 3, 5, and 10 percent. Since these are real discount rates, <br />' the present values that result from the 3 percent or 5 percent discount rates are the most relevant for evaluating the <br />economic impacts. These percentages represent reasonable measures of the social discount rate. <br /> <br />43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.