Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />Table 6-C-3 Listing and Critical Habitat Impacts for the Tribal Lands: NPV at <br />0,3, 5, and 10 Percent - (Sharing by Population) <br />'i <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />Changes in Output and Employment From <br />OFBA for the Tribal Lands <br /> Million Percent <br /> 1990$ Deviation <br />Output <br />NPV 0 percent -420.807 -0.964 <br />NPV 3 percent -184.983 -0.793 <br />NPV 5 percent -115.215 -0.681 <br />NPV 10 percent -44.305 -0.456 <br />NN 3 percent -9.353 -1.133 <br /> Persons Percent <br />Employment <br />Average Annual -154 -0.891 <br />Incremental Jobs <br />Foregone <br />' WOFBA <br />stream of output over the study period. The creation of an average of 154 jobs would <br />be foregone per year in the tribal economies due to listing and critical habitat designation. <br />D. Effects of Designation of Critical Habitat <br />The Endangered Species Act requires that the economic effects of designating critical habitat be <br />computed separately from the total effects of listing and designation. The method of <br />' apportioning the total effect into listing and critical habitat is discussed in Chapters 14 and 15 of <br />Brookshire, et al., 1993. On the basis of that discussion, the effects of designation of critical <br />habitat for the listed fishes was determined to be 10 percent of the total effects reported above. <br />' Table 6-D-1 reports the summary effects of critical habitat designation for the 10-county region. <br />Under the WF scenario, the present value of output changes in the regional economy due to fish <br />considerations is -$63.7 million, which represents seven one-hundredths of one percent of the <br />H <br />52 <br />1