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
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />t <br />1 <br /> <br />Chapter 7 Reconciliation and Conclusions <br />The purpose of this chapter is to reconcile this study with its predecessor (Brookshire et al., <br />1994). Differences in the direct impacts and in the computed total impacts will be discussed. <br />Overall, the results of this study are quite similar to those of the earlier study. At a qualitative <br />level, the total impacts in both studies represent a small fraction of the baseline level of economic <br />activity. <br />A. Reconciliation of Direct Impacts <br />The direct impacts in this study occur in the electric power, recreation, construction, and <br />agriculture sectors. The electric power impacts in the present study are identical to those in the <br />original study because the planned changes in the operation of the Navajo Dam remain the same. <br />Recreation impacts are included in the present study. These impacts are associated with the <br />foregone reservoir that was to be constructed as part of ALP Phase II. These impacts were not <br />included in the original study because the study period ended in 2020, and the best available <br />information at the time of the study was that ALP Phase II would not be undertaken prior to <br />2020. For the present analysis, ALP Phase II was advanced to 2010 and included in the study. <br />The construction impacts are modified slightly from those of the original study. In the original <br />study all of Blocks 9 - I I of NIIP were projected to be foregone in order to provide for critical <br />habitat. The current assessment is that Block 9 may be able to go ahead based on water <br />conservation measures on Blocks 1 - 8. For NIIP-related impacts, the construction impacts are <br />smaller than those of the original study. However, ALP Phase II is included in the baseline for <br />the current study. This study assumes Phase II of ALP is foregone as part of the critical habitat <br />designation. <br />55 <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.