Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />Again, job creation is projected to lag behind the WOFBA scenario by about nine one- <br />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 Value and Annualized Incremental Critical Habitat Impacts for <br />Tribal Lands (3% Discount Rate) <br />DEVIATIONS over Baseline (Tribal Lands) <br />Output Million 1990$ Percent <br />NPV 3 percent -18.498 -0.079 <br />Annualized values -0.935 -0.113 <br /> <br /> <br />Employment Persons Percent <br />Average Annual Incremental <br />Jobs Foregone 16 -0.089 <br />Thus, the overall economic impacts associated with critical habitat designation represent a small <br />fraction of the regional and tribal economies. In no instance are the impacts greater than 1% of <br />' 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 absorbed <br />by the economy. A conservative threshold for significant impacts would be a one-percent <br />deviation from the projected baseline (50 CFR 17). If changes in employment or output due to <br />critical habitat exceed this threshold, then the area of critical habitat should possibly be <br />considered for economic exclusion. <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />Viii <br />1