8169a - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table I-E-3. Colorado River Basin -National Economic Impacts: Levels and Differences ($1982 in Millions)(Employment in Jobs) Without Fish vs Without Fish vs Without With Fish With Fish Scenario Al Scenario Bl Variable Fish Scenario Al Scenario Bl With Fish With Fish Real Gross Regional 484213.30 484217.70 484209.40 4.40 -3.90 Product Employment 15029220.00 15029450.00 15029070.00 230.00 -150.00 Earnings 288907.20 288912.30 288905.50 5.10 -1.70 Gov't Revenue 166249.60 166250.86 166246.90 1.26 -2.70 Without Fish vs Without Fish vs Without With Fish With Fish Scenario A2 Scenario B2 Variable Fish Scenario A2 Scenario B2 With Fish With Fish Real Gross Regional 484213.30 484218.66 484213.39 5.38 0.09 Product Employment 15029220.00 1529450.00 15029270.00 230.00 50.00 Earnings 288907.20 288912.40 288907.50 5.20 0.30 Gov't Revenue 166249.60 166251.09 166249.61 2.06 0.01 Scenario Al: There exists sufficient underutilized capacity in the construction and capital equipment sectors (within the Basin or elsewhere in the national economy) that all additions to thermal electric capacity are a net positive addition to the level of national economic activity. The recreation resources within the Basin are unique and the loss of these recreation opportunities cannot be replaced within the U.S. economy. Scenario B1: There is no underutilized capacity in the construction and capital equipment sectors (within the Basin or elsewhere in the national economy) and all additions to thermal electric capacity within the Basin are constructed with resources that must be displaced from elsewhere in the national economy. Thus, there is no net positive economic impact from this expenditure on thermal expansion. The recreation resources within the Basin are unique and the loss of these recreation opportunities cannot be replaced within the U.S. economy. Scenario A2: There exists sufficient underutilized capacity in the construction and capital equipment sectors (within the Basin or elsewhere in the national economy) that all additions to thermal electric capacity are a net positive addition to the level of national economic activity. This is ;the same assumption that was made in Al. However, m this scenario, the recreation resources within the Basin are not unique. In particulaz, it is assumed that foregone recreation opportunities in the Basin can be completely offset through opportunities elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Thus, there are no negative impacts in the recreation sector. Scenario B2: There is no underutilized capacity in the wnstrnction and capital equipment sectors (within the Basin or elsewhere in the national economy) and all additions to thermal electric capacity within the Basin are constructed with resources that- must be displaced from elsewhere in the national economy. Thus, there is no net positive impact from this expenditure on thermal expansion However, in this scenario, the recreation resources within the Basin are not unique. In particulaz, it is assumed that foregone recreation opportunities in the Basin can be completely offset through opportunities elsewhere in the U.S. economy. Thus, there are no negative impacts in the recreation sector. Viewing the results of Scenarios A1, A2, B1 and B2 together provides bounds on the estimates of the national economic effects of the proposed critical habitat designation. The increase in the real gross regional product (output} is $5.38 million for Scenario A2, earnings x