Laserfiche WebLink
Section 6: Determination of the Incremental Economic Impacts of <br />Proposed Critical Habitat <br />A. The Division Between Listing and Critical Habitat <br />The Act requires that only the incremental impacts of proposed critical habitat designation be <br />quantified. To meet this requirement, a method had to be devised for determining the <br />percentage of an impact that was due to listing and the percentage that was due to designation <br />of critical habitat. This method is discussed in detail in Chapter II-14. By applying the <br />percentage for the proposed critical habitat designation to the direct impacts reported in <br />Chapters II-9 and II-10, the incremental impacts of critical habitat designation were <br />determined. <br />Tables I-6-1 and I-6-2 present the percentage of impacts attributable to listing and critical <br />habitat for the Upper and Lower Basins if recovery were to occur by the year 2003. To <br />derive the direct economic impacts due to the listing of the endangered fishes, the residual <br />percentages were applied to the sectors where direct economic impacts were expected to <br />occur. <br />When determining the division between listing and critical habitat, all direct agricultural <br />sector impacts were assumed to be flow-related. For Wyoming, 75 percent, and for Utah, 100 <br />percent, of the recreational impacts were assumed to be flow-related. Within Colorado, 75 <br />percent of the Gunnison River recreation impacts were assumed to be flow-related. The <br />nonnative fish category captures the recreation impacts for Arizona and for the San Juan <br />River in Colorado. The remaining 25 percent of the recreation impacts for the Gunnison <br />River in Colorado were assumed to be related to the nonnative fish category. <br />I-29 <br />