Laserfiche WebLink
The procedures for determining the incremental impacts-due to the proposed critical habitat <br />designation were as follows. The adjusted direct economic impacts (due to listing only) were <br />input into the model stages. The models were run. The data yielded direct and indirect <br />economic impacts due to listing only. These results were then netted from the total (listing <br />plus proposed critical habitat) regional direct and indirect impacts presented in Chapters II-11 <br />and II-12, and the net national impacts presented in Chapter II-13. This process yielded the <br />incremental impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation. <br />B. State- and Regional-Level Economic Impacts <br />In this section, the results are organized by the major aggregate measures developed for the <br />models used in the analysis in this report: output, earnings, government revenues, and <br />employment. <br />1. Output <br />Table I-6-3 presents the State- and regional-level output impacts by State as well as for the <br />entire Basin. The data reported in the table are the discounted present values of the stream of <br />incremental output impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat designation.4 <br />Table I-6-3 illustrates the first conclusion that can be drawn. For the Colorado River Basin <br />as a whole, the overall impacts are clearly positive. The stream of impacts over the study <br />period (discounted at 3 percent to yield a present value) yields a positive impact of $167.20 <br />million for the Basin. <br />The remaining entries in Table I-6-3 demonstrate the second basic conclusion. The impacts <br />of the proposed critical habitat designation are not distributed evenly over the individual <br />States in the Basin. In fact, the total impacts range from a positive $262.60 million <br />(California) to a negative $63.39 million (Utah). <br />°The worth of a future stream of impacts expressed in terms of todays value. <br />I-31 <br />