Laserfiche WebLink
Section 6: Determination of the Incremental Economic Impacts of <br />Critical Habitat <br />A. The Division Between Listing and Critical Habitat <br />The Act requires that when designating critical habitat only the incremental impacts of <br />critical habitat designation be quantified. To meet this requirement, a method had to be <br />devised for determining the percentage of an impact that was due to listing and the <br />percentage that was due to designation of critical habitat. This method is discussed in detail <br />in Chapter II -14 of Brookshire et al. (1993). By applying the percentage for the critical <br />habitat designation to the direct impacts reported in Chapters II -9 and II -10 of Brookshire et <br />al. (1993), the incremental impacts of critical habitat designation were 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, <br />100 percent, of the recreational impacts were assumed to be flow - related. Within Colorado, <br />75 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 />