Laserfiche WebLink
<br />orr5"8"~ - <br /> <br />Table 4-2 <br />LOCAL AND REGIONAL IMPACT <br />OF EMPLOYMENT ON BLM LANDS <br /> <br /> Recreation <br />Alternative Activity Percent Change <br /> Employment in Employment <br />Existin& Management 118 Less than I percent <br />Natural Resource <br />Enhancement 120 Less than I percent <br />Resource Production <br />Enhancement liS Less than I percent <br />Preferred 119 Less than I percent <br /> <br />Management under all alternatives would affect employ- <br />meDt, populatioD, and income in the area. Most of the effects <br />occur because of impacts OD the ranching sector, forestry <br />sector, and retail and service sectors. These ecoDomic sectors <br />would be affected by changes iD graziDg, forestry, and <br />recreatioD opportunities occurring from the land uses in the <br />alternatives. The potential ecoDOmiC impacts are insignificant <br />between alternatives and are insignificaDt as they relate to <br />local and regional impact (Table 4-2). <br /> <br />The expenditure data is used to measure ecoDomic effects <br />OD the ESA and national values are defiDed as the Det <br />ecoDOmiC gain from an activity. ExpeDditures are important <br />to local and state ecoDomies, but Ihey do Dol reJIect the <br />total recreatiOD values of the resource, which include the <br />personal benefits ODe receives from participatioD in that <br />activity. Thus, national values measure these additioDal <br />benefits. For example, the Det gain or national values from <br />a recreatioD activity is what the recreator is willing to pay <br />over their actnal costs to participate in the activity. Net <br />gains are portrayed here on an anDnal basis. <br /> <br />These Dational values are estimates of "willingness to pay" <br />(wtp). Wtp values are easy to determine when goods and <br />services are bought and sold in well-defined markets. <br />RecreatioD wtp values, however, usually have to be estimated <br />from secoDdary sources (Table 4-3). <br /> <br />No significant population change would result from land <br />use aIlocatiOD in any of the alternatives. The impacts from <br />each alternative teDd to be site-specific aDd CODfined to a <br />particular type of user group. Any decisioD would usually <br />produce tradeoffs with social advantages for some persons <br />or groups and social disadvantages for others. <br /> <br />Some resource products OD DLM land can be valued; others <br />caDDOl DoUar values can be assigned to timber and other <br />resources (Tables 4-4 and 4-5). <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br /> <br />Table 4-3 <br />NATIONAL DOLLAR VALUE <br />PER RESOURCE UNIT <br /> <br />Resource Unit DoUar Value <br />Livestock AUM 7.55' <br />Deer hUDting AUs 47.86 <br />Elk hunting AUs 137.22 <br />Antelope hunting AUs 18.95 <br />Other big game hunting HDs 23.17 <br />Waterfowl hunting HDs 6.7& <br />Warm water angling ADs 3.76 <br />Cold water angling ADs 4.15 <br />Dispe~ recreation use RDs 3.55 <br />Nongame Use (nature study) RDs &.5& <br /> <br />b <br />I <br /> <br />. The charge to lessee is $1.54/ AUM. <br />Source: Colorado BLM SAGERAM 1987 Price liIe. <br /> <br />All of these values were estimated as williDgrless to pay <br />values. Some of the values were determined by observatioD <br />of goods aDd services bought and sold in well defined <br />markets. For example markets exist for graziDg; however, <br />other resources such as recreation do Dot have established <br />markets. These values were based aD various willingness <br />to pay studies. <br /> <br />Examples of other benefits DOt assigned mODetary values <br />include the value to future geDeratioD of protection and <br />preserviDg cultural resources, the beDefits of maintaining <br />viable populations of wildlife species, and the satisfaction <br />derived by those who do Dot have any inteDtiOn of seeing <br />these populations. <br /> <br />Mineral values are also not ooosidered. Mineral activity on <br />DLM laDds respoDd mostly to changes iD market prices over <br />time, rather than to changes in alternative land management <br />plans. Price changes in minerals or the amount of minerals <br />that can be produced in the future on DLM lands cannot <br />be predicted. Thus miDerals are not valued for the trade- <br />off aDalysis, but are considered during the decisioD making <br />process. <br /> <br />The average rate for ~ animal-unit mODth aD Donirrigated <br />pnvately-()woed lands m the 11 western states is about $8. <br />This value is used as a correlative equal value for ranch <br />iDcome per AUM OD DLM lands. <br /> <br />The base cost of $650,000 per year is not expected to change. <br />The actual dollar amount may change because of inflation. <br />In terms of. 1987 dollars, however, the $650,000 is Dot <br />expected to mcrease. How and on what resources the dollars <br />are spent would vary by alternative. <br /> <br />~ <br />n <br /> <br />I <br />/' <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />4-5 <br />