|
<br />.FederalRegister I VoL. 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
<br />
<br />13395
<br />
<br />direct impacts in almost all cases hydropower-production and the indirect
<br />extended beyond those innnertiRtA effects on all other sectors such as :
<br />boundaries. Further, the indirect effects agriculture, manufacturiug, mining. and
<br />were State-wide and region-wide. finance are represented. Thus, change.
<br />Issue 49: Concern was expressed that to one sector of the economy and the
<br />tribal ecol\Omics are distinctly different resulting impacts within all other
<br />than surrounding economics in that sectors are fully captured in the
<br />< factor mobility (such as .employment) is economic results as indirect impacts.
<br />limited. ' . Issue 52: Questions were raised
<br />Service Response: While it is true that concerning the reallocation of water and
<br />, there aXe fewer opportunities for the sectors that were projected to utilize
<br />displaced workers on tribal lands, very the reallocated water.
<br />few of the direct impacts, other than the SellliceResponse: In all cases, the
<br />Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, are lied reallocated water represented a benefit
<br />to tribal economics, In the case of the and thus was placed In a relatively low
<br />-'Navajo Tribe.. 'the impads ar~ reported value use. For inoda~. in California.
<br />in the New Mexico resUlts. which incurs positive impacts. the
<br />Issue SO: Small distributors and users choice for the sect"" to receive the
<br />ofhy~ectrlcpower expressed' , ... reallocated water was lha'agncwfiiral
<br />conceriis regarding the computation of sector. If municipal and industrial had
<br />and the lise of the electric power been choseri, then the. positive impacts
<br />impa~ iit the economic analysis, as would have been much Ialge<.
<br />well a,dssues regarding sunl< cost, Issue 53: Concern was expressed
<br />thermal replacement (fuel substitution), regarding the lack of ecorwmic impacts
<br />and ilie amount of thermal replacement resulting from flood plain designation.
<br />required. '. Service Response; lnIonnation
<br />Service Response: The electric . received during the public comment
<br />impacts w~ computed by Stone and periods and'previously available data
<br />Webster'Manegement Consultants, Inc., did not indicate any major economic
<br />utiliziDga model developed for the Glen impacts related to fiood plain
<br />CariyoilIlain:The model rleVe!l1Pb:tm!t designation. The Sm:vH:e IllCOgl1izes that
<br />ef!ort 'l'aSJundad by the 111lieauof. individual ~jects located in the flood
<br />. Reclarii8Iion.:The Sen>ice .~ to use plain may experience economic.
<br />this mOdel afler determining this was impacts. .'. .' . .
<br />the- moSt1:to-ciete and comprehensive Issue 54: Concern was nrised by the
<br />mO!ielall'.' :la. Shut.in hydroelectric. Navajo Nation and its representatives
<br />, capaclfy is.treated as a sunkCOSl in the regaIding theeocpansion of the Navajo
<br />. analysisWDoWing accapted economic Indian Irrigation Project{NlJP).
<br />'. theor:Y.Glis,:andcoalactiYiti.osal'!>' , Servi~Respon,se:~upon." '.
<br />projectedto.expandto proVl<lelhermal . ,nfnnn"\ion ~roV1cied during ~ public
<br />power replacement. EYi<Hng excess .' rnmmont.penod, the New MeXICO .
<br />. capacity In these sectors means that ~ analysis was revised to include an .
<br />expansion~. a benefi~ to the regionaJ . additional5~,OOO acre-feet of furore
<br />ocooomy::n>e analysis of Stone and . water ,depletions foreg",;,e. Additionally,
<br />Webster yielded a result that 121 croppmg patterns and J1elds for NIlP
<br />megawatts of additional lhennaI were adjusted based on information
<br />generation <:apacity woUld be required supplied by the Navajo Nation and .the
<br />to offset the reduction of Bureau of Indian Affairs during the
<br />hydr~on capacity. . comment period. Likewise,whendata
<br />The Sma1I systems impacts were not . provided during the comment periods
<br />. available for inclusion in the Economic . seemed reasonable, those economic data
<br />: Analysis released November 12, 1993. were incorporaied into the m.odels.
<br />. . The econOmic enaJysis was updated to Issue 55: Concems were nused by
<br />. include impilcts associated with small' several commenlers about the lack of .
<br />systems as well as large system impacts. economic impacts identified in the
<br />The updated results were used inth~ . Lower B~sin. In some~, .
<br />exclusion process and are included 10 hypothetical changes to existing Lower
<br />the final ruJe. . . Colorado, Salt, Verde, and/or Gila River
<br />. Issue 51: Public comments expressed operations 'Vere provided to estimate
<br />concem that an economic sBctors and economic impacts to agriculture and
<br />impacts of designating critical hob.itat mining' activities. .
<br />. were not addressed' in the economic.' Service Response: At present, the
<br />analysis.. Service does not foresee changes in
<br />Service Response: All models used in current hydrological operations of these
<br />the ecoilonllc analysis are general. rivers occuning as a result of recovery
<br />equilibrium in nature. .That is, all efforts for these fishes. The impacts
<br />impacts aruepresented through predicted by the cammenters and the
<br />linkages au.xong economic sectors, For scenarios used to generate those impacts
<br />example. both the direct impacts to are not envisioned by Service biologists
<br />
<br />in the Lower Basin as necessary for
<br />recovery and survival of these fish.
<br />Issue 56: One commenter indicated
<br />that the transfer of Colorado Eastern
<br />Slope agricultural water'rights to
<br />municipal use would be impracticable
<br />or impossible due to endangered species
<br />constraints on the Platte River system..
<br />Service Response: Construction of
<br />conveyance facilities to transfer Eastern
<br />Slope agricuhural water to
<br />municipalities may require section 7
<br />consultation with regard to Platte River
<br />endangered species, HoweVer, several
<br />such transfers have already occurred
<br />without any Federal action,
<br />demonstrating the feasibility of such
<br />transfers.
<br />~"'7Ssiie 57: Concern was expressed
<br />regarding the comparability of the
<br />Input-Dutput (1-0) and Computable
<br />General Equilibrium (CGE) results.
<br />Service Response: The underlying
<br />model assumptions differ. CGEmodels
<br />ailow for greater factor mobility and
<br />substitution. 1-0 models do not pemril
<br />impacts to communicsle and adjust
<br />with geographic areas outside the Slate
<br />or region; thus negative impacts are
<br />overestimated. Therefore, due to these
<br />differences, results from.these models
<br />are not directly comparabJe.
<br />Issue 58: Concerns were raised
<br />regarding changes ingovernrn~",l.
<br />revenue flows from hydropower '.
<br />impacts. . '..'
<br />Service Response: Such revenues
<br />represent transfers of economic
<br />resources, not real reSOUlCe costs, The
<br />models capture changes in government
<br />reven~' ,
<br />Issue 59: Concern was mised .
<br />regaIding a'varie-ty of projects planned
<br />for the regiOll that were not specifically
<br />addressed in the analysis,
<br />Service Response: Projects not .
<br />specifically identified in the economIC
<br />analysis were presumed to be
<br />undertaken and appear in the baseline
<br />projections. Further, some future
<br />projects have already undergone section
<br />7 consultation and as sitch do not
<br />represent an impacL Future projects for
<br />which little or no infonnation is
<br />currently available will be subject to
<br />section 7 consultation and as such it is
<br />premature to judge whether thev will be
<br />affected. .
<br />Issue 60: Concerns were nrised
<br />regarding the omission of the cost of
<br />capital facilities to use water such as
<br />planned municipal diversions.
<br />Service Response: These costs would
<br />be incuned regardless of whether
<br />critical habitat is designated and as such
<br />are not an'appropriate cost for inclusion
<br />in the analysis.
<br />Issue 61: Respondents recommended
<br />that the economic be-nefits of listing and
<br />
<br />.
<br />
|