|
<br />Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 54 / Monday, March 21, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
<br />
<br />13379
<br />
<br />comment period, the Servies has
<br />determined that some IIl'l3M are not
<br />required for the survival and recovery of
<br />the fishes because they do not contain
<br />the constituent elements, meat the
<br />additional selection criteria, or are not
<br />in historical habitat. In addition, other
<br />areas may contain constituent elements
<br />but may contribute little to the prospect
<br />ohecovelY'for ane or mora of the four
<br />, fishes. Some of these areas are within
<br />sections of designated critical habitat
<br />and will be .evaluated on a case-by-<:asa
<br />basis.-Five stream sections are separable
<br />and have been removed from
<br />consideration as part of critical habitat
<br />because oh lack of biological
<br />u"portance. These five areas are:
<br />. Davis Dam to the upstream end of
<br />Topock Marsh on the mainstam
<br />Colorado River (AZ, CA, NY) (bonytail
<br />chub)
<br />. Bonita and Eagle Creeks, tributaries
<br />to the Gila River (AZ) (razorback sucker)
<br />. Cherry'and Canyon Creeks,
<br />trib~to the Salt River (AZ)'
<br />(razorback sucker) .
<br />. Sycamore, Oak, and west Claar
<br />CreekS, tributaries to the Verde River
<br />(AZ) (iazorback sucker) .,.'
<br />. The Verde River from Sullivai1Lake
<br />to Ped:insvill" (AZ) (razorbackaucker)
<br />The Service reiterates that any or sll
<br />of these sections could contribute to the
<br />recovery of one or more of the fishes;
<br />hOwrier, they do not provide a primary
<br />reCovery'area lind are considered oiI1y
<br />marginally important. The 8m!ice also
<br />notes that some of these areas may Dot
<br />haye been historical habitat for the
<br />'Iazorbacksucker, a further indication
<br />that these areas may have only limited
<br />value in the.recovery of these fishes.
<br />
<br />Economic Impacls
<br />
<br />Introduction
<br />
<br />Section 4(b)(2) of the Act directs tha
<br />Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
<br />consider economic and other relevant
<br />impacts in determining whsther to
<br />exclude proposed areas from the fiDal
<br />designation of critical habitat. The
<br />SerVice, as delegated by the Secretary,
<br />.may.exclude areas from critical habitat
<br />designation when the benefits of
<br />exclnsion outweigh the benefits of
<br />inclusion; provided that exclusion will
<br />not result in extinction of a species. An
<br />economic analysis (Brookshire et al.
<br />1994) was conducted on the
<br />. consequances of this actioD (critical
<br />. habitat designation).
<br />The study region for the economic
<br />analysis includes the seven States of the
<br />Basin: Arizona, California, Colorado,
<br />New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and
<br />Wyoming. The timeframe chosen for the
<br />study, 1995 through 2020, encompasses
<br />
<br />the time period projected for tha
<br />recovery of the endangered fishes.
<br />Linkages between !lie biological
<br />requirements for recovering the
<br />endangered fishes and economic
<br />activities in the region formed tha basis
<br />for the economic analysis. As an index
<br />of these biological requirements,
<br />adjustments made in the operations of
<br />Federal reservoirs in the Basin and/or
<br />mitigation of nonfiow related activities
<br />along the river's 10o-year flood plain
<br />were included, The effects of recovery
<br />efforts on future water depletions in the
<br />Basin also were token Into
<br />consideration, The direct and indirect
<br />impacts of these po.ssible changes on
<br />CUITent and prospective economic
<br />activities were then estimated for each
<br />State, the region, and the national
<br />economy.: .
<br />It is impossible to predict the outcome
<br />of future section 7 consultations
<br />involving endangered fishes in the
<br />Basin. II the Upper Basin and San Juan
<br />Recovery Implementation Programs
<br />(RIP) do not show sufficient and timely
<br />progress in recovering the endangered
<br />fishes, .Some planned water .
<br />developments may be modified, scaled
<br />bac:k, dalayed, orfomgone,This" .
<br />sssumption provides an upper bound on
<br />thapotential magnituda of economic
<br />impacts associated with the critical
<br />habitat designation. lithe RIP's are
<br />successful in achieving their objectives,
<br />. many of the negative economic impacls
<br />. can be avoided.
<br />
<br />EcOnomic M6deling ,
<br />
<br />Two types of economic effects are of
<br />interest when considering the economic'
<br />impacts of critical habitat designations:
<br />regiona1economic Impacts andnational
<br />economic efficiency impacts. Regional
<br />economic impacts reillr to the direct and
<br />indirect impacts of the critical habitat
<br />designations on specific geographic
<br />regions, such as States or other
<br />subregions of the country,
<br />Regional economic impacts were
<br />analyzed using input--output (1-0)
<br />models that organize the basic
<br />accounting relationshipa that describe
<br />the production sector of the economy
<br />(Brookshire et aI. 1993). The 1-0
<br />mathod is based on tha assumption that
<br />all sectors of tha economy are related,
<br />and the production of a good or service
<br />can be described by a recipe whosa
<br />ingredients are the outpu," from other
<br />sectors oftha economy. The primary
<br />'inputs are labor, capital. and other raw
<br />resources, Through its multiplier
<br />analysis, the I-O model is capable of
<br />generating estimates of the changes in
<br />output for economic sectors, changes in
<br />employment, and changes' in income
<br />due to the critical habitat designation.
<br />
<br />The models report total impacts
<br />resulting from interactions among the
<br />sectors of the economv.
<br />National economic efficiency impacts
<br />refer to tha overall net impacts on tha
<br />national economy after the effects of
<br />interregional transfers have ~ .
<br />accounted for. The goal of a national'
<br />efficiency analysis is to determine
<br />whether an action would have an
<br />overall positive or negative impact on
<br />the national economy.
<br />National economic efficiency impacts
<br />were analyzed in this study using a
<br />Computable General Equllibrium (CGE)
<br />model. The mE model captures the
<br />economic interactions of consumers, the
<br />production secto~ and the government
<br />sectors, The CGE model also analyzes
<br />resource reallocations (e;g., changes in
<br />river flows as represented by'increased
<br />or decreased hydroelectric gen<>ration)
<br />in a mamier such that the net effects,
<br />. not just the total effects, are calculated.
<br />Given this capability, the mE model is
<br />able to estimate netD8tional efficiency
<br />impacts,
<br />
<br />Modeling Approach
<br />
<br />A separate I-O model was.developed
<br />for each Stata, and focused on the direct
<br />and indirect impacls generated by tha
<br />critical habitat designation (Brookshire
<br />et aI. 1993). In most cases, impacts in a
<br />given Stategenerated:impactsin
<br />neighboring Stales. Thus, itwas
<br />necessary to investigate potential
<br />offsetting impacts. As a nlBlllt, an I-O
<br />model was constructed that Investigated
<br />the impacts of the entire region (a1l
<br />seven States). In addition to the State
<br />and regional I-O models, a mE model .
<br />was developed for the economies of the
<br />seven.State orea and the rest of the
<br />United Stales. This model provided a
<br />comprehensive aggregsta assessment of
<br />the national economic efficiency
<br />impacts.
<br />Economic activity for the models was
<br />estimated using Impect Analysis for
<br />Planning (lMPLAN) 1982 deta sets that
<br />were updated and prtijected through the
<br />year 2020, using data from tha Bureau
<br />of Economic Analysis of the U.S.
<br />Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN
<br />data set contains 528 economic sectors
<br />that were aggregated to 20 sectors
<br />(Brookshire et aI. 1994).
<br />
<br />Without Fish and With Fish Scenarios
<br />
<br />Two scenarios were used to evaluate
<br />economic activities associated with the
<br />critical habitat designation (Brookshire
<br />et aI. 1994), The "without fish"
<br />economic scenario consisted of
<br />projections of the level of economic
<br />activities that would be observed over
<br />the study period Ifno-aClion was taken
<br />to recover the endangered fishes. The
<br />
|