WSP07668 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 54 I Monday, March 21, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 13381 TABLE .2.- IMPACTS OF THE CRmCAL HABITAT DESIGNATION ON EMPlOYMENT IN EAcH STATE AND THE COlORAOO RIVER BAsIN.' EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS REPRESENT JoBS FoREGoNE OIl GAINED IN THE FUTURE THROUGH lliE YEAR 2020, (AFTER BROOKSHIRE ET At. 1994)-Conlinued sm. . 1995 2000 ~ N_ New Melcico _ U1ah WyomIng ----- ~RMtr_ _ Nationai Economic Impacts ThenlSU!ts btilow are from the Computable General Equilibrium model end represent 8COnom1c output for the Basin ffable 3). Although the projected natiorial economic impacts_ posIti\01l for aU variablea, there Is almost no cbange In the regional economy, TABlE3.-RESUlTS Of COMPuTABLE GENERAL EOUILlBRIUM MODeL FOR THECOLORAOO' R1VER' BASIN. (AFTER BROOKSHIRE ETAL.19941 . Polrcenl ECOl1Oftlic 1m- . c:heIl9B pII:I 'In -.. CIIrf 47.92 mIkln _ 0.0013 Variable RegicnaI ProcI- llCt. EII~*'it _ Earrings"- Govt Aewnue . +710 jcbs _ +$6.62 _ _ +$320 _ .. 0,0047 ll.OO17 ll.OO16 .> ExcJaslon Process Bad:ground . , Pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, critic8l habitat Is designated by using the best sci8lltific data aveilable, and In full consideration of economic and other impacts of designation; The detMminJlltion on whether to exclude a reach or portion of a reach considers: (1) . The benefits of including that reach. (2) the benefits of excluding a reach, and (3) the effect of that resch, or the cumulativeelfect of excluding more then one reach, on the probability of species extinction. If the exclusion of a river reach or portion ofa reach would result In the eventual extinction of a species, the exclusion Is prolu'blted under the Act. Exclusion of an area as critic8l habitat would eliminate the protection provided under. the destructim1.or adverse modification provision of section 7 for critic8l habitat. However. it would not remove the need to comply with other requirements of the Act for that area, such as the "likely to jeopardize" prohibition of section 7 consultation (for Federal actions) and -........---.--- +8.91 +5,16 - - - +34.86. +71.52 ..... -2.17 -27.96 - .- -10.91' -22.30 ... - -0.40. -1.40 .. - +5e.94 +116.15 section 9 (take). Section 7 consultation requirements apply to Federal actions reganIless of whether or DOt crltic8l habitat is designated for a particuiar area. . The Service determin8d whether the benefits ofinclusiOl1 of critical habitat areas would outweigh the benefits of their exclusion, by using five sequential steps: Step 1-ldentify areas that meet the definition of critical habitat in section 3(5) of the Act and that ....""'si<lered es_1"ItlAl to the ~.atdm of,the species. This was eccomp1Ished. and the areas needed for conservation were published In the proposed nd4to designate critica1 habitat on January 29, 1993 (56 FR 6578). ]nstificatiOJlSfor these areas were preoontedin the Draft Biologlall Support J)ncnm"'lt. which was made av8ll.eble to the pub1lc on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 48351). Step 2-Conduct SII economic analysis to detemUne the IIDtic:ipated economic consequences of des!snallng areas as critical habltet. A draft report on the economk: anaIjSis was completed and made available to the. public for """men!. 011 November .12, 1993 (56 FR 59919) Step 3-Develop econom1c criteria or thresholds to help identify those areas .that would be sigJ'lfl(:outly affected by . the crltic8l habitat designation. Comments were requested from the public to aid in deVeloping the criteria (November 12, 1993; 58 FR 59919). Step 4-ComplJe the biologic8l infonnation thet shou1d he considered to determine whether excluding an area would result In extinction. PrImary consideration was ghren 10 information contained In published re<;-o,o:ty plans, The Service determined whether exclusion of an area 1NiI1 result In the extinction of a species. Step 5-Conduct the exclusion process. The Service has eva1usted which areas, if any, should he excluded due to economic or other relevant impacts. Prior to this evaluation, economic criteria m the form of thresholds (Step 3) were developed to provide a method by which the severity 2005 2010 2015 2020 -6,93 -19.8l -36.86 -55.60 +108.03 +143.22 +177.25 +206-69 -110.71 -239.60 -415-21 - 612.64 - 34.56 -47.71 -61-06 -74.13 -2.41 -3.45 - 4..35 -5.22 +176.70 +230.02 +294-76. +392-67 of economic impacts could he assessed. Those areas that exhibited aconom1c impacts above the threoholds were then examined to determine if the biologic8l threshold of extinction would be exceeded (Step 4) if the specific area In question was dropped from consideration as critic8l habitat. Benrrfits and Costs of Desigrtation A public sector analysis examined the allocation of scarce IeOOUrCeS regarding economic efiicieDcy and distribution or equity (Broobbize et aI. 1993. 1994). The efficiency criterion acIdressed whether deslgJUdl"8 areas as critical habitat produces greater net beneiita than costs. The equity criterion looks at the rasulting distribution of galns and losses. The Act requUoas the Service to protect threatened and 8Ildangered' .' species for all cltizrms, now and in the future. This DWIdata.faJJs underthe nationalllCOl101Jlic efficiency """""tlI, . wh.... policy adjustments.m to n1in;'mi'A P.r.!ftnnTllic efficiency losses for society while preserving endangered ~ .'. The Service does not haw a mandated n>qWrem8lltto conduct an efficiency- based beneflt-cost analysis when carrying out its resource protection activities. This is particu1arIy true for species listing activities under the Act. where econom1c considerations are explicitly prohibited. During critical habitat designation, however, consideration of benefits and costs can occur when "econom1cand other relevant impacts" are specifically Included as part of the process of final determination. The economic analysis (Brookshire et aI. 1994) only eddressed market-releted benefits and costs. No attempt was made to estimate nonmarket values associated with the preservation of the endangered f1abes, However. the Service recogni2es that the benefits of preservation are positive, The extant literature addreSsing the value of wildlife resources documents positive benefits for consumptive and nenconsumptive uses of wildlife spacles.. The legislative history ?f the.Act Indicates that