[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17296-17311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8301]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD 22
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Determination of Critical Habitat for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and
Virgin Spinedace and Notice of Public Hearing
AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate
critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda = G. robusta
seminuda), the Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis),
and the woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus). The Virgin River chub and
wouldfin are listed as endangered; the Virgin spinedace has been
proposed for listing as threatened (May 18, 1994), but the listing has
not been finalized as yet. There is considerable overlap in critical
habitat proposed for the three species, the proposed designation
includes 330.8 km (206.8 mi) of the Virgin River and its tributaries in
portions of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The Service proposes 151.7 km
(94.8 mi) of critical habitat for the woundfin (approximately 13.5
percent of its historical range); 151.7 km (94.8 mi) for the Virgin
River chub (70.8 percent of its historical range, excluding the chub
occupying the Muddy River); and 201.9 km (126.2 mi) for the Virgin
spinedace (87.3 percent of its historical range). The majority of the
land to be designated as critical habitat is under Federal or private
ownership.
All three fish species are endemic to the Virgin River Basin of
southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and southeastern Nevada. The
proposed critical habitat designation includes portions of the mainstem
Virgin River and its tributaries, including the 100-year floodplain.
This proposed critical habitat would result in additional review
requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency
actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to consider economic
costs and benefits prior to making a final decision on the size and
scope of critical habitat.
DATES: Comments will be accepted until June 5, 1995.
A public hearing will be held from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with
registration beginning at 4:30 p.m., on Monday, May 8, 1995. Requests
for additional public hearings must be received by May 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Requests for additional public hearings or comments and
materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Field
Office, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. The
public hearing will be in the Garden Room at the St. George Hilton Inn,
1450 South Hilton Drive, St. George, Utah. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the above address. Copies of comments
and materials received also will be available for public inspection at
the Washington County Public Library in St. George, Utah.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert D. Williams, Assistant
Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office, at the above address,
(801) 524-5001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chub
(Gila seminuda =G. robusta seminuda) are presently listed as endangered
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis
mollispinis) was proposed for listing on May 18, 1994, as threatened
under the Act. In the subsequent text, all three species of fish are
referred to as ``listed fishes'' even though the Virgin spinedace has
only been proposed for listing at this time. These three fishes are all
endemic to the Virgin River Basin. The Virgin River flows generally
along the Hurricane Fault, which forms the boundary between the
Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin. These two geologic provinces are
quite dissimilar. The Colorado Plateau is characterized by horizontal-
lying strata eroded into canyons, plateaus, and mesas. Long, isolated
mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys typify the Great
Basin province. The Virgin River originates in south-central Utah,
running in a southwest direction from Utah to northwestern Arizona, and
southeastern Nevada for approximately 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles
(mi)) before emptying into Lake Mead. Prior to the completion of
Boulder (Hoover) Dam in 1935, the Muddy River in southeastern Nevada
joined the Virgin River before the latter emptied into the Colorado
River. These two rivers now flow separately into the Overton Arm of
Lake Mead. [[Page 17297]]
These Virgin River fishes have declined in numbers due to the
cumulative effects of environmental impacts which include dewatering
from numerous diversion projects; proliferation of nonnative fishes;
and alterations to natural flow, temperature, and sediment regimes.
Woundfin
Based on early records, the original range of the woundfin extended
from near the junction of the Salt and Verde Rivers at Tempe, Arizona,
to the mouth of the Gila River at Yuma, Arizona (Gilbert and Scofield
1898, Minckley 1973). Woundfin were also found in the mainstem Colorado
River from Yuma (Jordan and Evermann 1896, Meek 1904, Follett 1961)
upstream to the Virgin River in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and into La
Verkin Creek, a tributary of the Virgin River in Utah (Gilbert and
Scofield 1898, Snyder 1915, Miller and Hubbs 1960, Cross 1975).
However, there is reason to believe that the woundfin occurred further
upstream in the Verde, Salt, and Gila Rivers in Arizona.
Except for the mainstem of the Virgin River, woundfin were
extirpated from most of their historical range. Woundfin presently
range from Pah Tempe Springs (also called La Verkin Springs) on the
mainstem of the Virgin River and the lower portion of La Verkin Creek
in Utah, downstream to Lake Mead. A single specimen was taken from the
middle Muddy (Moapa) River, Clark County, Nevada, in the late 1960's
and since that time no additional specimens have been collected (Deacon
and Bradley 1972).
Adult and juvenile woundfin inhabit runs and quiet waters adjacent
to riffles with sand and sand/gravel substrates. Adults are generally
found in habitats with water depths between 0.15 and 0.43 meters (m)
(0.5 and 1.4 feet (ft)) with velocities between 0.24 and 0.49 meters
per second (m/s) (0.8 and 1.6 feet per second ft/s)). Juveniles select
areas with slower and deeper water, while fry are found in backwaters
and stream margins which are often associated with growths of
filamentous algae. Spawning takes place during the period of declining
spring flows.
Virgin River Chub
The Virgin River chub was described as a full species (Gila
seminuda) in 1875 (Cope and Yarrow 1875) and it was thought to be
restricted to the Virgin River between Hurricane, Utah, and its
confluence with the Colorado River. However, Ellis (1914) considered
this chub to be an intermediate between the roundtail chub (G. robusta)
and bonytail chub (G. elegans), and reduced it to a subspecies (G.
robusta seminuda) of the roundtail chub.
Until recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other
authorities (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Minckley 1973, Smith et al.
1977) have treated the chub in the Muddy River as a separate, unnamed
subspecies of roundtail chub (Moapa roundtail chub = G. robusta ssp.).
Since 1982, the Service has considered this chub to be a Category 2
candidate species (47 FR 58455, 54 FR 556, 56 FR 58804).
In a recent taxonomic study of the genus Gila, DeMarais et al.
(1992) asserted that full species status (G. seminuda) was warranted
for the Virgin River chub. The Muddy River form is included in G.
seminuda, although it is a separate population. Gila seminuda most
likely arose through hybridization involving G. robusta and G. elegans.
These taxonomic revisions were recently accepted by the Service,
American Fisheries Society, and the American Society of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists Fish Names Committee (Mr. Joseph S. Nelson, American
Fish Society, in litt. 1993). This proposal to designate critical
habitat does not include the Muddy River form of the Virgin River chub.
However, the Service will review the status of the Muddy River
population of the Virgin River chub.
The Virgin River chub was first collected in the 1870's from the
Virgin River near Washington, Utah. Historically, it was collected from
the mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs, Utah, downstream to
the confluence with the Colorado River in Nevada (Cope and Yarrow 1875,
Cross 1975). Presently, the Virgin River chub occurs within the
mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs downstream to at least the
Mesquite Diversion.
Adult and juvenile Virgin River chub select deep runs or pools with
slow to moderate velocities containing boulders or other instream cover
over a sand substrate. Generally, larger fish occupy deeper habitats;
however, there is no apparent correlation with velocity. Chub are
generally found in velocities ranging up to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s).
Virgin Spinedace
The historical distribution of the Virgin spinedace is not well
known. Holden (1977) speculated that the species occurred in most of
the clear water tributaries and in several mainstem reaches of the
Virgin River in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and
southeastern Nevada. Museum records and species survey information
support this historic distribution (Rinne 1971, Cross 1975, Valdez et
al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993).
Over the last 50 years, there has been a decline in the range of
the species with about a 37-40 percent (83 km, 52 mi) habitat loss due
to human impacts (Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993). Stream
reaches that once contained spinedace (but are now dewatered) include
portions of the East Fork of Beaver Dam Wash, the Santa Clara River
downstream Gunlock Reservoir, Mogatsu Creek, Ash Creek near
Toquerville, Leeds Creek, and the mainstem Virgin River between Quail
Creek Diversion and Pah Tempe Springs. Current distribution of the
spinedace includes portions of the mainstem Virgin River and 11 of its
tributaries and subtributaries including the East Fork Virgin River,
Shunes Creek, North Fork Virgin River, North Creek, La Verkin Creek,
Ash Creek, Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam Wash, Coal Pits Wash, Moody
Wash, and Mogatsu Creek.
Virgin spinedace are found in runs or pools in clear streams. The
presence of cover either in the form of vegetation, boulders, debris,
or undercut banks is also characteristic. Substrates in occupied
habitats include rubble/cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Spinedace are
found in streams at depths of 0.1 to 0.9 m (0.3 to 2.9 ft) and with
current velocities between 0.1 and 1.0 m/s (0.3 to 3.2 ft/s).
Importance of the Virgin River Floodplain
Components of the river system include the mainstem channel in
which water is maintained most or all of the year and the upland
habitats which are inundated during spring flows. These seasonally
flooded habitats contribute to the biological productivity of the river
system by providing nutrients (allochthonous energy) and terrestrial
food sources to aquatic organisms (Hesse and Sheets 1993).
Additionally, Hynes (1970) reported that streams with higher
percentages of vegetation contained higher densities of aquatic
invertebrates. The Virgin River contains little aquatic vegetation and
produces a minimum of autochthonous (indigenous) organic matter. Thus,
the fauna of the Virgin River is dependent on allochthonous energy
inputs from the floodplain that provide much of the food base.
Studies of the major floodplain rivers of the world have documented
the value of flooded bottomlands and uplands for fish production
(Welcomme 1979). Due to their mobility, many species of fishes
[[Page 17298]] are able to take advantage of food sources from flooded
lands. Indeed, many fishes have developed migratory strategies that
allow them to utilize inundated areas as spawning, nursery, and
foraging areas (Lowe-McConnel 1975, Welcomme 1979). In this context, a
rich food source of terrestrial origin may enhance fish growth,
fecundity, and/or survival. Use of these inundated floodplains
increases the energy available for spawning and is necessary for
reproductive success in some species (Finger and Stewart 1987). In many
cyprinid fishes, including these Virgin River natives, spawning is
associated with seasonal rains and flooding of rivers. Flood-related
changes in the river environment not only induce spawning for many
species, but these changes comprise the ultimate factors limiting the
survival of eggs, larvae, or young fish (Hontela and Stacey 1990).
Loss of floodplain habitats in the Missouri River Basin has reduced
fish biomass production as much as 98 percent (Karr and Schlosser
1978). Inundation of floodplain habitats during spring flows also
provides areas with warmer water temperatures, low velocity resting
habitat, and cover from predation. Recent studies in the Colorado River
system show that the life histories and welfare of native riverine
fishes are linked to the maintenance of a natural or historic flow
regimen (i.e., hydrological pattern of high spring and low autumn-
winter flows that vary in magnitude and duration depending on annual
precipitation patterns and runoff from snowmelt) (Tyus and Karp 1989,
1990). Minckley and Meffe (1987) suggest that loss of flooding will
result in extirpation of many of the native fish species in the
Colorado River system.
Previous Federal Actions
The woundfin was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR
16047), and critical habitat was proposed on November 2, 1997 (42 FR
57329). However, on March 6, 1979, the proposal for critical habitat
was withdrawn (44 FR 12382) due to the 1978 amendments to the Act,
which required proposals to be withdrawn if not finalized within 2
years. A Woundfin Recovery Plan was originally approved in July 1979
and subsequently revised on March 1, 1984. On July 24, 1985, the
Service proposed the reintroduction of the woundfin into the Gila River
drainage in Arizona and determined this population to be ``nonessential
experimental'' in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act (50 FR
30188).
On August 23, 1978, the Service proposed the listing as endangered
and the designation of critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (43
FR 37668). This proposal was also withdrawn (45 FR 64853; September 30,
1980), due to the 1978 amendments to the Act. The Virgin River chub was
later listed as endangered on August 24, 1989 (54 FR 35305). Critical
habitat was proposed on June 24, 1988 (51 FR 22849); however, the final
determination was postponed. When the Virgin River chub was listed, the
Muddy River form was omitted due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy.
The Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan, which is under final
preparation, includes the woundfin and Virgin River chub (but not the
Muddy River form).
The Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a threatened
species on May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25875). A proposal to designate critical
habitat for the spinedace was delayed because the Service felt that the
three fish species would receive greater protection if critical habitat
was designated simultaneously.
On March 18, 1994, the U.S. District Court, Colorado (Court)
ordered the Service to designate critical habitat for the Virgin River
chub, woundfin, and Virgin spinedace (if listed before December 31,
1994). The Court ordered that critical habitat be proposed no later
than April 1, 1995, and be finalized by December 1, 1995.
Although the listing of the Virgin spinedace has not been
finalized, the designation of critical habitat is being proposed for
it, in order to allow for public comment on all three species. The
final rule for critical habitat designation will also reflect the
listed status of the Virgin spinedace as of that date.
Definition of Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) designate
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered
or threatened. Critical habitat is now proposed for the woundfin,
Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace.
Role of Critical Habitat in Species Conservation
The designation of critical habitat is one of several measures
available to assist in the conservation and recovery of a species.
Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying
areas that contain essential habitat features (primary constituent
elements) regardless of whether or not the areas are currently occupied
by the listed species. Such designations alert Federal agencies,
States, the public, and other organizations to the areas' importance to
the conservation and recovery of the species. Critical habitat also
identifies areas that may require special management or protection
considerations. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection
under section 7 of the Act. This is in regards to actions carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency that are likely to adversely
modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that Federal
agencies consult with the Service on actions that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects Federal actions that
occur in the areas and does not automatically prohibit certain actions
or create a management plan for a listed species. Such designation does
not have a direct effect on habitat not specified as critical habitat.
Critical habitat designation may increase protection of designated
areas and assists in the recovery of species. Areas outside of critical
habitat, containing one or more of the primary constituent elements,
serve to maintain ecosystem integrity, thereby indirectly contributing
to recovery.
Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Plan
Recovery plans, developed in accordance with section 4(f) of the
Act, address the steps needed to recover a species throughout its range
and provide guidance, that may include population goals and
identification of areas in need of protection or special management. In
developing a recovery plan, the relationships between critical habitat
and other current planning efforts should be evaluated. Recovery plans
should recommend actions for managing designated critical habitat on
Federal lands, as well as critical habitat under other
landownership. [[Page 17299]]
Primary Constituent Elements
In determining areas for designation as critical habitat, the
Service considers those physical and biological features that are
essential for the conservation of the species. Such physical and
biological features (in 50 CFR 424.12) include, but are not limited to,
the following items:
(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,
germination, or seed dispersal; and generally
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
In addition, the Act stipulates that areas containing these
elements may require special management considerations or protection.
In determining critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes, the
Service focused on the primary physical and biological elements
essential to the conservation of each species. The Service is required
to list these elements together with a description of the designated
critical habitat.
The primary constituent elements determined necessary for the
survival and recovery of these Virgin River fishes include, but are not
limited to:
Water--A quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, contaminants, nutrients, turbidity,
etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in accordance with a
hydrologic regime that is identified for the particular life stage for
each species.
Physical Habitat--Areas of the Virgin River Basin that are
inhabited or potentially habitable by fish for use in spawning,
nursing, feeding, and rearing, or corridors between such areas. In
addition to river channels, these areas also include side channels,
secondary channels, backwaters, springs, and other areas which provide
spawning, nursery, feeding, or rearing habitats, or access to these
habitats.
Biological Environment--Food supply, predation, and competition are
important elements of the biological environment and are considered
components of this constituent element. Food supply is a function of
nutrient supply, productivity, and availability to each life stage of
the species. Predation and competition, although considered normal
components of this environment, may be out of balance due to nonnative
fish species in many areas.
Habitat requirements for the listed fishes vary. In designating an
area as critical habitat for more than one of the species, the Service
assessed the area for all applicable constituent elements. Specific
information on primary constituent elements for each of these fish
species is given in the following section.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
Woundfin--The proposed designation of critical habitat for the
woundfin is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the confluence of
Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. The Virgin River was divided
into five distinct reaches (due to its current functions
hydrologically) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8 mi) as measures
along the center line of each reach (Table 1). This represents
approximately 13.5 percent of the woundfin's historical habitat. Due to
the lack of historical data on the distribution of the woundfin in
Arizona, this number is only an estimate. These proposed reaches flow
through both public and private lands (Table 2).
Virgin River Chub--The proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Virgin River chub is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the
confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. Due to the
hydrological current functions of the Virgin River, it was divided into
five distinct reaches (Table 1) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8
mi). This represents approximately 70.8 percent of the historical
habitat within the Virgin River Basin, excluding the range historically
occupied by the Muddy River chub population. These reaches flow through
both public and private land (Table 2).
Virgin Spinedace--The Service proposes 16 reaches within the Virgin
River Basin as critical habitat for the Virgin spinedace (Table 1) and
these reaches total 201.9 km (126.2 mi). This represents approximately
87.7 percent of the historical habitat for this species (230.2 km or
143.9 mi) (Valdez et al. 1991). Critical habitat is being proposed for
the mainstem Virgin River, the East and North Forks of the Virgin
River, Beaver Dam Wash, Shunes Creek, Moody Wash, Mogatsu Creek, the
Santa Clara River, Ash Creek, La Verkin Creek, and North Creek. These
reaches flow through both public and private lands (Table 2).
Table 1.--Proposed Critical Habitat in Kilometers (Miles) for Virgin River Listed Fishes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace State Totalsa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona................. 50.6 (31.6) 50.6 (31.6) 1.3 (0.8) 51.9 (32.4)
Nevada.................. 41.5 (25.9) 41.5 (25.9 .................... 41.5 (25.9
Utah.................... 59.6 (37.3) 59.6 (37.3) 200.6 (125.4) 237.4 (148.4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............. 151.7 (94.8) 151.7 (94.8) 201.9 (126.2) 330.8 (206.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aState totals do not equal the cumulative totals of the three species due to considerable overlap of proposed
critical habitat among species.
Table 2.--Shoreline Ownership in Kilometers (Miles) of Proposed Critical Habitat for Virgin River Listed Fishesa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federalb...................................... 85.2 (53.3) 85.2 (53.3) 76.8 (48.0)
State......................................... 7.5 (4.8) 7.5 (4.8) 2.8 (1.8)
Tribal........................................ .................... .................... 9.7 (6.1)
Private....................................... 59.0 (36.8) 59.0 (36.8) 112.6 (70.4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17300]]
Total................................... 151.7 (94.8 151.7 (94.8) 201.9 (126.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aLandownership was typically the same on both riverbanks. However, in several reaches (1.5 km or less) the river
formed a boundary between Federal and private lands. Based upon the location of the channel, these reaches
were identified as either Federal or private, not both. Therefore, distances may be doubled to represent
ownership along both riverbanks.
bFederal lands include those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park
Service.
Virgin River Floodplain
The riparian zone within the 100-year floodplain of the Virgin
River reaches is being proposed as critical habitat, but only those
portions of the 100-year floodplain that contain constituent elements
are being designated for critical habitat. Developed lands not
considered critical habitat within the 100-year floodplain boundary
include, but are not limited to, existing paved roads, bridges, parking
lots, dikes, levees, railroad tracks, railroad trestles, water
diversion canals outside of natural stream channels, active gravel
pits, cultivated agricultural land, and residential, commercial, and
industrial developments. These developed areas do not contain primary
constituent elements and will not contribute to the species' recovery.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that activities Federal
agencies authorize, fund, or carry out do not destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. This is in addition to the
requirement of section 7(a)(2) that Federal agencies insure that their
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.
A Federal agency must consult with the Service if a proposed action of
theirs affects a listed species or its critical habitat. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified in 50 CFR part 402.
Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(4) of the Act and
implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require that Federal agencies
confer with the Service on any action which will destroy or adversely
modify the designated areas. Conference reports provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist a Federal agency in identifying
and resolving conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action.
If a Federal agency requests consultation under section 7 of the
Act, and the Service concurs, a formal conference report may then be
issued. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain
an opinion prepared in accordance with formal consultation procedures
as if the critical habitat were already designated. Such a formal
conference report is adopted as the biological opinion pursuant to 50
CFR 402.10(d) when the critical habitat is designated, provided no
significant information or changes in the action occur that would alter
the content of the opinion.
Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent
elements within the defined reaches and their contribution to the
species recovery, and includes consideration of the species' biological
needs and factors that will contribute to its recovery (i.e.,
distribution, numbers, reproduction, and viability). In evaluating
Federal actions, the Service will consider the action's impact on
factors used to determine critical habitat of the Virgin River listed
fishes. These factors include the primary constituent elements of
water, physical habitat, and biological environment. The ability of an
area to provide these constituent elements into the future and the
reaches' capability to contribute to the recovery of the species will
also be considered. The potential level of allowable impacts or habitat
reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a case-by-
case basis during section 7 consultation.
For species with multiple critical habitat reaches, each reach has
local and rangewide roles in contributing to the conservation of the
species. The loss of a single reach may not jeopardize the continued
existence of the species, but it could significantly reduce the
critical habitat's contribution to recovery of a species. In some
cases, the destruction of a reach proposed as critical habitat could
result in the loss of an entire population, thereby preculding any
recovery and reducing the likelihood of survival of the species. The
proposed critical habitat reaches in the Virgin River Fishes Recovery
Plan include areas important for recovery of these fishes.
Examples of Proposed Actions
Section 4(b)(8) requires for any proposed or final regulation;
designation of critical habitat, a brief description and evaluation of
those activities that may adversely modify or destroy such habitat or
those activities that may be affected by such designation. Destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as a direct or
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of a listed species. Some
activities disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within
designated critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes. These
activities include actions that reduce the volume and timing of water
flows, destroy or eliminate access to spawning and nursery habitat,
prevent recruitment, impact food sources, contaminate the river, or
increase predation and competition by nonnative fishes. In contrast,
other activities such as recreation (i.e., boating, hiking, hunting,
etc.), some types of farming and ranching, may not adversely modify
critical habitat.
Areas designated as critical habitat for the Virgin River listed
fishes support a number of proposed and existing commercial and
noncommercial activities. Some activities that will affect critical
habitat include construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities,
irrigation, flood control, bank stabilization, oil and gas drilling,
mining, grazing, stocking or introduction of nonnative fishes,
municipal water supplies, and resort facilities. Federal activities
include the Sandstone Reservoir, Pah Tempe Pipeline, Halfway Wash
Project, Lake Powell Pipeline, water wheeling, water leasing,
Washington Fields Pumpback, and dewatering of springs for municipal and
industrial purposes. Commercial activities that will not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat include river float trips and guided
sport fishing. Noncommercial activities such as boating, fishing, and
various activities associated with nature appreciation are largely
associated with private recreation and most likely will not affect
critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act only applies to Federal actions
(i.e., projects, permits, loans, etc.) and each Federal action must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. [[Page 17301]]
Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act considers economic and other relevant
impacts in determining whether to exclude any proposed areas from the
final designation of critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas
from critical habitat designation when the costs or impacts outweigh
the benefits, provided that exclusion will not result in extinction of
a species. An economic analysis was conducted on the costs of the
proposed critical habitat designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). The
study area for the economic analysis encompassed portions of the Virgin
River Basin in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada.
The biological requirements for the recovery of these listed fishes
and regional economic activities were assessed and form the basis of
the economic analysis. The biological requirements include adjustments
in water diversions in the Virgin River Basin and/or mitigation of
nonflow-related activities within the 100-year floodplain. The effects
of recovery efforts on future water depletions in the basin also were
taken into consideration. The impacts of these possible changes on
current and prospective economic activities were estimated using input-
output models for each county and region in the Virgin River Basin.
Direct and indirect impacts on employment, wages, and State and Federal
revenues derived from business and personal income taxes were also
factored into the exclusion process. The results of these models are
found in the economic analysis document prepared for determining
critical habitat for these particular fish species (Brookshire et al.
1995). This complete economic analysis is part of the administrative
record which is available to the public upon request.
Economic Analysis Methodology
The economic analysis provides insights into the reallocation of
resources from the perspectives of both economic efficiency and
distribution or equity. The efficiency criterion determines whether
designating areas as critical habitat produces any net gains to
society. The equity criterion looks at the resulting distribution of
gains and losses. The study region for which the economic analysis was
conducted includes Washington and Iron Counties in Utah, Clark County
in Nevada, and the portion of Mohave County in Arizona located north of
the Colorado River. The time frame chosen for the study encompasses a
45-year period (1995 through 2040) projected to recover the listed
fishes.
Washington County, Utah, and Clark County, Nevada are two counties
that will be directly affected by any actions taken by the Service on
behalf of the listed fishes. Presently, these counties are among the
fastest growing areas in the United States. From 1980 to 1990,
Washington County's population grew by 52 percent, while Clark County's
grew by 62.5 percent. The Virgin River also flows through a portion of
Mohave County in Arizona. This area has a very small population and a
modest economic base. Iron County, Utah, (lies north of Washington
County) is a rapidly growing area that is economically closely linked
to Washington County. Although the Virgin River does not flow through
Iron County, any economic impacts on Washington County would be felt in
Iron County as well.
The linkage between the biological requirements for the survival
and recovery of the listed fishes and economic activities in the region
formed the basis for the economic analysis. As an index of these
biological requirements, adjustments made in the operations of the
Quail Creek Reservoir and agricultural diversions on the Virgin River
were included. The effects of recovery efforts on projected future
water development and delivery projects were taken into consideration.
The direct effects on the agencies responsible for water development
and delivery also were taken into consideration. The direct and
indirect impacts of these possible changes on current and prospective
economic activities were then estimated for each county and regional
economy.
One cannot predict the outcome of future section 7 consultations
involving listed fishes in the region. Economic impacts associated with
the critical habitat designation depends on the time required for the
recovery of the listed fishes. County and regional economic impacts are
of interest when considering the effects of critical habitat
designations. County economic impacts are the direct and indirect
impacts of the critical habitat designations on specific geographic
areas. County economic impacts were analyzed using input-output (I-O)
models that organize the basic accounting relationships that describe
the production section of the economy (Brookshire et al. 1995). The I-O
model is based on the assumption that all sectors of the economy are
related, and the production of a good or service can be described by a
recipe whose ingredients are the outputs from other sectors of the
economy. The primary inputs are labor, capital, and other raw
resources. Through its multiplier analysis, the I-O model is capable of
generating estimates of the changes in output for economic sectors,
changes in employment, and changes in income due to the critical
habitat designation. The models report total impacts resulting from
interactions among the different sectors of the economy.
Regional economic efficiency impacts refer to the overall net
impacts on the regional economy after accounting for the effects of
intercounty transfers. The goal of a regional efficiency analysis is to
determine whether an action would have an overall positive or negative
impact on the regional economy.
A separate I-O model was developed for each county and focused on
the direct and indirect impacts generated by the critical habitat
designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). In most cases, impacts on a given
county generated impacts on neighboring counties. Thus, it was
necessary to investigate potential offsetting impacts. As a result, an
I-O model was constructed that investigated the impacts for an entire
region (all four counties).
Economic activity for the models was estimated using Impact
Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) 1990 data sets that were updated and
projected through the year 2040, using data from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN data set
contains 528 economic sectors that were aggregated to 16 sectors
(Brookshire et al. 1995).
The I-O models used in this study are essentially demand-side
models. The conventional way to introduce impacts into such models is
through a vector of changes in final demands. That is, the impacts
reduce the regional demand for the output of the sector that
experiences a direct impact. However, this method is not logical for
determining effects on the agricultural sector because these effects
are generated by converting agricultural sectors to municipal and
industrial (M&I) uses. This conversion effectively reduces the quantity
of output in the agricultural sectors by restricting the supply of a
key input. For this reason, a mixed modeling approach was used, in
which the agricultural impacts are represented as a supply-side shock
used to generate an exogenous level of output in the agricultural
sectors. The direct impacts in the remaining sectors are modeled as
more typical changes in final demand.
The study utilized three scenarios to explore the impacts of
preserving the listed fishes upon the water needs of the projected
human population. Projected [[Page 17302]] economic activity to the
year 2040 in the Virgin River Basin, if no flows and habitat are
protected to preserve the listed fishes, is compared to projected
economic activity if flows and habitat are preserved for the fish. The
baseline scenario represents a ``without fish'' projection of economic
growth that is then compared to two ``with fish'' projections. All of
the scenarios used the same population projection.
The baseline ``without fish'' scenario (WOFBA) is based upon the
water development plans of water districts in the Virgin River Basin:
the Washington County Water Conservation District (WCWCD) and the Las
Vegas Valley Water District. The ``without fish'' scenario determines
how much water will be needed for municipal and industrial development
in order to satisfy the population projections. This scenario accepts
the Boyle (1994) water need projections under a limited conservation
assumption. Thus, the water needs of the expanding population base are
determined by a gallons-per-day-per-capita value, which assumes a level
of conservation above the existing consumption observed in the region.
The ``with fish'' structural scenario (WFST) asks the same
questions as in the baseline scenario. The fundamental differences
are--(1) Given the water needs associated with preserving the listed
fishes, the structural water development projects must be brought on
line at an earlier time, and (2) winter flows below Quail Creek
Diversion remain at 2.4 cubic meters per second (86 cubic feet per
second) rather than 1.4 cubic meters per second (50 cubic feet per
second) as in the ``without fish'' scenario. Generally, the volume of
water available from each new project is not directly affected by the
actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes. However, the maintenance
of the 86 cfs instream flow for the listed fishes results in less
available water for municipal use. Therefore, water projects are
required to come on line sooner to meet the projected demand. In
addition, the agricultural retirement program must begin earlier. In
this scenario, the per-capita consumption of water is the same as in
the baseline.
The ``with fish'' conservation scenario (WFCO) addresses the water
needs of the growing population and the listed fishes through a
combination of conservation and agricultural retirements. Conservation
requires that per-capita consumption should fall. This is achieved
through water-saving technologies incorporated into new homes and
industrial facilities.
All of the scenarios utilize the reallocation of agricultural water
to urban and industrial uses and/or to habitat preservation for the
listed fishes. Whether habitat is preserved for fish, water must be
reallocated as the human population continues to grow. The impacts of
critical habitat designation affect the timing of the reallocation of
resources, and not the quantity of water that must be reallocated. The
``with fish'' agricultural scenario produces three sets of direct
impacts which are outlined below.
(1) Agriculture--The conversion of use will occur earlier than
under the baseline scenario, with the result that agricultural output
is projected to decline under the ``with fish'' scenario. The method if
incorporating this impact into the I-O models is to introduce a
reduction in the allocation of water to the affected agricultural
sectors. This translates directly into a specified reduction in the
dollar value of the output of the agriculture sector. This mechanism
was used to generate the decline in agricultural output in the baseline
(WOFBA) projection. Water was pulled from agriculture to meet the needs
of the growing M&I sectors. The growth in the nonagricultural sectors
of the economy, reported in the WOFBA projection, is predicated on the
conversion of water to M&I uses.
(2) Water Delivery Projects--To meet the baseline growth projection
for Washington County, several water delivery projects are under
consideration. Supplying instream water for the fishes will require
these projects to be built earlier than in the ``without fish''
baseline. This may result in an increased cost of water delivery. This
cost increase is driven by increased user cost of the funds devoted to
the projects. The increased cost of each accelerated project is
incorporated as an increase in the weighted average cost per acre-foot
of water delivered to the users. Thus, a new delivery project could
increase in the user's total ``water bill.'' A cost increase for a
basic input is incorporated into the I-O models as an equiproportionate
reduction in the level of expenditure in each sector of the economy.
(3) Electric Power--WCWCD runs two small hydroelectric power
facilities and sells the power to the local grid. As a result of
diversions that put water into the Virgin River to meet fish needs,
power production may decline. For electricity users in the area, there
is no impact as a result of this change because the amount of power
produced is small and seasonal and the decline will be made up through
load shifting. For the WCWCD, however, the change in the operation of
the river would result in loss of revenue that must be made up through
higher revenues from the sale of water. In this model, the impact is
treated as a cost increase across all sectors in proportion to their
level of economic activity. The motivation for the argument is
identical to that presented in the previous section.
To these three direct impacts, the ``with fish'' conservation
scenario adds another class of direct impacts.
(1) Conservation Expenditures--Expenditures for low-water-using
appliances, landscaping changes, and other water-saving equipment
(i.e., timed sprinklers) in new structures only. These expenditures are
modeled as being offset by reductions elsewhere in the construction
sector. For example, costs due to the installation of low-water-using
appliances are offset through lower expenses elsewhere in the
construction budget. To ensure that the analysis errs on the side of
overstating the impacts, all conservation-related expenditures are
assumed to be made outside the region, and all offsetting reductions in
expenditures are assumed to be incurred by local suppliers. Thus,
conservation-related expenditures are introduced into the I-O models as
a negative impact for the region.
It should be emphasized that the water delivery projects mentioned
in these scenarios are necessary in any case to support the water needs
of the region's growing population. Actions taken to preserve and
restore the listed fish species in the Virgin River will affect only
the timing of these projects. They are not the primary reason for why
these projects must be built. The same is true for the agricultural
conversions that are required to satisfy the region's growing municipal
and industrial water needs. Using some Virgin River water to meet the
listed fishes' requirements may affect the timing of agricultural
retirements. However, it is not the root cause for the retirements nor
will it involve condemnation of any agricultural lands. Agricultural
conversions will continue to be voluntary market transactions.
Actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes result in two types of
direct impacts to the affected economies. The instream flows for the
fishes require that the conversion of agricultural water to M&I uses
take place earlier than without the fish consideration. It is important
to note that actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect only the
timing of this conversion.
Setting aside instream flows for the listed fishes requires the
timing of some planned water delivery projects to be
[[Page 17303]] altered. Actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect
only the timing of water delivery projects that are required to support
the growing human population.
Results of the Economic Analysis
The Virgin River Basin has an economy that is service-oriented,
thus reflecting the popularity of the region as a retirement and
recreation area. Employment, earnings, and tax revenues are reported
for each of the sectors analyzed in the I-O models, as well as for the
regional economy. The three scenarios investigated in this study are
based on the assumption of sustained regional population growth rates
during the 45-year study period, even though a decline is expected as
desirable building sites become scarce. The growing population's water
needs will be met by constructing a series of dams to increase the
region's water supply for municipal and industrial uses. This will also
improve water quality in the Virgin River. In addition, retirement of
agricultural land is expected when water and agricultural land are used
for other purposes.
The Act requires that the economic effects of designating critical
habitat be computed separately from the total economic effects of
listing and critical habitat designation. Table 3 summarizes the
effects of critical habitat designation under the WFST and WFCO impact
scenarios. These effects are reported for the entire Virgin River
region, including Washington County and Clark Counties.
Table 3.--County and Regional-Level Present Value and Annualized Incremental Critical Habitat Impacts (1990 $
Millions) (3 Percent Discount Rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output Employment Earnings Tax revenues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WFST vs WOFBA:
Washington:
Present Value..................... -47.496......... ................ -13.617......... -6.182
Percent Deviation from WOFBA...... -0.0016......... -0.0019......... -0.0016......... -0.0016
Annualized Values................. -1.947.......... -26............. -0.558.......... -0.253
Clark:
Present Value..................... -10.63.......... ................ -0.827.......... -0.632
Percent Deviation from WOFBA...... -0.00001........ -0.0001......... 0............... 0
Annualized Values................. -0.428.......... -1.............. -0.034.......... -0.026
Region:
Present Value..................... -59.818......... ................ -14.961......... -6.283
Percent Deviation from WOFBA...... -0.0001......... -0.0001......... 0............... -0.00001
Annualized Values................. -2.453.......... -30............. -0.613.......... -0.258
WFCO vs. WOFBA: Output.......... Employment...... Earnings........ Tax Revenues
Washington:
Present Value..................... -13.742......... ................ -2.065.......... -0.133
Percent Deviation form WOFBA...... -0.00046........ -0.00011........ -0.00024........ -0.00003
Annualized Values................. -0.563.......... 4............... -0.085.......... -0.005
Region:
Present Value..................... -20.938......... ................ -1.12........... -1.476
Percent Deviation from WOFBA...... 0............... 0............... 0............... 0
Annualized values................. -0.858.......... 4............... -0.046.......... -0.061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the WFST scenario, the present value of output changes in the
Washington County economy due to critical habitat designation is -$1.95
million annually. This constitutes 0.0016 percent of the present value
of the baseline stream of output (WOFBA). Employment and earnings
effects are presented in the report and are similar to that of the
output effects.
For Clark County, the output effects of the critical habitat
designation are -$0.43 million annually. The baseline economy of Clark
County is much larger than that of Washington County. Consequently, the
effects of the designation of critical habitat on the economy are
smaller. The cumulative output effects represent only 0.00001 percent
of the baseline level of economic activity. Both the earnings and tax
revenue effects are too small to be reliably reported as deviations
from the baseline level of economic activity.
For the region as a whole, the output effect of designating
critical habitat is -$2.45 million annually (0.0001 percent). The other
aggregate effects are of similar relative magnitudes.
Water use conservation can significantly mitigate the effects of
designating critical habitat for these listed fishes. This is also true
for the critical habitat effects alone. Under the WFCO scenario, the
present value of the output changes in Washington County is -$13.7
million, 0.00046 percent of the baseline level of activity. For the
region as a whole, the output effects of designating critical habitat
are -$20.9 million, an amount too small to calculate as a percentage of
the baseline. There are no conservation scenario impacts for Clark
County for reasons discussed later.
National Efficiency Effects
To obtain true measures of national efficiency impacts, exact
welfare changes must be computed. These are calculated as changes in
aggregate household utility. In general, I-O models are not capable of
producing such values because they lack a fully modeled household
sector. However, reasonable approximations may be obtained through
aggregate factor payments. These omit surplus measures (producer and
consumer) and hence understate the aggregate changes in national
efficiency. They do, however, provide a reasonable approximation under
certain assumptions.
In many applications of I-O analysis for use as inputs to a cost-
benefit analysis, aggregate factor payments (value added) are used to
represent the national efficiency effect of a policy change or action.
This measure is correct only for cases in which the value-added change
can be attributed solely to the policy change or action undertaken. In
the case of the listed fishes, this assumption is reasonable because
all changes in resource allocation can be attributed to actions taken
on behalf of the fishes by virtue of the methodology followed in this
study.
Including secondary effects in computing national efficiency
impacts is valid because these effects are technological in nature
rather than pure [[Page 17304]] transfers. That is, the linkages in the
economy between productive sectors arise from the basic production
functions in the economy. Thus, a direct impact occurring in one sector
of the economy will generate ripple effects throughout the economy.
Such effects are solely attributable to the initial direct impact.
The I-O model permits computation of this factor income, and it may
be used to measure the national efficiency effects of various changes
in the economy, such as those introduced by actions taken on behalf of
the listed fishes. Aggregate factor payments are computed for the
baseline (WOFBA) scenario and for the ``with fish'' scenarios (WFST and
WFCO).
The factor payments capture the value added from the production
side of the local economy. Because some of the output change is
captured through leakages to the rest of the world (principally the
United States), the total factor payments changes will be smaller than
the total output changes.
Based on these results, it is not surprising that the effects of
the factor payments are small for the county-level and regional
analysis. Under the WFST scenario, the efficiency losses to the nation
are a $32.2 million reduction in value added. The annualized value of
this reduction is -$1.32 million. With water conservation measures, the
cumulative change (over the 45-year period) in value added is -$10.68
million (-$0.438 million as an annualized value). Water conservation
mitigates most of the impacts associated with the critical habitat
designation.
For Washington County, the present value of the cumulative changes
(over the 45-year period) in value added is -$24.62 million for the
WFST scenario. With the inclusion of water conservation measures, this
value falls to -$8.153 million (annualized value -$0.764 million).
For Clark County, the present value of the cumulative changes (over
the 45-year period) is -$4.649 million (annualized value is -$0.191
million).
Conclusions of the Economic Analysis
The three described impact scenarios were analyzed and it is useful
to distinguish them in summarizing the economic effects of actions
taken on behalf of the listed fishes. The baseline scenario (WOFBA)
represents the way in which the county-level and regional economies
would grow over the 45-year study period if no actions were taken to
protect the listed species. The entire region is projected to
experience population growth at rates well above the national average.
Projected population growth and economic development will lead to
shifts in resource use. Consequently, agricultural water will be
converted to M&I uses resulting in a decline in agricultural output. At
the same time, several required water delivery projects are planned to
provide water to sustain the projected growth levels.
The WFST scenario takes the baseline regional projection and
introduces measures designed to protect and recover the listed fishes.
These measures result in more rapid conversion of agricultural water
and the acceleration of some water delivery projects. Thus,
agricultural production declines more quickly under the WFST scenario.
Water costs also rise as a result of the earlier development of these
projects, and the effect is a reduced level of final demand in all
sectors.
In summary, all of the economic effects of the WFST scenario
indicate that preserving and recovering the listed fishes will have a
relatively small impact on the overall economy. Some sectors will
experience greater declines than others, but the overall decline in
economic activity is projected to be small.
Since water usage rates in Washington County are high compared to
other southwestern cities, a conservation scenario (WFCO) was analyzed.
In this scenario, consumption levels were reduced through the use of
water-conserving appliances, fixtures, and landscaping, applied to new
construction only. Conservation is not without some cost. These costs
were introduced into the models in the form of crowding-out other
expenditures. Thus, construction costs were projected to increase.
Offsetting this cost increase are the savings that will result from
delaying the planned construction of new water delivery facilities. A
further offset is provided because agricultural water is converted to
M&I uses at a slower pace.
The overall effect of conservation is an almost complete mitigation
of the economic effects associated with actions undertaken on behalf of
the listed fishes. In fact, by the latter part of the study period,
there are negative effects only in the agriculture and construction
sectors. However, latter effects are likely overstated in the analysis
due to the extreme nature of the complete crowding-out assumption.
The Service has prepared detailed documents further explaining the
biology of each fish species (Maddux et al. 1995) and the economic
analysis process used to determine critical habitat (Brookshire et al.
1995). These documents are available to supplement this notice and for
public review. Copies may be obtained by contacting the field office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Available Conservation Measures
The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a
means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened
species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of listed
species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that ``* * * all Federal
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and
threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance
of the purposes of this Act.''
The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through various
mechanisms, such as section 7 (requiring Federal agencies to further
the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs and
insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the continued
existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat), section 9 (prohibition of taking of
listed species), section 10 (research permits and habitat conservation
plans), section 6 (cooperative State and Federal grants), land
acquisition, and research. The section 7 requirement that Federal
agencies consult with the Service if their actions may impact critical
habitat enables the Service to assess Federal activities that may
impair survival and recovery potential, thus ensuring that such actions
are considered in relation to the goals and recommendations of the
recovery plan.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service finds that any final action resulting from this
proposal be accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, the Service
requests comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
government agencies, Indian Nations, the scientific community,
commercial interests, or any other interested party concerning this
proposed rule. Comments are particularly sought concerning:
(1) The location and reasons why any Federal or non-Federal lands
(either proposed critical habitat or additional areas) should or should
not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of
the Act;
(2) Current and planned activities in the vicinity of proposed
critical habitat areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical
habitat;
(3) Other physical and biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and in need of special management or
protection; [[Page 17305]]
(4) Specific information on the scale, location, and distribution
of primary constituent elements on all ownership and land designations;
(5) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the
woundfin, Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace depend;
(6) Information on the economic benefits and costs that would
result from this proposed designation of critical habitat;
(7) Data and information relevant to determining whether the
benefits of excluding a particular area from critical habitat outweigh
the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat;
(8) The methods and thresholds the Service might use in determining
whether the costs of designating an area outweigh the benefits of
designation;
(9) Methods of analysis useful in evaluating economic and other
relevant impacts;
(10) Information regarding the suitability or unsuitability of
critical habitat boundaries of the 100-year floodplain (as defined on
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs));
(11) Information about areas of land or water located within the
outer boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, but that do not
provide primary constituent elements and thus can be excluded. Of
particular interest are means to describe these areas of land within
specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard
topographical maps.
The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration
the comments and any additional information received by the Service,
and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs
from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,
if requested within 45 days from date of publication of this proposal
in the Federal Register. Requests for a hearing must be made in writing
and addressed to the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section). The Service has arranged for a public hearing to be
held on May 8, 1995, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with registration beginning
at 4:30 p.m., at the St. George Hilton Inn, 1450 South Hilton Drive,
St. George, Utah.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Required Determinations
This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The
rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule
concerning public projects and private activities within the proposed
critical habitat, significant economic impacts will not result from
this action. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information
collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities
by this action, and the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as
defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). This rule does not require a federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612 because it would not have any significant
federalism effects as described in the order.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available upon request
from the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposal are Henry R. Maddux and
Janet A. Mizzi of the Service's Salt Lake City Field Office; Selena
J. Werdon of the Service's Nevada State Office; and Lesley A.
Fitzpatrick of the Service's Arizona State Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the ``critical
habitat'' entry for ``Chub, Virgin River'' and ``Woundfin'' under
Fishes, to read ``17.95(e)''.
3. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat
of the Virgin River chub (Gila robusta seminuda=G. seminuda) and
woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) in the same alphabetical order as
these species occur in 17.11(h).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Virgin River Chub (Gila seminuda)
Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle). Legal
descriptions for Overton (Nevada-Arizona) were obtained from the 1989
BLM maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle).
Critical habitat areas proposed for the Virgin River chub in each State
are as follows:
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from its confluence with
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington
Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt
Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson
Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to
the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Utah
border in T.42N., R.13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the
Arizona-Nevada border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Nevada
border in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the
highwater level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base
and Meridian).
Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for
each species.
Note: Map follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17306]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C [[Page 17307]]
Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)
Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps (Surface Management
Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions for Overton
(Nevada-Arizona) were obtained from the 1989 BLM maps (Surface
Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas
proposed for the woundfin in each State are as follows:
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from its confluence with
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington
Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt
Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson
Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to
the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Utah
border in T.42N., R. 13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the
Arizona-Nevada border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Nevada
border in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the
highwater level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base
and Meridian).
Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for
each species.
Note: Map follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17308]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 17309]]
4. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18,
1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h)
is amended by revising the critical habitat entry for ``Spinedace,
Virgin'' to read ``17.95(e)''.
5. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18,
1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h)
is further amended by adding critical habitat of the Virgin spinedace
(Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) to Sec. 17.95(e) in the same
alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis)
Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps (Surface Management
Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions for Kanab
(Utah-Arizona) were obtained from the 1983 BLM maps (Surface Management
Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas proposed
for the Virgin spinedace in each State are as follows:
Arizona, Mohave County. Beaver Dam Wash from the confluence with
the Virgin River in T.40N., R.15W., Sec. 4 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) upstream 1.3 km (0.8 mi) in T.40N., R15W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake
Base and Meridian).
Utah, Kane County. The East Fork of the Virgin River from the falls
in Parunuweap Canyon in T.42S., R.9W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to its confluence with the North Fork of the Virgin River in
T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Kane County. Shunes Creek from the Second Creek confluence in
T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 11 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence
with the East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 4 (Salt
Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from the Narrows in
T.39S., R.20W., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 0.4 km (0.25
mi) upstream of the confluence with East Bunker Peak Wash in T.40S.,
R.19W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from Horse Canyon in
T.41S., R.19W., Sec. 31 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) downstream
through Lytle Ranch downstream to Iverson Ranch in T.42S., R.20W., Sec.
13 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Moody Wash from the lower end of Racer
Canyon in T.38S., R.17W. Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to just
below the Dixie National Forest Boundary in T.39S., R.17W., Sec. 26
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Mogatsu Creek from the falls downstream of
Bingham Ranch in T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian)
to its confluence with the Santa Clara River in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 14
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Uath, Washington County. Santa Clara River from Veyo Hot Springs in
T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 32 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the upstream
end of Gunlock Reservoir in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 29 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Santa Clara River from downstream of the
dam forming Gunlock Reservoir in T.41S., R.17W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base
and Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.43S.,
R.15W., Sec. 6 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. Ash Creek from Toquerville Springs in
T.40S., R.13W., Sec. 35 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence
with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. La Verkin Creek from Chute Falls in
T.40S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence
with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. North Creek from the confluence of the
Left and Right Forks in T.40S., R.11W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.12W.,
Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The North Fork of the Virgin River from
the Narrows in T.40S., R10W., Sec. 34 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to
its confluence with the East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S.,
R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of
the East and North Forks in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and
Meridian) to the Quail Creek Diversion in T.41S., R.14W., Sec. 36 (Salt
Lake Base and Meridian).
Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Quail Creek
Diversion in T.41S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to
the confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W, Sec. 23) (Salt
Lake Base and Meridian).
Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for
each species.
Note: Map follows.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17310]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C [[Page 17311]]
Dated: March 29, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-8301 Filed 3-31-95; 2:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
