## ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

**CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION**

**FOR THE COLORADO BUTTERFLY PLANT**

Number range CHAPTER

Prepared for:

Division of Economics

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4401 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

Prepared by:

Industrial Economics, Incorporated

2067 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA 02140

In Cooperation With

Dr. Larry Van Tassell

University of Idaho

Moscow, ID

Send comments on the economic analysis to:

Field Supervisor

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4000 Airport Parkway

Cheyenne, WY 82001

December 2004

Number range CHAPTER **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** ES-1

## SECTION 1: FRAMEWORK OF THE ANALYSIS 1-1

> 1.1 Approach to Estimating Economic Effects 1-2
>
> 1.1.1 Efficiency Effects 1-2
>
> 1.1.2 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects 1-3
>
> 1.2 Scope of the Analysis 1-5
>
> 1.2.1 Sections of the Act Relevant to the Analysis 1-5
>
> 1.2.2 Other Relevant Protection Efforts 1-6
>
> 1.2.3 Additional Analytic Considerations 1-6

# 1.2.4 Benefits 1-6

> 1.3 Analytic Time Frame 1-7
>
> 1.4 Information Sources 1-7

## SECTION 2: BACKGROUND 2-1

1.  Species and Designation 2-1

> 2.1.1 Description of Species 2-1
>
> 2.1.2 Description of Designation 2-1
>
> 2.1.3 Overlap with other Endangered Species 2-5
>
> 2.2 Land Use Activities in the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
> 2-5

## SECTION 3: SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE 3-1

> 3.1 Economic Profile 3-1
>
> 3.1.1 Population Patterns 3-1
>
> 3.1.2 Business Patterns 3-3
>
> 3.1.3 Employment by Industry 3-4

4.  Income and Unemployment 3-8

> 3.2 Regionally Important Industries 3-8
>
> 3.2.1 Military 3-8
>
> 3.2.2 Development 3-9
>
> 3.2.3 Agriculture 3-10

## SECTION 4: ECONOMIC IMPACTS 4-1

> 4.1 Pre-Designation Impacts Associated with Guara 4-2
>
> 4.2 Post-Designation Impacts 4-8
>
> 4.2.1 Conservation Agreements 4-8
>
> 4.2.2 Natural Gas Pipelines 4-17
>
> 4.2.3 Residential and Commercial Development 4-19
>
> 4.2.4 Road and Bridge Construction and Maintenance 4-22
>
> 4.2.5 Agriculture 4-24
>
> 4.2.6 Oil and Gas Drilling 4-25
>
> 4.3 Summary of Impacts 4-25
>
> 4.4 Small Business Impact Analysis 4-30
>
> 4.5 Potential Impacts to the Energy Industry 4-33

# **REFERENCES** R-1

# 

Number range CHAPTER**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

1.  The purpose of this report is to assess the potential economic
    impacts associated with designation of critical habitat for the
    Colorado butterfly plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis*).
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) requires the
    Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best
    scientific data available, after taking into consideration the
    economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
    particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas
    from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion
    outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical
    habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the
    species.

2.  The Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura) is a short-lived perennial herb
    adapted to early and mid-succession riparian habitat. The species is
    endemic to approximately 1,700 acres of habitat in Laramie and
    Platte counties, Wyoming, Kimball County, Nebraska, and Weld County,
    Colorado. As illustrated in Exhibit ES-1 the proposed critical
    habitat designation includes about 8,486 acres along approximately
    113 stream miles within eight units. The upland extent of the
    proposed critical habitat boundary is 300 feet outward from the
    center of the stream. The entire designation occurs on non-Federal
    lands, with the majority occurring on private lands (approximately
    80 percent, in terms of acres) managed primarily for agriculture and
    livestock. The remaining 20 percent is owned by the State of Wyoming
    (nine percent), the City of Fort Collins (eight percent), and the
    City of Cheyenne (three percent). The land owned by the City of Fort
    Collins is also under livestock production.

3.  Because the entire designation is non-Federal land and the primary
    land use within the proposed designation is cattle ranching and
    irrigated hay production, the activity that may be most affected by
    future conservation measures to protect Gaura and/or its habitat is
    ranching. However, agricultural activities on private lands that may
    adversely impact Gaura and/or its habitat (e.g., application of
    herbicides, grazing, timing of hay cutting) do not typically involve
    a Federal nexus. Further, since the section 9 take provisions of the
    Act do not apply to threatened plants, there are no requirements for
    private landowners to bear economic costs to protect Gaura from
    normal agriculture activities that may be damaging to the plant
    and/or its habitat.

    ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.9in" height="6.416141732283465in"}

4.  There is an ongoing effort by the Service to work cooperatively with
    private landowners to establish conservation agreements to target
    specific threats to Gaura on a local scale. The Service believes
    that the conservation agreements will provide for the conservation
    needs of Gaura above and beyond what is achievable through the
    designation of critical habitat while meeting the needs of
    individual landowners. It is also the Service's intention to exclude
    from the designation of critical habitat any lands included in these
    conservation agreements prior to finalization of critical habitat.

5.  The primary uncertainty in this economic analysis results from the
    unknown level of private landowner interest in the conservation
    agreement program. Because landowner participation in the
    conservation agreement program is voluntary, and thus uncertain, the
    impact of conservation measures for Gaura related to agriculture
    activities is presented as a range. The analysis assumes the upper
    bound for program participation is all individual landowners within
    the designation (i.e., 100 percent participation). Conversely, the
    lower bound on program participation is zero (i.e., no landowners
    participate in the program). These two scenarios form the upper and
    lower bounds of economic impact of Gaura conservation.

**[Results of the Analysis]{.underline}**

6.  This analysis captures both "pre-designation" (2000 through 2004)
    and "post-designation" (forecast from 2005 through 2024) economic
    impacts associated with species and habitat conservation efforts.
    Total estimated pre-designation costs are estimated to have ranged
    from \$260,000 to \$395,000. The vast majority of these historic
    costs, more than 96 percent, are administrative costs associated
    with the section 7 consultation process. Most of the past
    consultations were either general in nature (non-species and
    non-project specific), requests for comments and information from
    the Service, or findings by the Service of "no effect" or "not
    likely to adversely affect." Total present value post-designation
    costs are forecast to be as high as \$232,600, or upwards of
    \$22,000 annually.

7.  Two natural gas pipeline projects, both in the vicinity of in Reach
    3 of Unit 7 (Borie), account for approximately ten percent of total
    forecast costs (\$27,800). Agriculture-related conservation
    agreements account for the remaining costs (up to \$258,900).
    Forecast economic impacts to ranchers will be manifested primarily
    as administrative costs of the consultation process associated with
    the voluntary conservation agreement program. Specifically,
    approximately two-thirds of expected costs related to conservation
    agreements on ranchland are associated with the forecast
    administrative costs of establishing conservation agreements
    in 2004. Post-2004 project modification costs associated with the
    voluntary conservation agreements comprise the remaining one-third
    of conservation agreement-related costs.[^1] Measures to protect the
    plant and/or its habitat may include the installation of additional
    fencing and annual costs for supplemental feed, fence repairs and
    maintenance and herbicide spraying.

8.  The analysis expects that ranchers who install fencing to protect
    the Gaura will participate in a Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW)
    cost share program, and that PFW will pay the entire cost of the
    fence (materials and installation). Assuming full program
    participation, private entities are forecast to bear up to 59
    percent of the total cost of Gaura conservation, the Service
    (including the PFW program) is anticipated to bear approximately 38
    percent of forecast costs, and Federal agencies other than the
    Service less than three percent of total costs.

9.  ![](media/image2.wmf)Exhibit ES-2 provides a detailed summary of the
    upper range of total costs associated with conservation activities
    for Gaura by unit and sub-unit over the next 20 years. Note that
    less than one consultation is projected for some units due to the
    fact that some landowners cover more than one unit, and each
    landowner is only expected to consult once. Exhibit ES-3 provides a
    graphical representation of the costs.

10. ![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.240277777777778in"
    height="2.535416666666667in"}On a cost per unit basis the largest
    portion of forecast costs are expected to occur in Reach 1 of Unit
    6, Lodgepole Creek East (32 percent). The next most costly units are
    Unit 5, Lodgepole Creek West (13 percent), and Reach 3 of Unit 7,
    Borie (12 percent). Together, these three units account for
    approximately 56 percent (\$161,400) of forecast costs. These higher
    costs result from a large area of concentrated subpopulations of
    Gaura within the unit; these three units contain almost 44 percent
    (approximately 1,029 acres) of the subpopulations proposed in the
    designation.

11. The annual cost of Gaura conservation to the typical agriculture
    operation forecast in this analysis is \$263. Considering this
    analysis assumes each operation implements [all]{.underline} of the
    actions recommended to protect the species and its habitat, this
    analysis likely overstates the impacts to any one rancher. However,
    while the annual cost to the typical agriculture operation forecast
    in this analysis appears small, costs will vary by operation. In
    addition, farming and ranching operations in the region are
    suffering through a fourth year of drought, and their financial
    situation suggests the average operation is already only marginally
    profitable.

12. The impact estimates presented in this report are small in magnitude
    relative to other designations. This is driven by three factors.
    First, the number of acres of land expected to require special
    management to protect the Gaura is quite small (less than one-half
    acre per landowner). Second, the changes in land management required
    to protect the Gaura are modest (e.g., seasonal restrictions on
    grazing). Third, a portion of the costs is expected to be borne by
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife.

Number range CHAPTER**[Estimated Cost of the Final
Designation]{.underline}**

13. The analysis contained in this report is consistent with the
    designation as described in the proposed rule.[^2] However, the
    Service has excluded some of the proposed areas from the final
    designation. The purpose of this section is to detail estimate the
    implication of these changes on estimated consultation and project
    modification costs.

14. Exhibit ES.4 compares the spatial extent of the proposed and final
    designations for Gaura critical habitat for both river and stream
    miles and lake and reservoir acres. Overall, 76 stream miles and
    approximately 4,950 acres of riparian habitat have been excluded
    from critical habitat in the final designation. The exclusion
    represents approximately 68 percent and 58 percent of the stream
    miles and riparian habitat acres in the original designation,
    respectively.

+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| *  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| *E |                          |        |        |        |        |
| xh |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ib |                          |        |        |        |        |
| it |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ES |                          |        |        |        |        |
| .4 |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ** |                          |        |        |        |        |
|    |                          |        |        |        |        |
| *  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| *S |                          |        |        |        |        |
| UM |                          |        |        |        |        |
| MA |                          |        |        |        |        |
| RY |                          |        |        |        |        |
| OF |                          |        |        |        |        |
| C  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| HA |                          |        |        |        |        |
| NG |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ES |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IN |                          |        |        |        |        |
| G  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| AU |                          |        |        |        |        |
| RA |                          |        |        |        |        |
| CR |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IT |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IC |                          |        |        |        |        |
| AL |                          |        |        |        |        |
| H  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| AB |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IT |                          |        |        |        |        |
| AT |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ** |                          |        |        |        |        |
|    |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ** |                          |        |        |        |        |
| FR |                          |        |        |        |        |
| OM |                          |        |        |        |        |
| PR |                          |        |        |        |        |
| OP |                          |        |        |        |        |
| OS |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ED |                          |        |        |        |        |
| TO |                          |        |        |        |        |
| F  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IN |                          |        |        |        |        |
| AL |                          |        |        |        |        |
| D  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ES |                          |        |        |        |        |
| IG |                          |        |        |        |        |
| NA |                          |        |        |        |        |
| TI |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ON |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ** |                          |        |        |        |        |
+====+==========================+========+========+========+========+
| ** | **Unit Name**            | **Pr   |        | *      |        |
| Un |                          | oposed |        | *Final |        |
| it |                          | D      |        | D      |        |
| ** |                          | esigna |        | esigna |        |
|    |                          | tion** |        | tion** |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|    |                          | **     | **A    | **     | **A    |
|    |                          | Length | cres** | Length | cres** |
|    |                          | (mi    |        | (mi    |        |
|    |                          | les)** |        | les)** |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1  | Tepee Ring Creek         | 1.5    | 106.9  | 1.5    | 106.9  |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2  | Bear Creek East          | 11.2   | 800.7  | 5.0    | 357.9  |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3  | Bear Creek West, Reach 1 | 1.8    | 125.6  | 1.8    | 125.6  |
| .1 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3  | Bear Creek West, Reach 2 | 2.6    | 174.2  | 2.6    | 174.2  |
| .2 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3  | Bear Creek West, Reach 3 | 2.9    | 200.1  | 2.9    | 200.1  |
| .2 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4  | Little Bear Creek/Horse  | 15.6   | 1      | 10.0   | 691.7  |
| .1 | Creek, Reach 1           |        | ,402.9 |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4  | Little Bear Creek/Horse  | 20.5   | 1      | 1.7    | 115.2  |
| .2 | Creek, Reach 2           |        | ,077.0 |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 5  | Lodgepole Creek West     | 15.0   | 1      | 12.7   | 902.3  |
|    |                          |        | ,066.8 |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 6  | Lodgepole Creek East,    | 16.9   | 1      | 5.3    | 378.4  |
| .1 | Reach 1                  |        | ,188.6 |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 6  | Lodgepole Creek East,    | 7.9    | 494.2  | 0      | 0      |
| .2 | Reach 2                  |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 7  | Borie, Reach 1           | 9.4    | 616.3  | 6.5    | 404.8  |
| .1 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 7  | Borie, Reach 2           | 2.5    | 174.2  | 0      | 0      |
| .2 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 7  | Borie, Reach 3           | 5.4    | 350.8  | 1.1    | 81.3   |
| .3 |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8  | Meadow Springs Ranch     | n/a    | 707.5  | n/a    | 0      |
|    | (Colorado)               |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|    | #  Total                 | *      | **8    | **51** | **3    |
|    |                          | *113** | ,486** |        | ,538** |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| To |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ta |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ls |                          |        |        |        |        |
| m  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ay |                          |        |        |        |        |
| n  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ot |                          |        |        |        |        |
| s  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| um |                          |        |        |        |        |
| d  |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ue |                          |        |        |        |        |
| to |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ro |                          |        |        |        |        |
| un |                          |        |        |        |        |
| di |                          |        |        |        |        |
| ng |                          |        |        |        |        |
+----+--------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

15. As noted, the costs reported in the body of this report are
    consistent with the proposed designation. Expected changes to the
    proposed designation and the impact of these exclusions on costs are
    summarized in Exhibit ES.5, where estimates of total costs
    associated with species and habitat conservation efforts for both
    the proposed and expected final Gaura critical habitat designations
    for the next 20 years are shown.

+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **EX  |                          |                 |                 |
| HIBIT |                          |                 |                 |
| E     |                          |                 |                 |
| S.5** |                          |                 |                 |
|       |                          |                 |                 |
| *     |                          |                 |                 |
| *COST |                          |                 |                 |
| SU    |                          |                 |                 |
| MMARY |                          |                 |                 |
| OF    |                          |                 |                 |
| GAURA |                          |                 |                 |
| N     |                          |                 |                 |
| umber |                          |                 |                 |
| range |                          |                 |                 |
| CHAP  |                          |                 |                 |
| TERCO |                          |                 |                 |
| NSERV |                          |                 |                 |
| ATION |                          |                 |                 |
| ACTIV |                          |                 |                 |
| ITIES |                          |                 |                 |
| BY    |                          |                 |                 |
| U     |                          |                 |                 |
| NIT** |                          |                 |                 |
|       |                          |                 |                 |
| **PRO |                          |                 |                 |
| POSED |                          |                 |                 |
| AND   |                          |                 |                 |
| FINAL |                          |                 |                 |
| CRI   |                          |                 |                 |
| TICAL |                          |                 |                 |
| HA    |                          |                 |                 |
| BITAT |                          |                 |                 |
| D     |                          |                 |                 |
| ESIGN |                          |                 |                 |
| ATION |                          |                 |                 |
| (no   |                          |                 |                 |
| minal |                          |                 |                 |
| dolla |                          |                 |                 |
| rs)** |                          |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| *     | ## Unit Name             | **Number range  | **Number range  |
| *Unit |                          | C               | C               |
| No.** |                          | HAPTEREstimated | HAPTEREstimated |
|       |                          | Cost of         | Cost of Final   |
|       |                          | Proposed        | Critical        |
|       |                          | Critical        | Habitat         |
|       |                          | Habitat         | Designation,**  |
|       |                          | Designation,**  |                 |
|       |                          |                 | **Upper Range** |
|       |                          | **Upper Range** |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 1     | Tepee Ring Creek         | \$4,300         | \$0             |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 2     | Bear Creek East          | 13,300          | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3.1   | Bear Creek West, Reach 1 | 1,900           | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3.2   | Bear Creek West, Reach 2 | 5,900           | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3.2   | Bear Creek West, Reach 3 | 5,400           | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 4.1   | Little Bear Creek/Horse  | 25,600          | 0               |
|       | Creek, Reach 1           |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 4.2   | Little Bear Creek/Horse  | 18,400          | 0               |
|       | Creek, Reach 2           |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 5     | Lodgepole Creek West     | 37,400          | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 6.1   | Lodgepole Creek East,    | 90,300          | 0               |
|       | Reach 1                  |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 6.2   | Lodgepole Creek East,    | 12,700          | 0               |
|       | Reach 2                  |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 7.1   | Borie, Reach 1           | 24,000          | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 7.2   | Borie, Reach 2           | 4,400           | 0               |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 7.3   | Borie, Reach 3           | 33,700          | 27,800          |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 8     | Meadow Springs Ranch     | 9,400           | 0               |
|       | (Colorado)               |                 |                 |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|       | Conservation agreements  | 0               | 76,890          |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|       | **TOTAL**                | **\$286,700**   | **\$104,690**   |
+-------+--------------------------+-----------------+-----------------+

16. Conservation activities for Gaura are expected to total
    approximately \$105,000 (nominal dollars). These costs will be
    incurred primarily by third parties (approximately 57 to 58 percent
    of forecast costs) and the Service (approximately 35 to 39 percent
    of forecast costs). Federal agencies responsible for section 7
    consultations will incur the remaining three to seven percent of
    forecast costs. Administrative costs account for as much as 54 to 63
    percent of forecast costs, and project modification costs the
    remaining 37 to 46 percent.

17. The conservation activities resulting from 11 voluntary conservation
    agreements account for approximately 73 to 92 percent of forecast
    costs. The lands covered by the conservation agreements are being
    excluded from the final critical habitat designation, however, the
    costs are captured in this economic analysis as the costs are
    associated with species and habitat conservation efforts. The
    remaining costs are expected to occur within the boundaries of the
    final critical habitat designation. These costs are related to two
    informal consultations regarding natural gas pipeline projects in
    the vicinity of Reach 3 of Unit 7 of the critical habitat
    designation. Total administrative costs for these projects are
    anticipated to range from \$7,000 to \$27,800. Project modifications
    are not expected since neither project is expected to cross occupied
    Gaura habitat.

18. The special provisions included in all but one of the 11
    conservation agreements indicate the actual project modifications
    are likely to be less restrictive than modeled in the body of this
    report. For example, only one of the 11 landowners required
    additional fencing. In addition, grazing and haying activities were
    not restricted. However, should future studies indicate that other
    levels of grazing intensity and timing, and/or changes in hay
    production activities be more beneficial to Gaura, the landowner
    agrees to work with the Service to modify grazing and haying
    activities to the extent feasible. The only change in land
    management practices outlined in the special provisions is an
    agreement by the landowner not to apply herbicides within 100 feet
    of a known subpopulation of the plant. Considering the actual
    special provisions, the economic analysis may over-estimate total
    costs by approximately \$10,000 (\$5,000 for fencing and \$5,000
    lost forage and nutritional value and fence repairs and
    maintenance). However, management practices could change in the
    future given further study of the plant.

19. The economic impacts associated with the final designation,
    discounted to present value using a rate of seven percent, are
    forecast to range from approximately \$68,000 to \$88,000 over the
    next twenty years, or about \$6,400 to \$8,300 annually (see Exhibit
    ES.6).

+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| **EXHIBIT     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| ES.6**        |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| ##            |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| # PRESENT VAL |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| UE OF TOTAL E |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| CONOMIC COSTS |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| **FOR GAURA   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| CONSERVATION  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
| ACTIVITIES**  |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|               | **  |     | **  |     | *   |     | **T |     |
|               | Ser |     | Act |     | *Th |     | ota |     |
|               | vic |     | ion |     | ird |     | l** |     |
|               | e** |     | Ag  |     | P   |     |     |     |
|               |     |     | enc |     | art |     |     |     |
|               |     |     | y** |     | y** |     |     |     |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
|               | *   | **  | *   | **  | *   | **  | *   | **  |
|               | *Lo | Hig | *Lo | Hig | *Lo | Hig | *Lo | Hig |
|               | w** | h** | w** | h** | w** | h** | w** | h** |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Nominal       | 13, | 17, | 22, | 27, | 48, | 59, | 83, | 1   |
| dollars       | 000 | 200 | 334 | 534 | 556 | 956 | 890 | 04, |
|               |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 690 |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Present value | 12, | 16, | 22, | 27, | 33, | 43, | 68, | 87, |
| (7%)          | 873 | 808 | 169 | 040 | 013 | 691 | 056 | 539 |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Present value | 12, | 17, | 22, | 27, | 40, | 51, | 75, | 95, |
| (3%)          | 943 | 022 | 259 | 310 | 094 | 167 | 296 | 499 |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annualized    | 1,  | 1,  | 2,  | 2,  | 3,  | 4,  | 6,  | 8,  |
| (7%)          | 215 | 587 | 093 | 552 | 116 | 124 | 424 | 263 |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Annualized    | 870 | 1,  | 1,  | 1,  | 2,  | 3,  | 5,  | 6,  |
| (3%)          |     | 144 | 496 | 836 | 695 | 439 | 061 | 419 |
+---------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

20. The main text of the report discusses impacts to small businesses
    expected under the rulemaking as proposed. Impacts to small
    businesses are primarily related to conservation measures taken by
    farmers and ranchers to protect the Gaura and/or its habitat. Under
    the final designation, the economic impacts are expected to be borne
    by two pipeline companies as discussed in Section 4.4 of the report.

    **FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS SECTION 1**

21. The purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact of
    actions taken to protect the Federally-listed Colorado butterfly
    plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp.* *coloradensis*) (Gaura) and its
    habitat. It attempts to quantify the economic effects of the
    designation of critical habitat, as well as any protective measures
    taken as a result of the listing or other Federal, State, and local
    laws that aid habitat conservation in the areas proposed for
    designation. Costs are examined that (a) have been incurred since
    the date the species was listed and through the final designation of
    critical habitat (pre-designation costs), and (b) are forecast to
    occur after the designation is finalized, post-designation costs.
    This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated, in
    cooperation with Dr. Larry Van Tassell from the University of
    Idaho,[^3] for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).

22. This information is intended to assist the Secretary in determining
    whether the benefits of excluding particular areas from the
    designation outweigh the benefits of including those areas in the
    designation.[^4] In addition, this information allows the Service to
    address the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13211, and
    the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA).[^5] This
    report also complies with direction from the U.S. 10^th^ Circuit
    Court of Appeals that "co-extensive" effects should be included in
    the economic analysis to inform decision-makers regarding which
    areas to designate as critical habitat.[^6]

23. This section provides the framework for this analysis. First, it
    describes the general analytic approach to estimating economic
    effects, including discussion of both efficiency and distributional
    effects. Next, it discusses the scope of the analysis, including the
    link between existing and critical habitat-related protection
    efforts and economic impacts. Finally, it describes the information
    sources employed to conduct this analysis.

    **1.1 [Approach to Estimating Economic Effects]{.underline}**

24. This economic analysis considers both the economic efficiency and
    distributional effects that may result from species and habitat
    protection. Economic efficiency effects generally reflect
    "opportunity costs" associated with the commitment of resources
    required to accomplish species and habitat conservation. For
    example, if activities on private lands are limited as a result of
    the designation or the presence of the species, and thus the market
    value of the land is reduced, this reduction in value represents one
    measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency.
    Similarly, the costs incurred by a Federal action agency to consult
    with the Service under section 7 represent opportunity costs of
    habitat conservation.

25. This analysis also addresses the distribution of impacts associated
    with the designation, including an assessment of any local or
    regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects
    of conservation activities on small entities, the energy industry,
    or governments. This information may be used by decision-makers to
    assess whether the effects of the designation unduly burden a
    particular group or economic sector. For example, while habitat
    conservation activities may have a small impact relative to the
    national economy, individuals employed in a particular sector of the
    regional economy may experience a significant level of impact. The
    difference between economic efficiency effects and distributional
    effects, as well as their application in this analysis, are
    discussed in greater detail below.

26. Where data are available, the analysis attempts to capture the net
    economic impact imposed on regulated entities and the regional
    economy of Gaura conservation actions. That is, the economic impact
    of Gaura conservation to the land management agencies and regulated
    community taking into consideration any direct off-setting benefit
    they experience.

**1.1.1 Efficiency Effects**

27. At the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and in
    compliance with Executive Order 12866 "Regulatory Planning and
    Review," Federal agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in
    order to discern the implications on a societal level of a
    regulatory action. For regulations specific to the conservation of
    Gaura, efficiency effects represent the opportunity cost of
    resources used, or benefits foregone, by society as a result of the
    regulations. Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in
    terms of changes in producer and consumer surplus in affected
    markets.[^7]

28. In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable
    approximation for the efficiency effects associated with a
    regulatory action. For example, a landowner or manager may enter
    into a consultation with the Service to ensure that a particular
    activity will not adversely modify critical habitat. The effort
    required for the consultation is an economic opportunity cost,
    because the landowner or manager's time and effort would have been
    spent in an alternative activity had his or her land not been
    designated critical habitat. In the case that compliance activity is
    not expected to significantly affect markets -- that is, not result
    in a shift in the quantity of a good or service provided at a given
    price, or in the quantity of a good or service demanded given a
    change in price -- the measurement of compliance costs provides a
    reasonable estimate of the change in economic efficiency.

29. Where habitat protection measures are expected to significantly
    impact a market, it may be necessary to estimate changes in producer
    and consumer surpluses. For example, a designation that precludes
    the development of large areas of land may shift the price and
    quantity of housing supplied in a region. In this case, changes in
    economic efficiency (i.e., social welfare) can be measured by
    considering changes in producer and consumer surplus in the real
    estate market.

30. This analysis begins by measuring costs associated with measures
    taken to protect species and habitat. As noted above, in some cases,
    compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of changes in
    economic efficiency. In the case of Gaura, compliance costs are in
    fact expected to represent a reasonable estimate of efficiency
    effects, and thus impacts on consumer and producer surpluses in
    affected markets are considered but not estimated.

    **1.1.2 Distributional and Regional Economic Effects**

31. Measurements of changes in economic efficiency focus on the net
    impact of conservation activities, without consideration of how
    certain economic sectors or groups of people are affected. Thus, a
    discussion of efficiency effects alone may miss important
    distributional considerations. OMB encourages Federal agencies to
    consider distributional effects separately from efficiency
    effects.[^8] This analysis considers the potential for several types
    of distributional effects, including impacts on small entities;
    impacts on energy supply, distribution, and use; and regional
    economic impacts. It is important to note that these are
    fundamentally different measures of economic impact than efficiency
    effects, and thus cannot be added to or compared with estimates of
    changes in economic efficiency.

    [Impacts on Small Entities and Energy Supply, Distribution, and
    Use]{.underline}

32. This analysis considers how small entities, including small
    businesses, organizations, and governments, as defined by the RFA,
    may be affected by proposed critical habitat designation.[^9] In
    addition, in response to Executive Order 13211 "Actions Concerning
    Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
    or Use," this analysis considers the impacts of critical habitat on
    the energy industry and its customers.[^10] While small business
    impacts are discussed, significant impacts on the energy sector are
    not expected.

    [Regional Economic Effects]{.underline}

33. Regional economic impact analysis can provide an assessment of the
    potential localized effects of conservation measures. Specifically,
    regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate
    of the potential magnitude of the initial change in the regional
    economy resulting from a regulatory action. Regional economic
    impacts are commonly measured using input/output models. These
    models rely on multipliers that represent the relationship between a
    change in one sector of the economy (e.g., expenditures by
    recreationists) and the effect of that change on economic output,
    income, or employment in other local industries (e.g., suppliers of
    goods and services to recreationists). These economic data provide a
    quantitative estimate of the magnitude of shifts of jobs and
    revenues in the local economy.

34. The use of regional input/output models in an analysis of the
    impacts of species and habitat conservation efforts can overstate
    the long-term impacts of a regulatory change. Most importantly,
    these models provide a static view of the economy of a region. That
    is, they measure the initial impact of a regulatory change on an
    economy but do not consider long-term adjustments that the economy
    will make in response to this change. For example, these models
    provide estimates of the number of jobs lost as a result of a
    regulatory change, but do not consider re-employment of these
    individuals over time or other adaptive responses by affected
    businesses. In addition, the flow of goods and services across the
    regional boundaries defined in the model may change as a result of
    the regulation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic
    activity within the region.

35. Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances
    regional economic impact analysis may provide useful information
    about the scale and scope of localized impacts. It is important to
    remember that measures of regional economic effects generally
    reflect shifts in resource use rather than efficiency losses. Thus,
    these types of distributional effects are reported separately from
    efficiency effects (i.e., not summed). In addition, measures of
    regional economic impact cannot be compared with estimates of
    efficiency effects, but should be considered as distinct measures of
    impact.

36. A Regional economic analysis was not performed in this economic
    analysis. The extent to which regional economic impacts are realized
    depends largely on whether a significant number of projects are
    fundamentally altered. For example, impacts to the cattle industry
    depends on whether recommended project modifications substantially
    reduce output within economic sectors below that which would be seen
    in the absence of Gaura conservation. As explained in Section 4,
    almost all of the forecast impacts are to the ranching community,
    and the examination of potential grazing impacts indicated no
    reductions in grazing opportunity or livestock production.
    Therefore, this analysis assumes that regional economic impacts
    associated with ranching activities will be small in the context of
    the overall economy of the five counties surrounding the proposed
    critical habitat designation.

    **1.2 [Scope of the Analysis]{.underline}**

37. This analysis attempts to quantify the economic effects of the
    designation of critical habitat, *as well as the economic effects of
    the protective measures taken as a result of the listing of the
    Gaura or other Federal, State, and local laws that also aid habitat
    conservation in the areas proposed for designation*. Because habitat
    protection efforts affording protection to Gaura likely contribute
    to the efficacy of the proposed critical habitat designation
    efforts, the impacts of these actions may be considered relevant for
    understanding the full impact of proposed designation.

    **1.2.1 Sections of the Act Relevant to the Analysis**

38. The analysis begins by looking at the costs incurred since the time
    that Gaura was first listed in October 2000 and through the time of
    the final designation of critical habitat. It focuses on activities
    that are influenced by the Service through sections 4, 7, 9, and 10
    of the Act. It then looks at activities likely to occur
    post-designation, and quantifies the effects that sections 4, 7, 9,
    and 10 of the Act may have on those activities.

39. Section 4 of the Act focuses on the listing and recovery of
    endangered and threatened species, as well as the designation of
    critical habitat. According to section 4, the Secretary is required
    to list species as endangered or threatened "solely on the basis of
    the best available scientific and commercial data."[^11] The
    protections afforded to threatened and endangered species and their
    habitat are described in sections 7, 9, and 10 of the Act, and
    economic impacts resulting from these protections are the focus of
    this analysis:

-   Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the
    Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out
    will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
    or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
    modification of the species\' designated critical habitat. The
    administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of
    project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent
    compliance costs associated with the listing of the species and the
    designation of critical habitat.

-   Section 9 defines the actions that are prohibited by the Act. In
    particular, it prohibits the "take" of endangered wildlife, where
    "take" means to "harass, harm, pursue, or collect, or to attempt to
    engage in any such conduct." The economic impacts associated with
    this section manifest themselves in sections 7 and 10. However, the
    prohibition against \"take\" generally does not apply to plants.

-   Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, an entity (i.e., a landowner
    or local government) may develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
    for an endangered animal species in order to meet the conditions for
    issuance of an incidental take permit in connection with the
    development and management of a property.[^12] To the extent that
    the project or development of an associated HCP may affect a listed
    plant species the Service must consult with the developer of the HCP
    on the potential impacts to the plant. The requirements posed by the
    HCP may have economic impacts associated with the goal of ensuring
    that the effects of incidental take are adequately minimized and
    mitigated. The designation of critical habitat does not require
    completion of an HCP; however, the designation may influence
    conservation measures provided under HCPs. Public and private lands
    covered by an operative HCP may be excluded from critical habitat
    designation; however, no HCPs are in place for Gaura. Federal
    agencies by agreement can be the lead agency on a
    multi-jurisdictional HCP.

    **1.2.2 Other Relevant Protection Efforts**

40. The protection of listed species and habitat is not limited to the
    Act. Other Federal agencies, as well as State and local governments,
    may also seek to protect the natural resources under their
    jurisdiction. In addition, under certain circumstances, the
    designation of critical habitat may provide new information to a
    community about the sensitive ecological nature of a geographic
    region, potentially triggering additional economic impacts under
    other State or local laws. In cases where these costs may not have
    been triggered absent the designation of critical habitat, they are
    included in this economic analysis. However, no such costs were
    identified by this analysis.

    **1.2.3 Additional Analytic Considerations**

41. Previous economic impact analyses prepared to support critical
    habitat decisions have considered other types of economic impacts
    related to the critical habitat designation, including time delay,
    regulatory uncertainty, and stigma impacts. This analysis considers
    these types of economic impacts and has determined that the proposed
    habitat designation for Gaura is unlikely to have economic impacts
    of this nature.

    **1.2.4 Benefits**

42. The published economics literature has documented that real social
    welfare benefits can result from the conservation and recovery of
    endangered and threatened species. Such benefits have also been
    ascribed to preservation of open space and biodiversity, both of
    which can be associated with species conservation, but which are not
    the purpose of critical habitat. Likewise, regional economies and
    communities can benefit from the preservation of healthy populations
    of endangered and threatened species, and the habitat on which these
    species depend.

43. In Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to provide an
    assessment of costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory
    actions.[^13] However, in its guidance for implementing Executive
    Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that often, it may not be feasible to
    monetize, or even quantify, the benefits of environmental
    regulations. Where benefits cannot be quantified, OMB directs
    agencies to describe the benefits of a proposed regulation
    qualitatively. *Given the limitations associated with estimating the
    benefits of proposed critical habitat designation for Gaura, the
    Service believes that the benefits of proposed critical habitat
    designation are best expressed in biological terms that can be
    weighed against the expected cost impacts of the rulemaking. This
    discussion can be found in the preamble to the final rulemaking.*

    **1.3 [Analytic Time Frame]{.underline}**

44. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and
    adjacent to the proposed designation. Estimates of post-designation
    impacts are based on activities that are "reasonably foreseeable,\"
    including, but not limited to, activities that are currently
    authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are
    currently available to the public. The analysis estimates economic
    impacts to activities from 2004 (anticipated year of species' final
    listing) to 2024, (twenty years from the present).

    **1.4 [Information Sources]{.underline}**

45. The following organizations were consulted in the preparation of
    this report:

-   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

-   Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW)

-   Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC)

-   Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)

-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

-   Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

-   Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)

-   Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT)

-   Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

-   Wyoming Governor's office

-   Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

-   Laramie County Planning Department

-   Public Works Department of Laramie County

-   Laramie County Conservation District

-   Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

-   Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization

-   City of Cheyenne Development Office

-   Platte County Planning Department

-   Weld County Planning Department

-   Larimer County Planning Department

-   Larimer County Parks and Open Lands

-   Kimball County

-   City of Fort Collins

-   BioResources, Inc.

-   El Paso Company

-   Natural Resource Group, Inc.

-   Entrega Pipeline Company

-   Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company

-   Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

-   Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

-   Petroleum Association of Wyoming

-   Four ranchers in Laramie County that own land within the proposed
    critical habitat designation area

-   One rancher in Laramie County that does not own land within the
    proposed designation area

-   Wyoming Stockgrowers Association

-   Wyoming Farm Bureau

-   Wyoming Woolgrowers

-   Wyoming Department of Agriculture

-   Laramie County Cooperative Extension

-   University of Wyoming

**BACKGROUND SECTION 2**

46. The Service has proposed to designate critical habitat for the
    Federally listed Colorado butterfly plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp.
    coloradensis*is). Gaura is a short-lived perennial herb adapted to
    early and mid-succession riparian habitat. The species is endemic to
    approximately 1,700 acres (ac) of habitat in Laramie and Platte
    counties, Wyoming, western Kimball County, Nebraska, and Weld
    County, Colorado. This section provides background on the geography,
    ecology, and human-uses of the proposed critical habitat
    designation. It details the current state of the proposed lands,
    including a description of management activities, land ownership,
    and ecology of the area.

    1.  **[Species and Designation]{.underline}**[^14]

> **2.1.1 Description of Species**

47. Gaura is a short-lived perennial herb with one to several reddish,
    pubescent stems from 50-80 centimeters tall. Lower leaves are
    lance-shaped with smooth or wavy-toothed margins. The inflorescence,
    located above the leaves, consists of numerous branches that
    continue to grow throughout the flowering season. Only a few flowers
    are open at any one time, located below the rounded buds and above
    the maturing fruits on each flowering branch. Individual flowers are
    1-1.5 cm long with four reddish sepals and four white petals that
    turn pink or red with age. Flowers have a slightly irregular
    symmetry due to the downward curve of the eight stamens. The hard,
    nut-like fruits are 4-angled and sessile. Non-flowering plants
    consist of a prostrate rosette of oblong, mostly glabrous, entire or
    toothed leaves 4-18 cm long.

    2.  **Description of Designation**

48. The proposed critical habitat designation includes approximately
    8,486 ac along approximately 113 stream miles within eight units
    (see Exhibit 2-1). The upland extent of proposed critical habitat
    boundary is defined as 300 feet from the center of the stream. Of
    the known Gaura populations, the vast majority occur on private
    lands managed primarily for agriculture and livestock. The estimated
    land ownership within the proposed critical habitat boundaries is
    approximately 6,779 ac of private land, 962 ac of city (City of
    Cheyenne and the City of Fort Collins) land, and 745 ac of land
    owned by the State of Wyoming. Exhibit 2-2 provides a map of the
    designation area.[^15]

+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| **EX  |                            |         |         |            |
| HIBIT |                            |         |         |            |
| 2-1** |                            |         |         |            |
|       |                            |         |         |            |
| **PRO |                            |         |         |            |
| POSED |                            |         |         |            |
| CRI   |                            |         |         |            |
| TICAL |                            |         |         |            |
| HA    |                            |         |         |            |
| BITAT |                            |         |         |            |
| UN    |                            |         |         |            |
| ITS** |                            |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| *     | **Unit Name**              | **      | *       | **Percent  |
| *Unit |                            | Acres** | *Length | of**       |
| No.** |                            |         | (m      |            |
|       |                            |         | iles)** | *          |
|       |                            |         |         | *Habitat** |
|       |                            |         |         |            |
|       |                            |         |         | **         |
|       |                            |         |         | Containing |
|       |                            |         |         | Co         |
|       |                            |         |         | ncentrated |
|       |                            |         |         | Subpop     |
|       |                            |         |         | ulations** |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 1     | Tepee Ring Creek           | 106.9   | 1.5     | 13%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 2     | Bear Creek East            | 800.7   | 11.2    | 13%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 3.1   | Bear Creek West, Reach 1   | 125.6   | 1.8     | 11%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 3.2   | Bear Creek West, Reach 2   | 174.2   | 2.6     | 49%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 3.2   | Bear Creek West, Reach 3   | 200.1   | 2.9     | 42%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 4.1   | Little Bear Creek/Horse    | 1,402.9 | 15.6    | 27%        |
|       | Creek, Reach 1             |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 4.2   | Little Bear Creek/Horse    | 1,077.0 | 20.5    | 20%        |
|       | Creek, Reach 2             |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 5     | Lodgepole Creek West       | 1,066.8 | 15.0    | 30%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 6.1   | Lodgepole Creek East,      | 1,188.6 | 16.9    | 54%        |
|       | Reach 1                    |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 6.2   | Lodgepole Creek East,      | 494.2   | 7.9     | 27%        |
|       | Reach 2                    |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 7.1   | Borie, Reach 1             | 616.3   | 9.4     | 24%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 7.2   | Borie, Reach 2             | 174.2   | 2.5     | 10%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 7.3   | Borie, Reach 3             | 350.8   | 5.4     | 19%        |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
| 8     | Meadow Springs Ranch       | 707.5   | n/a     | 15%        |
|       | (Colorado)                 |         |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+
|       | **TOTAL**                  | **      | **113** | **27%**    |
|       |                            | 8,486** |         |            |
+-------+----------------------------+---------+---------+------------+

49. Not all of the areas within the extant boundaries of the proposed
    designation provide the primary constituent elements necessary for
    this species. Existing features and structures within proposed
    critical habitat, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, paved
    areas, lawns, other urban and suburban landscaped areas, regularly
    plowed or disced agricultural areas, and other features not
    containing any of the primary constituent elements, are not proposed
    for critical habitat.[^16] Therefore, Federal actions with effects
    limited to the areas that do not contain the primary constituent
    elements would not be subject to section 7 consultation. Within the
    proposed critical habitat boundaries, only lands containing some or
    all of the primary constituent elements are proposed as critical
    habitat.

50. Non-Federal public and private lands covered by an operative HCP may
    be excluded from critical habitat designation, however, no HCPs are
    in place for Gaura. Furthermore, nNumber range CHAPTERone of the
    habitat supporting populations located on F.E. Warren Air Force Base
    (WAFB) will be designated as critical habitat. WAFB has an approved
    Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) that addresses
    conservation needs of Gaura. Additionally, the INRMP incorporates
    the needs of this species in conjunction with those of Preble's
    meadow jumping mouse (*Zapus hudsonius preblei*) (Preble's) on the
    Base.

#### ![](media/image4.jpeg){width="8.9in" height="6.415972222222222in"}

#### 

**2.1.3 Overlap with other Endangered Species**

51. There are known populations of Preble's in the vicinity of Gaura
    populations, but none of the proposed critical habitat designation
    for Gaura overlaps with the designated critical habitat for
    Preble's. However, non-designated Preble's habitat does overlap the
    proposed Gaura designation. Both species generally occupy similar
    riparian habitat, but different zones within the riparian habitat.
    Preble's typically requires dense riparian vegetation consisting of
    grasses, forbs, and shrubs,[^17] while Gaura requires open riparian
    habitat, devoid of dense or overgrown vegetation. In the absence of
    occasional disturbance, Gaura's habitat can become choked out by
    dense vegetative growth.[^18]

52. The Service has conducted past consultations on Gaura in combination
    with numerous species, as indicated in Exhibit 2-3. Generally, if a
    consultation is triggered for any listed species, the consultation
    process will also take into account all other listed species known
    or thought to occupy areas on or near the project lands. As such,
    listing or critical habitat-related protections for other threatened
    or endangered species may benefit Gaura as well (i.e., provide
    baseline protection). However, due to the difficulty in apportioning
    the costs of consultations between various species as well as
    awareness that a consultation for Gaura would need to be conducted
    absent consultations for or involving other species, this analysis
    does not attempt to apportion the consultations and related costs
    reported by Action agencies between Gaura and other listed species,
    and assumes that all future section 7 consultations within the
    extant boundaries of the proposed critical habitat are fully
    attributable to the presence of the Gaura and its habitat. At the
    same time, it should be recognized that these multi-species
    consultations likely would have occurred if the Gaura was not
    listed. These costs, therefore, are cumulatively not additive.

**2.2 [Land Use Activities in the Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation]{.underline}**

53. The Service has identified the following activities that may occur
    within the proposed critical habitat designation as potentially
    affecting the conservation status of the species or habitat:
    commercial and private development, road construction and
    maintenance, utility and pipeline development, domestic livestock
    grazing, hay production, nonnative vegetation and insect control.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Number range CHAPTER**EXHIBIT      |                                 |
| 2-3**                              |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| **OTHER LISTED SPECIES INCLUDED IN |                                 |
| PAST CONSULTATIONS**               |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| **ON GAURA**                       |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| **Species**                        | **Status**                      |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Bald eagle (*Haliaeetus            | Threatened                      |
| leucocephalus*)                    |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Whooping Crane (*Grus americana*)  | Experimental Population,        |
|                                    | Non-Essential                   |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Black-footed ferret (*Mustela      | Endangered                      |
| nigripes*)                         |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Mountain plover (*Charadrius       | Proposed, Threatened            |
| montanus*)^1^                      |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Ute Ladies-tresses (Spiranthes     | Threatened                      |
| diluvialis)                        |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Swift fox (*Vulpes velox*)^2^      | Candidate                       |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ^1^ The mountain plover was        |                                 |
| withdrawn on September 9, 2004 (68 |                                 |
| FR 53083).                         |                                 |
|                                    |                                 |
| ^2^ The swift fox was removed from |                                 |
| candidate status on January 8,     |                                 |
| 2001 (66 FR 1295).                 |                                 |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

Number range CHAPTER**SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE SECTION 3**

54. This section summarizes key economic and demographic information for
    the counties likely to be impacted by the proposed critical habitat
    designation for Gaura. County level data are presented to provide
    context for the discussion of economic impacts and to illuminate
    trends that may influence these impacts. Because approximately 85
    percent of the acreage proposed for designation is located in
    Laramie County, Wyoming, the description focuses more on
    socioeconomic conditions in Laramie County that may be affected. A
    small area (Unit 1) has been proposed for designation in southern
    Platte County, Wyoming, but agricultural activities and other
    socioeconomic conditions in that area closely resemble those in
    nearby Laramie County. Relatively small amounts of acreage also have
    been proposed for designation in extreme western Nebraska (part of
    Unit 6) and extreme northern Colorado (Unit 8), but socioeconomic
    conditions in those areas closely resemble those of Laramie County.

55. To provide context and comparison for the economic analysis, this
    section first provides demographic information for the broader study
    area, Laramie and Platt counties in Wyoming, Weld County in
    Colorado, and Kimball County in Nebraska. This section also provides
    information for the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, which is the largest
    populated area in the vicinity of the proposed critical habitat
    designation. Cheyenne, the County Seat of Laramie County, is the
    regional trade center for all areas proposed for critical habitat
    designation for the Gaura. The analysis also presents demographic
    information for Larimer County, Colorado, as Unit 8 abuts the
    Larimer/Weld county line and the landowner (the City of Fort
    Collins) is located in Larimer County. This section then details
    economic activities taking place within and surrounding the proposed
    critical habitat designation.

    1.  **[Economic Profile]{.underline}**

        **3.1.1 Population Patterns**

56. The proposed critical habitat designation spans urban Wyoming (i.e.,
    the City of Cheyenne) and rural areas within Wyoming, Colorado and
    Nebraska. Exhibit 3-1 presents the population size, change in
    population from 1990 to 2003, and forecasted population growth for
    the geographic area of concern.

57. Most of the proposed designation (approximately 7,299 ac, or 84
    percent) is located in Laramie County, Wyoming. Laramie County,
    located in southeastern Wyoming, has an estimated population of
    84,100 persons as of July 1, 2003, or about 17 percent of the total
    Wyoming population of 501,200 persons as of that date.[^19] The
    population of Laramie County has increased by about 2,500 persons,
    or three percent since the 2000 Census. This growth rate is larger
    than the 1.5 percent statewide population increase between 2000
    and 2003. Most of Laramie County's growth has been in and around
    Cheyenne. Approximately 65 percent of the county population reside
    in Cheyenne. In 2002, the population of Cheyenne was 53,658, an
    increase of 1.1 percent (589 individuals) since 2000.[^20]

58. The remainder of Laramie County is largely rural, with the small
    communities of Albin (pop. 120), Burns (pop. 290), and Pine Bluffs
    (pop. 1,160) interspersed among numerous farms and ranches.
    Furthermore, except for Kimball County, Nebraska, each of the
    counties' populations has increased between 1990 and 2003. As
    Exhibit 3-1 illustrates, all of the counties surrounding the
    proposed critical habitat designation are forecast to experience
    population growth.

+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
| **E    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| XHIBIT |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 3-1**  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| **S    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| OCIOEC |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ONOMIC |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| P      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ROFILE |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| OF     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| CO     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| UNTIES |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| CONT   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| AINING |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| CR     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ITICAL |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| H      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ABITAT |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| FOR    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| THE    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| CO     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| LORADO |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| BUT    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| TERFLY |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| P      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| LANT** |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
+========+========+========+========+========+========+======+======+
| **S    | **Co   | **Popu | **P    | **P    | **Popu | **   | **An |
| tate** | unty** | lation | ercent | ercent | lation | Fore | nual |
|        |        | 200    | of     | Change | F      | cast | Gr   |
|        |        | 3^a^** | State  | 19     | orecas | Ye   | owth |
|        |        |        | Popula | 90-200 | t^c^** | ar** | Ra   |
|        |        |        | tion** | 3^b^** |        |      | te** |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
| **Wyo  | **S    | **501  | **     | **1    | **513  | **20 | *    |
| ming** | tate** | ,242** | 100%** | 0.5%** | ,930** | 10** | *0.3 |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      | 8%** |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
|        | L      | 84,083 | 16.8%  | 15.0%  | 86,630 | 2010 | 0    |
|        | aramie |        |        |        |        |      | .42% |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
|        | Platte | 8,628  | 1.7%   | 5.9%   | 9,150  | 2010 | 0    |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      | .84% |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
| **Colo | **S    | *      | **     | **3    | *      | **20 | *    |
| rado** | tate** | *4,550 | 100%** | 8.1%** | *7,156 | 30** | *1.6 |
|        |        | ,688** |        |        | ,422** |      | 9%** |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
|        | L      | 2      | 5.9%   | 43.2%  | 4      | 2030 | 1    |
|        | arimer | 66,610 |        |        | 41,904 |      | .89% |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
|        | Weld   | 2      | 4.6%   | 60.3%  | 4      | 2030 | 3    |
|        |        | 11,272 |        |        | 73,275 |      | .03% |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
| **Nebr | **S    | *      | **     | **1    | *      | **20 | *    |
| aska** | tate** | *1,739 | 100%** | 0.2%** | *2,085 | 20** | *1.0 |
|        |        | ,291** |        |        | ,210** |      | 7%** |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
|        | K      | 3,853  | 0.2%   | -6.2%  | 4,017  | 2020 | 0    |
|        | imball |        |        |        |        |      | .25% |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+
| S      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ource: |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ^a^    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| U.S.   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Census |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| B      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ureau, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| "      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Annual |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Est    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| imates |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of the |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Popu   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| for    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Cou    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| nties: |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| April  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1,     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2000   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| to     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| July   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1,     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2003." |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| From:  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| <htt   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| p://ei |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| re.cen |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| sus.go |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| v/pope |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| st/dat |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| a/coun |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ties/C |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| O-EST2 |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 003-01 |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .php>, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| as     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| viewed |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| on     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| June   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 30,    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2004.  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ^b^    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| U.S.   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Census |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| B      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ureau, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| "Time  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Series |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| State  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Inter  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| censal |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Popu   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Est    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| imates |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| by     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| C      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ounty, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| April  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1,     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1990   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| to     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| April  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1,     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2000." |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| From   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| :<http |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ://eir |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| e.cens |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| us.gov |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| /popes |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| t/data |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| /count |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ies/ta |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| bles/C |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| O-EST2 |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 001-12 |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .php>, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| as     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| viewed |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| on     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| June   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 30,    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2004.  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ^c^    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| W      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| yoming |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Depa   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| rtment |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Ad     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| minist |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ration |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| and    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Inform |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ation, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Ec     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| onomic |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| An     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| alysis |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Div    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ision, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| "W     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| yoming |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Popu   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Est    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| imates |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| and    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| For    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ecasts |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| for    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Cou    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| nties, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| C      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ities, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| and    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Towns: |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 1991   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| to     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2010." |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Ava    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ilable |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| at     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| <      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| http:/ |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| /eadiv |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .state |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .wy.us |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| /pop/W |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| yc&sc1 |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 0.pdf> |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Co     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lorado |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Di     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| vision |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Local  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Gover  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| nment, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Demo   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| graphy |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| O      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ffice, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| "Draft |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Popu   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| For    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ecasts |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| by     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| C      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ounty, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2000-  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2030." |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| From:  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| <http: |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| //dola |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .color |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ado.go |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| v/demo |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| g/Popu |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Totals |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .cfm>, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| as     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| viewed |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| on     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| June   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 30,    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2004.  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
|        |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Univ   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ersity |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Nebra  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ska-Li |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ncoln, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| C      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ollege |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Bu     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| siness |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Adm    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| inistr |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ation, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Bureau |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| of     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Bu     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| siness |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Res    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| earch, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Popu   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| lation |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| Projec |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| tions, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| "K     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| imball |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| County |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| by Age |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| G      |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| roup." |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| From:  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| <http  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ://www |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| .bbr.u |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| nl.edu |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| /PopPr |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ojecti |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| ons/Po |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| pProj. |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| html>, |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| as     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| viewed |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| on     |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| June   |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 30,    |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
| 2004.  |        |        |        |        |        |      |      |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+------+------+

2.  **Business Patterns**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
59. The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on annual payrolls and
    the number of businesses within county industries. In 2001, the
    principal industries within the geographic area of concern, in terms
    of annual payroll, included manufacturing, construction, health care
    and social assistance, and retail trade. Annual payroll within these
    industries totaled approximately \$3 billion, representing 56
    percent of the total county payroll.

60. Within Laramie County, Wyoming, the principal industries included
    health care and social assistance, retail trade, manufacturing,
    construction, and finance and insurance. Annual payroll within these
    industries totaled approximately \$425 million, representing 62
    percent of the total county payroll. Except for construction, these
    industries are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed designation.
    Exhibit 3-2 below highlights annual payroll for various industries
    by county and in total.

    []{.mark}

    3.  **Employment by Industry**

61. Exhibit 3-3 provides data on the number of industries located in the
    geographic area of concern, and Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the
    employment by industry. The reported number of establishments
    represents the total number of physical locations at which business
    activities are conducted with one or more paid employee in the
    year 2001. These figures provide a measure of the average density of
    commercial and industrial establishments in the region. More than
    15,000 business establishments operate and employ more than 330,000
    individuals in the counties. As reported in Exhibit 3-2, these
    businesses had a collective annual payroll of almost \$5.5 billion.

62. Within the counties encompassing the proposed designation, the
    largest employment sectors are government and government
    enterprises, retail trade, manufacturing, construction, health care
    and social assistance, and accommodation and food services. These
    industries employ more than 200,000 individuals, representing 61
    percent total county employment. The largest single employer is the
    government and government enterprises sector, employing 55,000
    individuals, or almost 17 percent of county employment.

63. **Employment within the government and government enterprises sector
    represented almost 30 percent of the job base in Laramie County
    (almost 16,000 jobs). Employment within the retail trade sector
    constituted approximately 14 percent of all jobs in the county,
    while accommodation and food services, health care and social
    assistance, and construction each accounted for about 6 to 7 percent
    of employment. In Cheyenne, one out of every three employees works
    for the government.**[^21] **F.E. Warren Air Force Base, with about
    4,200 military and civilian employees, the Federal government, with
    more than 3,000 non-military employees, and the state government,
    also with more than 3,000 employees, account for the large volume of
    government employment.**[^22]

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>EXHIBIT 3-2</strong></p>
<p><strong>ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY COUNTY: ANNUAL PAYROLL
(2001)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Industry</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Laramie County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Platte County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Kimball County, Nebraska</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Larimer County, Colorado</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Weld County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>$1,000s</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture support</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1,297</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1,875</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>3,172</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mining</td>
<td>9,123</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>3,200</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>8,173</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>36,376</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>56,872</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Utilities</td>
<td>7,259</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>14,030</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>16,209</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>37,498</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Construction</td>
<td>58,529</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>1,986</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>447</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>335,611</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>327,866</td>
<td>18.4%</td>
<td>724,439</td>
<td>13.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Manufacturing</td>
<td>59,937</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>2,326</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>599,669</td>
<td>20.8%</td>
<td>340,096</td>
<td>19.1%</td>
<td>1,002,028</td>
<td>18.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wholesale trade</td>
<td>31,377</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>1,430</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1,848</td>
<td>6.8%</td>
<td>115,758</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>103,175</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>253,588</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Retail trade</td>
<td>106,653</td>
<td>15.6%</td>
<td>6,054</td>
<td>11.4%</td>
<td>3,680</td>
<td>13.5%</td>
<td>341,344</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>177,914</td>
<td>10.0%</td>
<td>635,645</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Transportation &amp; warehousing</td>
<td>25,871</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>1,566</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>317</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>46,274</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>44,169</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>118,197</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Information</td>
<td>37,973</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>133,149</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>22,109</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>193,231</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Finance &amp; insurance</td>
<td>53,529</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
<td>2,296</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>1,481</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>119,701</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>175,734</td>
<td>9.9%</td>
<td>352,741</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Real estate &amp; rental &amp; leasing</td>
<td>8,024</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>243</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>48,450</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17,158</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>73,875</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Professional, scientific &amp; technical services</td>
<td>38,054</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>888</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>410</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>269,164</td>
<td>9.4%</td>
<td>65,730</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>374,246</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Management of companies &amp; enterprises</td>
<td>8,805</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>13,230</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>85,645</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>107,680</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Admin, support, waste mgt, remediation services</td>
<td>16,528</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>8,111</td>
<td>15.2%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>167,415</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>82,685</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>274,739</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Educational services</td>
<td>2,950</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>2,471</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>19,557</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>8,571</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>33,549</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Health care and social assistance</td>
<td>146,463</td>
<td>21.4%</td>
<td>2,873</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>2,602</td>
<td>9.5%</td>
<td>337,327</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>183,083</td>
<td>10.3%</td>
<td>672,348</td>
<td>12.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Arts, entertainment &amp; recreation</td>
<td>3,087</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1,139</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>451</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>17,702</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>6,402</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>28,781</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Accommodation &amp; food services</td>
<td>40,855</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>147,531</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>45,833</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>234,219</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Other services</td>
<td>27,097</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>82,771</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>39,429</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>149,297</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Auxiliaries</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>57,021</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1,641</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>58,662</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Unclassified establishments</td>
<td>734</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>3,165</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>1,838</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>5,737</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td>683,239</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>53,241</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>27,311</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>2,878,339</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>1,783,538</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>5,425,668</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13">Source: U.S Census Bureau, “CenStats Databases, County
Business Patterns Data (NAICS) 2001.” From: <a
href="http://censtats.census.gov/">http://censtats.census.gov</a>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>EXHIBIT 3-3</strong></p>
<p><strong>ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY COUNTY: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS
(2001)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Industry</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Laramie County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Platte County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Kimball County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nebraska</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Larimer County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Weld County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>Number</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture support</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>49</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Mining</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>12.7%</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>55</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>125</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Utilities</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Construction</td>
<td>273</td>
<td>11.6%</td>
<td>28</td>
<td>9.8%</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>1,169</td>
<td>14.3%</td>
<td>736</td>
<td>17.2%</td>
<td>2,213</td>
<td>14.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Manufacturing</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>395</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
<td>240</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>709</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Wholesale trade</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>323</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>235</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>660</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Retail trade</td>
<td>360</td>
<td>15.3%</td>
<td>43</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>21.3%</td>
<td>1,243</td>
<td>15.2%</td>
<td>563</td>
<td>13.2%</td>
<td>2,241</td>
<td>14.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Transportation &amp; warehousing</td>
<td>87</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>4.0%</td>
<td>159</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>224</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>485</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Information</td>
<td>60</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>7</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>149</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>57</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>277</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Finance &amp; insurance</td>
<td>156</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>435</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>230</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
<td>841</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Real estate &amp; rental &amp; leasing</td>
<td>107</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>431</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
<td>175</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>725</td>
<td>4.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Professional, scientific &amp; technical services</td>
<td>249</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>21</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>953</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
<td>346</td>
<td>8.1%</td>
<td>1,579</td>
<td>10.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Management of companies &amp; enterprises</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>68</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Admin, support, waste mgt, remediation services</td>
<td>119</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>457</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>222</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>822</td>
<td>5.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Educational services</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>88</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>32</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>160</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Health care and social assistance</td>
<td>225</td>
<td>9.6%</td>
<td>39</td>
<td>13.7%</td>
<td>13</td>
<td>8.7%</td>
<td>704</td>
<td>8.6%</td>
<td>297</td>
<td>6.9%</td>
<td>1,278</td>
<td>8.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Arts, entertainment &amp; recreation</td>
<td>27</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>37</td>
<td>13.0%</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>10.7%</td>
<td>124</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>254</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Accommodation &amp; food services</td>
<td>176</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>654</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>310</td>
<td>7.2%</td>
<td>1,143</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Other services</td>
<td>269</td>
<td>11.4%</td>
<td>12</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>681</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>387</td>
<td>9.0%</td>
<td>1,349</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Auxiliaries</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>15</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Unclassified establishments</td>
<td>34</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>54</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>182</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td>2,350</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>285</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>150</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>8,160</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>4,281</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>15,226</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13">Source: U.S Census Bureau, “CenStats Databases, County
Business Patterns Data (NAICS) 2001.” From: <a
href="http://censtats.census.gov/">http://censtats.census.gov</a>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 28%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>EXHIBIT 3-4</strong></p>
<p><strong>ECONOMIC ACTIVITY BY COUNTY: FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME
EMPLOYMENT (2001)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Industry</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Laramie County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Platte County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Wyoming</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Kimball County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Nebraska</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Larimer County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Weld County,</strong></p>
<p><strong>Colorado</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Total</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
<td><strong>No.</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Farm employment</td>
<td>920</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>636</td>
<td>11.3%</td>
<td>363</td>
<td>12.8%</td>
<td>2,101</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>6,041</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
<td>10,061</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Forestry, fishing, related activities, and other</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>490</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1,386</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>1,876</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Mining</td>
<td>183</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>185</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>631</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>1,693</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2,692</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Utilities</td>
<td>114</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>228</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>225</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>567</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Construction</td>
<td>3,203</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>353</td>
<td>6.3%</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>3.3%</td>
<td>14,966</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>9,048</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>27,664</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Manufacturing</td>
<td>1,742</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>134</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>339</td>
<td>11.9%</td>
<td>18,180</td>
<td>10.7%</td>
<td>11,721</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
<td>32,116</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Wholesale trade</td>
<td>943</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>76</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>3,613</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>3,802</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>8,434</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Retail trade</td>
<td>7,004</td>
<td>13.0%</td>
<td>597</td>
<td>10.6%</td>
<td>372</td>
<td>13.1%</td>
<td>20,433</td>
<td>12.0%</td>
<td>10,445</td>
<td>10.5%</td>
<td>38,851</td>
<td>11.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Transportation and warehousing</td>
<td>2,394</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>369</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>80</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>3,068</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>2,948</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>8,859</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Information</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>44</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>3,460</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>1,196</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>4,700</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Finance and insurance</td>
<td>2,244</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>172</td>
<td>3.1%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>5,811</td>
<td>3.4%</td>
<td>4,391</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>12,618</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Real estate and rental and leasing</td>
<td>1,963</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>196</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>7,287</td>
<td>4.3%</td>
<td>3,139</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>12,585</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Professional and technical services</td>
<td>2,370</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
<td>200</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>103</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>12,618</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>3,830</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
<td>19,121</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Management of companies and enterprises</td>
<td>394</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>236</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>724</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1,354</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Administrative and waste services</td>
<td>2,473</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>9,822</td>
<td>5.8%</td>
<td>5,147</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>17,442</td>
<td>5.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Educational services</td>
<td>303</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>1,966</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>588</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>2,857</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Health care and social assistance</td>
<td>3,344</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>(D)</td>
<td></td>
<td>66</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>13,606</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>8,240</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>25,256</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Arts, entertainment, and recreation</td>
<td>858</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>99</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
<td>18</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>3,650</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>1,358</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>5,983</td>
<td>1.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Accommodation and food services</td>
<td>3,817</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>481</td>
<td>8.5%</td>
<td>203</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
<td>13,659</td>
<td>8.0%</td>
<td>5,555</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
<td>23,715</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Other services, except public administration</td>
<td>2,624</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>238</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>147</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>8,730</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>5,102</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>16,841</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Government and government enterprises</td>
<td>15,733</td>
<td>29.1%</td>
<td>890</td>
<td>15.8%</td>
<td>425</td>
<td>14.9%</td>
<td>25,613</td>
<td>15.1%</td>
<td>12,799</td>
<td>12.9%</td>
<td>55,461</td>
<td>16.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td>53,982</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>5,627</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>2,844</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>170,168</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>99,378</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
<td>332,003</td>
<td>100.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13">Note: (D) Not included in county data to avoid
disclosure of confidential information. The estimates for these items
are included in the totals.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="13">Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis. “Regional Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income, Total
full-time and part-time employment by industry.” From: <a
href="http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/">http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/</a>,
as viewed on June 30, 2004.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

4.  **Income and Unemployment**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
64. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes per capita personal income (PCPI), poverty
    rates, and unemployment rates, for the geographic region of concern.
    Each of the counties' per capita personal income is below their
    respective state's PCPI for 2002. Looking specifically at Laramie
    County, it has a PCPI of \$30,949, slightly lower than Wyoming's
    average PCPI of \$31,021. Furthermore, Laramie County's poverty rate
    is 9.1 percent, lower than the statewide average, and its
    unemployment rate is 4.1 percent, also lower than the statewide
    average. The City of Cheyenne's unemployment rate is 1.9
    percent.[^23]

+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| **EXHIBIT  |            |            |            |                |
| 3-5**      |            |            |            |                |
|            |            |            |            |                |
| **SOC      |            |            |            |                |
| IOECONOMIC |            |            |            |                |
| PROFILE OF |            |            |            |                |
| COUNTIES   |            |            |            |                |
| CONTAINING |            |            |            |                |
| CRITICAL   |            |            |            |                |
| HABITAT    |            |            |            |                |
| FOR THE    |            |            |            |                |
| COLORADO   |            |            |            |                |
| BUTTERFLY  |            |            |            |                |
| PLANT**    |            |            |            |                |
+============+============+============+============+================+
| **State**  | **County** | **Per      | **Poverty  | **Unemployment |
|            |            | Capita     | Rate       | Rate**         |
|            |            | Personal   | 1999^b^**  |                |
|            |            | Income     |            | **2003^c^**    |
|            |            | 2002^a^**  |            |                |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| *          | **State**  | **         | **11.4%**  | **4.4%**       |
| *Wyoming** |            | \$31,021** |            |                |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
|            | Laramie    | 30,949     | 9.1        | 4.1%           |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
|            | Platte     | 27,055     | 11.7%      | 4.9%           |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| **         | **State**  | **33,723** | **9.3%**   | **6.0%**       |
| Colorado** |            |            |            |                |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
|            | Larimer    | 31,420     | 9.2%       | 5.7%           |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
|            | Weld       | 24,495     | 12.5%      | 6.7%           |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| **         | **State**  | **29,182** | **9.7%**   | **4.0%**       |
| Nebraska** |            |            |            |                |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
|            | Kimball    | 22,821     | 11.1%      | 2.2%           |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+
| Source:    |            |            |            |                |
|            |            |            |            |                |
| ^a^ U.S.   |            |            |            |                |
| Department |            |            |            |                |
| of         |            |            |            |                |
| Commerce,  |            |            |            |                |
| Bureau of  |            |            |            |                |
| Economic   |            |            |            |                |
| Analysis.  |            |            |            |                |
| "Regional  |            |            |            |                |
| Economic   |            |            |            |                |
| Accounts,  |            |            |            |                |
| Local Area |            |            |            |                |
| B          |            |            |            |                |
| EARFACTS." |            |            |            |                |
| From:      |            |            |            |                |
| <http:/    |            |            |            |                |
| /www.bea.g |            |            |            |                |
| ov/bea/reg |            |            |            |                |
| ional/bear |            |            |            |                |
| facts/coun |            |            |            |                |
| tybf.cfm>, |            |            |            |                |
| as viewed  |            |            |            |                |
| on June    |            |            |            |                |
| 30, 2004.  |            |            |            |                |
|            |            |            |            |                |
| ^b^ U.S.   |            |            |            |                |
| Census     |            |            |            |                |
| Bureau,    |            |            |            |                |
| "State and |            |            |            |                |
| County     |            |            |            |                |
| Quick      |            |            |            |                |
| Facts."    |            |            |            |                |
| From       |            |            |            |                |
| <http:     |            |            |            |                |
| //quickfac |            |            |            |                |
| ts.census. |            |            |            |                |
| gov/qfd/>, |            |            |            |                |
| as viewed  |            |            |            |                |
| on June    |            |            |            |                |
| 30, 2004.  |            |            |            |                |
|            |            |            |            |                |
| ^c^ U.S.   |            |            |            |                |
| Department |            |            |            |                |
| of Labor,  |            |            |            |                |
| Bureau of  |            |            |            |                |
| Labor      |            |            |            |                |
| S          |            |            |            |                |
| tatistics, |            |            |            |                |
| "Labor     |            |            |            |                |
| Force Data |            |            |            |                |
| by County, |            |            |            |                |
| 2003       |            |            |            |                |
| Annual     |            |            |            |                |
| Averages." |            |            |            |                |
| From:      |            |            |            |                |
| <ftp://f   |            |            |            |                |
| tp.bls.gov |            |            |            |                |
| /pub/speci |            |            |            |                |
| al.request |            |            |            |                |
| s/la/lauco |            |            |            |                |
| unty.txt>; |            |            |            |                |
| and        |            |            |            |                |
| "Un        |            |            |            |                |
| employment |            |            |            |                |
| Rates for  |            |            |            |                |
| States,    |            |            |            |                |
| 2003."     |            |            |            |                |
| From:      |            |            |            |                |
| <http://   |            |            |            |                |
| www.bls.go |            |            |            |                |
| v/lau/last |            |            |            |                |
| rk03.htm>, |            |            |            |                |
| as viewed  |            |            |            |                |
| on June    |            |            |            |                |
| 30, 2004.  |            |            |            |                |
+------------+------------+------------+------------+----------------+

**3.2** **[Regionally Important Industries]{.underline}**

**3.2.1 Military**

65. Warren Air Force Base, which lies entirely within Laramie County, is
    the county's largest employer and contributes significantly to the
    local economy. However, habitat supporting populations of Gaura
    located on the Base is not being considered for designation as the
    Base has an approved INRMP that addresses conservation needs of the
    species.

    3.  **Development**

66. From 1990 to 2000, the housing stock in the City of Cheyenne
    increased from 21,856 to 22,282.[^24] This increase of 426 housing
    units represents approximately 1.9 percent growth in residential
    development over that ten year period. During this same period of
    time, the housing stock in Laramie County increased from 30,507 to
    31,927. This is an increase of 1,420 housing units, or 4.7 percent,
    over the decade.

67. Recent trends indicates that new residential home construction is
    occurring at a rate of several hundred units per year, each in the
    City of Cheyenne and in the surrounding unincorporated area in
    Laramie County. From 1990 to 2000, the size of the city increased
    from 19.64 square-miles to 21.3 square-miles. This increase of 1.7
    square-miles represents approximately 8 percent growth within the
    incorporated city limits over the ten-year period. Since 2000, the
    city has annexed another 1,085 ac, or 1.6 square-miles.[^25]

+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **EXHIBIT 3-6**        |        |        |        |        |        |
|                        |        |        |        |        |        |
| **NEW BUILDING AND     |        |        |        |        |        |
| SEPTIC PERMITS FOR THE |        |        |        |        |        |
| CITY OF CHEYENNE**     |        |        |        |        |        |
|                        |        |        |        |        |        |
| **AND LARAMIE COUNTY** |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Activity**           | **     | **     | **     | **     | **     |
|                        | 1999** | 2000** | 2001** | 2002** | 2003** |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| New Residential        | 204    | 143    | 210    | 279    | 604    |
| Building Permits City, |        |        |        |        |        |
| of Cheyenne            |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| New Commercial         | 20     | 31     | 50     | 51     | 30     |
| Construction Permits,  |        |        |        |        |        |
| City of Cheyenne       |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| City of Cheyenne       | 640    | 6      | 49     | 943    | 94     |
| Annexation (acres)     |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Rural Septic Permits   | 338    | 262    | 297    | 298    | 323    |
| Issued, Laramie County |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Note:                  |        |        |        |        |        |
|                        |        |        |        |        |        |
| New residential        |        |        |        |        |        |
| permits is defined as  |        |        |        |        |        |
| new net housing units, |        |        |        |        |        |
| including new          |        |        |        |        |        |
| residences,            |        |        |        |        |        |
| townhouses,            |        |        |        |        |        |
| condominiums,          |        |        |        |        |        |
| multi-plexes, and      |        |        |        |        |        |
| apartment units.       |        |        |        |        |        |
|                        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Source:                |        |        |        |        |        |
|                        |        |        |        |        |        |
| Center for Economic    |        |        |        |        |        |
| and Business Data,     |        |        |        |        |        |
| "Economic Indicators   |        |        |        |        |        |
| for Greater Cheyenne,  |        |        |        |        |        |
| Annual Trends          |        |        |        |        |        |
| Addition," Tables 3.0, |        |        |        |        |        |
| 3.1, and 4.9. From:    |        |        |        |        |        |
| <http://www.lccc.wy.   |        |        |        |        |        |
| edu/cebd/Default.htm>, |        |        |        |        |        |
| as viewed on June 30,  |        |        |        |        |        |
| 2004.                  |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

4.  **Agriculture**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
68. The predominant economic activity in rural areas of Laramie County
    is agricultural production. The most prevalent types of agricultural
    production involve irrigated hay production in support of livestock
    operations and dryland winter wheat production. Laramie County
    contains 755 farms and ranches with 1.75 million acres of land in
    agricultural production, for an average size of 2,324 acres per
    operation.[^26]

69. Agricultural operations in Laramie County range from dryland farms
    raising winter wheat in eastern areas of the county, to large
    livestock operations in the central and northern portions of the
    county. In 2003, Laramie County had 58,000 acres of hay in
    production, of which 36,000 acres were irrigated.[^27] The irrigated
    hay operations typically depend upon surface water diversions from
    the Horse Creek and Chugwater Creek drainages.

70. Livestock inventories in Laramie County include approximately 70,000
    cattle and calves and 8,000 breeding sheep in 2004. Severe drought
    in the area has decreased the number of cattle and calves from
    90,000 in 2001.[^28]

71. Gross farm and ranch sales in the county totaled \$65.5 million in
    2002, down from \$96.7 million in 1997.[^29] Livestock sales
    accounted for 73 percent of that total, with the remaining 27
    percent coming from sales of crops. Net cash farm income of
    operations for the county was estimated to be \$2.6 million in 2002,
    just over one-tenth of a county high of \$23.9 million in 1997.[^30]

72. The agricultural operations that are most likely to be affected by
    the Gaura designation are high plains cattle ranches that depend
    heavily upon stream-flow and early season precipitation to produce
    the grass that supports livestock during the entire year. Most
    ranchers use flood irrigation during the spring to irrigate hay
    meadows that are harvested in mid-summer to produce feed for cattle
    during the winter months. These hay meadows are typically located
    along riparian areas of creeks. While the hay fields are under
    irrigation, cattle are typically moved to higher elevation grazing
    lands. Since there is little Federal land along Horse Creek and
    Chugwater Creek, these higher-elevation grazing lands are usually
    private, although some state lands and a few BLM grazing allotments
    are involved. Cattle are returned to the hay meadows in late summer
    or early fall after the hay crop is harvested and graze on re-growth
    in the hay meadows before being fed harvested feed during the winter
    months. Cattle are typically fed hay until after calving is
    completed in spring, and the yearly process begins again.

73. The profitability of high plains ranching operations depends upon
    many factors including cattle prices, management practices, water
    availability, and a host of variables relating to operating costs. A
    University of Wyoming study showed that in 1992, a typical 400-cow
    operation would net \$151.83 per cow annually on a cash basis, for a
    total annual cash income of \$60,732.[^31] After deducting non-cash
    costs for depreciation and family management and labor, however, net
    profit dropped to \$2.80 per cow or a total of \$1,120 on an annual
    basis. Those returns are relatively low given that the average value
    of ranch assets required to produce those returns was estimated to
    be \$1.8 million in 1992 dollars.

74. A 1996 USDA Economic Research Service survey of cow-calf operations
    in the U.S. found the value of production for producers in the
    western U.S. was \$291.28 per bred cow.[^32] After subtracting
    \$232.64 per cow in operating costs and \$98.70 in ownership costs,
    a loss of \$40.06 per bred cow ensued.

75. Returns to ranching activities in southeast Wyoming have been
    further reduced in recent years due to an ongoing drought that has
    reduced water supplies and feed production and has forced many
    ranchers to reduce the size of their herds. The average net farm
    income in Laramie County per operator was \$3,059 in 2002, with 56
    percent of the farm operators reporting a net average loss of
    \$23,393.[^33]

**Number range CHAPTERECONOMIC IMPACTS SECTION 4**

76. Number range CHAPTERThis section considers the economic impacts of
    actions taken to protect Gaura and its habitat. It quantifies the
    economic effects of the proposed critical habitat designation, as
    well as protective measures taken as a result of the species'
    listing or other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat
    conservation in the areas proposed for designation. First, it
    provides a discussion of *pre-designation impacts*, as the impacts
    associated with species and habitat conservation efforts in place
    from the time of the listing to final designation of critical
    habitat, which has not yet occurred for Gaura. Impacts associated
    with these management efforts may be on-going until the time of
    final designation. Second, this section provides estimates of
    *post-designation impacts*, potential future impacts associated with
    the proposed critical habitat designation and other species and
    habitat conservation management efforts related to Gaura.

77. Economic impacts associated with Gaura conservation are related to
    the conservation strategy for the plant, utilities construction and
    maintenance, residential and commercial development, oil and gas
    drilling, livestock grazing, hay production, and road and bridge
    maintenance.

78. Number range CHAPTERThe impacts associated with past and potential
    future species and habitat management efforts are manifested in
    economic efficiency effects (i.e., social welfare) as outlined
    below.

-   Number range CHAPTER[Administrative Costs]{.underline}: Costs
    associated with engaging in section 7 consultation, including time
    spent attending meetings, preparing letters and biological
    assessments, and in the case of formal consultations, the
    development of a Biological Opinion (BO) by the Service are
    quantified as administrative costs. Section 7 consultation can
    require substantial administrative effort on the part of all
    participants. These impacts are measured as the cost of labor
    required to fulfill these managerial duties. Number range
    CHAPTEREstimates of per-effort costs associated with informal and
    formal consultations are presented in Exhibit 4-1. Costs of the
    biological assessment (BA) are typically borne by the Action agency.
    Unless otherwise stated, this table is used to develop total
    administrative costs for consultations associated with activities
    within the proposed critical habitat designation for Gaura.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number range CHAPTER[Project Modification Costs]{.underline}:
    Species and habitat management efforts that involve project
    consultation activity are likely to result in project modifications
    to comply with the goals of the management efforts. Costs of
    implementing these modifications are associated with changes in
    labor or material requirements that may occur at one point in time
    and/or be on-going.**Number range CHAPTER**

+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| #                 |            |           |            |           |
| ##### EXHIBIT 4-1 |            |           |            |           |
|                   |            |           |            |           |
| ######            |            |           |            |           |
| ESTIMATED ADMINIS |            |           |            |           |
| TRATIVE COSTS OF  |            |           |            |           |
| CONSULTATION AND  |            |           |            |           |
|                   |            |           |            |           |
| ###### TECH       |            |           |            |           |
| NICAL ASSISTANCE  |            |           |            |           |
| EFFORTS FOR GAURA |            |           |            |           |
|                   |            |           |            |           |
| #####             |            |           |            |           |
| # (PER EFFORT)^a^ |            |           |            |           |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| **Consultation    | *          | ##        | ###### T   | #         |
| Type**            | *Service** | #### Acti | hird Party | ##### Bio |
|                   |            | on Agency |            | logical A |
|                   |            |           |            | ssessment |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Technical         | \$260 -    | N/A       | \$600 -    | N/A       |
| Assistance        | \$680      |           | \$1,500    |           |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Informal          | \$1,000 -  | \$1,300 - | \$1,200 -  | \$0 -     |
| Consultation      | \$3,100    | \$3,900   | \$2,900    | \$4,000   |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Formal            | \$3,100 -  | \$3,900 - | \$2,900 -  | \$4,000 - |
| Consultation      | \$6,100    | \$6,500   | \$4,100    | \$5,600   |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| ^a^ Low and high  |            |           |            |           |
| estimates         |            |           |            |           |
| primarily reflect |            |           |            |           |
| variations in     |            |           |            |           |
| staff wages and   |            |           |            |           |
| time involvement  |            |           |            |           |
| by staff.         |            |           |            |           |
|                   |            |           |            |           |
| Sources: IEc      |            |           |            |           |
| analysis based on |            |           |            |           |
| data from the     |            |           |            |           |
| Federal           |            |           |            |           |
| Government        |            |           |            |           |
| General Schedule  |            |           |            |           |
| Rates, Office of  |            |           |            |           |
| Personnel         |            |           |            |           |
| Management, 2002, |            |           |            |           |
| a review of       |            |           |            |           |
| consultation      |            |           |            |           |
| records from      |            |           |            |           |
| several Service   |            |           |            |           |
| field offices     |            |           |            |           |
| across the        |            |           |            |           |
| country.          |            |           |            |           |
| Confirmed by      |            |           |            |           |
| local action      |            |           |            |           |
| Agencies.         |            |           |            |           |
+-------------------+------------+-----------+------------+-----------+

79. The remainder of this section details these economic impacts. The
    first section discusses pre-designation impacts associated with
    species and habitat management efforts, including all management
    efforts that have occurred since the time of the listing of Gaura,
    in October 2000, and are expected to continue to occur through the
    time period when final designation is established in December 2004.
    The second section discusses post-designation impacts forecast from
    2004 through 2024, and the third section summarizes these findings.
    The fourth section provides a screening level analysis of the
    potential effects of proposed critical habitat designation on small
    entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small
    government jurisdictions) to satisfy the requirements of the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996.[^34] Finally,
    pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, the fifth section reports the
    potential impacts the proposed critical habitat designation is
    likely to have on the energy industry.

    1.  **[Pre-Designation Impacts Associated with Gaura]{.underline}**

80. Since Gaura was listed, three formal consultations have been
    conducted on the species: (1) investigation of burning and mowing on
    WAFB; (2) the Medicine Bow lateral loop natural gas pipeline
    project; and (3) remedial actions at former landfills at WAFB. The
    Service has also conducted 143 technical assistance/informal
    consultation efforts in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska since
    listing.

81. Pre-designation impacts associated with Gaura conservation are
    summarized in Exhibit 4-2. The range of total estimated
    pre-designation costs, including costs incurred between the time of
    listing in October 2000 through the final critical habitat
    designation for the Gaura in December 2004, is approximately
    \$260,000 to \$395,000. The vast majority of these costs, more than
    94 percent, are administrative costs associated with the
    consultation process.[^35] As stated in 2.1.3, a number of the
    consultations described in Exhibit 4-2 covered several listed
    species. Because it is difficult to appartion these costs among the
    several species, the full costs of the consultations are disclosed
    as a pre-designation cost associated with the Gaura. Most of these
    costs would have been incurred, however, even if the Gaura was not
    listed. The cost range does not include the historic costs related
    to WAFB projects as the Gaura habitat located on WAFB is not being
    proposed as critical habitat and is outside the scope of the
    analysis. However, information on the historic consultations at WAFB
    is provided in Exhibit 4-2 for background.

82. The only non-WAFB historic formal consultation involved the Colorado
    Interstate Gas Company (CIG) and the Medicine Bow Lateral. In 1999,
    the company began construction on a pipeline from Douglas, Wyoming
    to the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado, covering approximately
    149 miles with 24-inch pipe. Gaura was found along the proposed
    pipeline route at Little Bear Creek (Unit 2), and just outside the
    pipeline right-of-way at Lodgepole Creek (Unit 5) and South Fork
    Bear Creek (Unit 2).[^36] At the time of construction across Little
    Bear Creek, the right-of-way was realigned to avoid plants. The
    approximate cost of rerouting the pipeline project to avoid Gaura
    was \$20,000.[^37]

+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| *        |                                  |         |      |      |
| *EXHIBIT |                                  |         |      |      |
| 4-2**    |                                  |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
| *        |                                  |         |      |      |
| *SUMMARY |                                  |         |      |      |
| OF COSTS |                                  |         |      |      |
| OF       |                                  |         |      |      |
| PREVIOUS |                                  |         |      |      |
| CONSULT  |                                  |         |      |      |
| ATIONS** |                                  |         |      |      |
+==========+==================================+=========+======+======+
| #### **W |                                  |         |      |      |
| YOMING** |                                  |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| #######  | #### **Consultation Summary**    | #       | ###  | #### |
| # Agency |                                  | ####### | #### |  **T |
|          |                                  |  Admini | # Pr | otal |
|          |                                  | strativ | ojec |  Cos |
|          |                                  | e Costs | t Mo | ts** |
|          |                                  |         | difi |      |
|          |                                  |         | cati |      |
|          |                                  |         | on C |      |
|          |                                  |         | osts |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Various  | 37 Technical Assistance efforts  | \       | N/A  | \$31 |
|          | -- responding to species list    | $31,820 |      | ,820 |
|          | requests.                        | --      |      | --   |
|          |                                  | \       |      |      |
|          |                                  | $80,660 |      | \$80 |
|          |                                  |         |      | ,660 |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| FERC     | One formal Consultation          | \$13,   | \$ 0 | \$13 |
|          | regarding the construction and   | 900 --  | --   | ,900 |
|          | operation of approximately 154   |         | \$20 | --   |
|          | miles of natural gas pipeline.   | \       | ,800 |      |
|          | Gaura conservation/mitigation    | $22,300 |      | \$43 |
|          | measures include:                |         |      | ,100 |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Reroute, where possible to   |         |      |      |
|          |     avoid individual plants.     |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Removal, salvage, and        |         |      |      |
|          |     replanting of plants which   |         |      |      |
|          |     can not be avoided.          |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Protect plants and habitat   |         |      |      |
|          |     through the use of           |         |      |      |
|          |     protective mats.             |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Allow a one-time pass        |         |      |      |
|          |     through for equipment at all |         |      |      |
|          |     locations.                   |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Complete construction within |         |      |      |
|          |     36 hours at all Colorado     |         |      |      |
|          |     butterfly plant locations.   |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| USEPA    | Six informal consultations       | \       | N/A  | \$21 |
|          | exchanging information on the    | $21,000 |      | ,000 |
|          | use of herbicides and fungicides |         |      |      |
|          | on dry edible beans and sugar    |         |      |      |
|          | beets to control problem weed    |         |      |      |
|          | species and pests. These efforts |         |      |      |
|          | are not project specific.        |         |      |      |
|          | Service recommendations if the   |         |      |      |
|          | spraying activity occurs in      |         |      |      |
|          | Gaura habitat:                   |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Establishment of a buffer    |         |      |      |
|          |     zone between the treated     |         |      |      |
|          |     fields and the riparian      |         |      |      |
|          |     areas.                       |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Number range CHAPTERGround   |         |      |      |
|          |     application when wind speed  |         |      |      |
|          |     is greater than 10 mph.      |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Avoid application Number     |         |      |      |
|          |     range CHAPTERprior to or     |         |      |      |
|          |     immediately following a      |         |      |      |
|          |     precipitation event.         |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| USACE    | Four informal consultations on   | \       | N/A  | \$14 |
|          | proposed construction of fiber   | $14,000 |      | ,000 |
|          | optic cable lines from Denver to |         |      |      |
|          | Cheyenne (Sprint), from Salt     |         |      |      |
|          | Lake City to Denver (Enron),     |         |      |      |
|          | from Laramie to WY/CO border and |         |      |      |
|          | from WY/UT border to Patrick     |         |      |      |
|          | Draw Oil field and Walcott to    |         |      |      |
|          | the WY/CO border. Service        |         |      |      |
|          | recommends surveys prior to work |         |      |      |
|          | in Gaura habitat if Gaura is     |         |      |      |
|          | present, or to abrogate the need |         |      |      |
|          | for surveys:                     |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Bore under all wetlands that |         |      |      |
|          |     have suitable habitat for    |         |      |      |
|          |     Gaura.                       |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   All drilling and operations  |         |      |      |
|          |     should start and end in      |         |      |      |
|          |     upland habitats, well away   |         |      |      |
|          |     from any wetland and/or soil |         |      |      |
|          |     habitats                     |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Avoid any crossing of        |         |      |      |
|          |     wetlands with vehicles       |         |      |      |
|          |     and/or heavy equipment.      |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Three informal consultations on  | \       | N/A  | \$10 |
|          | the construction of an extension | $10,500 |      | ,500 |
|          | of the Sherard Raw Water         |         |      |      |
|          | Delivery Pipeline along Middle   |         |      |      |
|          | Crow Creek, road crossings on    |         |      |      |
|          | Horse Creek, and Prestridge No.  |         |      |      |
|          | 2 Reservoir. Based on USACE and  |         |      |      |
|          | Service survey results and/or    |         |      |      |
|          | the information provided, the    |         |      |      |
|          | Service determined the projects  |         |      |      |
|          | would have no effect or were not |         |      |      |
|          | likely to adversely affect       |         |      |      |
|          | Gaura.                           |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| WY DEQ,  | Nine informal consultations: one | \       | N/A  | \$31 |
| Land and | on review of draft vegetation    | $31,500 |      | ,500 |
| Water    | rules for coal mines in WY, one  |         |      |      |
| Quality  | on review of a public notice to  |         |      |      |
| D        | reclassify Sand Creek from Class |         |      |      |
| ivisions | 3B to Class 4B water (both not   |         |      |      |
|          | Gaura specific), and seven       |         |      |      |
|          | resulting from WYDEQ notifying   |         |      |      |
|          | the service about annual reports |         |      |      |
|          | it received from aggregate,      |         |      |      |
|          | quarry, and gravel permittees.   |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| BLM      | Seven informal consultations on  | \       | N/A  | \$24 |
|          | the spraying of herbicides, the  | $24,500 |      | ,500 |
|          | WY wild horse pilot project, and |         |      |      |
|          | the Enron and Williams           |         |      |      |
|          | Communications projects. The     |         |      |      |
|          | Service concluded the projects   |         |      |      |
|          | were not likely to adversely     |         |      |      |
|          | affect Gaura.                    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Laramie  | Two informal consultations: one  | \$7,000 | N/A  | \$7  |
| County   | providing comments on a          |         |      | ,000 |
|          | preliminary draft of             |         |      |      |
|          | conservation measures for an HCP |         |      |      |
|          | (conservation measures are for   |         |      |      |
|          | Preble's and mountain plover)    |         |      |      |
|          | and another providing comments   |         |      |      |
|          | based on review of public        |         |      |      |
|          | information on the Shellback     |         |      |      |
|          | Ranch and Country Walk           |         |      |      |
|          | subdivisions.                    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Laramie  | Two informal consultations on    | \$7,000 | N/A  | \$7  |
| County   | the Allison Draw and Meals on    |         |      | ,000 |
| and      | Wheels of Cheyenne, Inc.,        |         |      |      |
| Cheyenne | projects. The Service found the  |         |      |      |
| Housing  | projects were not likely to      |         |      |      |
| &        | adversely affect Gaura.          |         |      |      |
| C        |                                  |         |      |      |
| ommunity |                                  |         |      |      |
| Dev      |                                  |         |      |      |
| elopment |                                  |         |      |      |
| Office   |                                  |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Various  | Four informal consultations      | \       | N/A  | \$14 |
| Con      | responding to species and        | $14,000 |      | ,000 |
| sultants | information requests and/or      |         |      |      |
|          | preliminary scoping or           |         |      |      |
|          | biological screening comments    |         |      |      |
|          | for natural gas pipeline (two),  |         |      |      |
|          | fiber optic cable (one), or      |         |      |      |
|          | communication tower (one)        |         |      |      |
|          | projects.                        |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Service  | One informal consultation        | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| (BLM)    | providing scoping comments and   |         |      | ,500 |
|          | species information for a Notice |         |      |      |
|          | of Intent to prepare a PEIS for  |         |      |      |
|          | wind energy development on       |         |      |      |
|          | western lands administered by    |         |      |      |
|          | the BLM (not Gaura specific).    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Service  | One informal consultation        | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| (USDA)   | providing comments on USDA       |         |      | ,500 |
|          | program for biocontrol of        |         |      |      |
|          | Saltcedar (*Tamarisx* spp.) in   |         |      |      |
|          | 14 western states (not Gaura     |         |      |      |
|          | specific).                       |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| KN       | One informal consultation        | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| Energy,  | modifying a Memorandum of        |         |      | ,500 |
| Inc.     | Understanding into an annual     |         |      |      |
| (FERC)   | concurrence letter for pipeline  |         |      |      |
|          | projects not likely to adversely |         |      |      |
|          | affect threatened and endangered |         |      |      |
|          | species (not Gaura specific).    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| City of  | One informal consultation for a  | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| Cheyenne | proposed flood control project   |         |      | ,500 |
|          | on Crow Creek. Service visited   |         |      |      |
|          | the site, provided species       |         |      |      |
|          | information and recommended that |         |      |      |
|          | a survey be conducted because a  |         |      |      |
|          | population of Gaura was          |         |      |      |
|          | documented in the area (WAFB).   |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| WYDOT    | One informal consultation        | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
|          | providing species and other      |         |      | ,500 |
|          | general information for use      |         |      |      |
|          | during project planning for      |         |      |      |
|          | reconstruction of a 10-miles of  |         |      |      |
|          | Interstate 25.                   |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Wyoming  | One informal consultation on     | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| Re       | pipeline from the Frontier       |         |      | ,500 |
| gulatory | Refinery to the Kaneb Terminal.  |         |      |      |
| Office   | The Service found the project    |         |      |      |
|          | was not likely to adversely      |         |      |      |
|          | affect Gaura.                    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| Office   | One informal consultation on the | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
| of       | review of WY Coal Rules and      |         |      | ,500 |
| Surface  | Regulations. Recommended         |         |      |      |
| Mining   | updating the list of threatened  |         |      |      |
|          | and endangered species in        |         |      |      |
|          | regulation to include Gaura as   |         |      |      |
|          | threatened.                      |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| WAFB     | One formal consultation on       | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | remedial actions at three former |         |      |      |
|          | landfills at WAFB. There are no  |         |      |      |
|          | conservation/mitigation measures |         |      |      |
|          | for Gaura as there will be no    |         |      |      |
|          | effect to the plant since it is  |         |      |      |
|          | not present at or downstream of  |         |      |      |
|          | the action area.                 |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | One formal consultation on a     | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | project to investigate the       |         |      |      |
|          | effects of burning and mowing on |         |      |      |
|          | Gaura and Preble's on WAFB.      |         |      |      |
|          | There are no                     |         |      |      |
|          | conservation/mitigation measures |         |      |      |
|          | for Gaura as the population is   |         |      |      |
|          | not likely to be significantly   |         |      |      |
|          | affected by the loss of any      |         |      |      |
|          | plants in the treatment plots.   |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | One informal consultation for    | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | scoping comments and species     |         |      |      |
|          | information for a proposed       |         |      |      |
|          | network of trails                |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Two informal consultations on a  | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | proposed research project to     |         |      |      |
|          | enhance recruitment of Gaura and |         |      |      |
|          | a proposed elevated boardwalk    |         |      |      |
|          | trail where the Service          |         |      |      |
|          | determined the project may       |         |      |      |
|          | adversely affect Gaura and       |         |      |      |
|          | recommend initiation of formal   |         |      |      |
|          | consultation.                    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Two informal consultations on    | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | the use of 15-acres of base land |         |      |      |
|          | for Cheyenne Frontier Days and   |         |      |      |
|          | the use of injection wells to    |         |      |      |
|          | treat contaminated groundwater   |         |      |      |
|          | where the Service did not agree  |         |      |      |
|          | with determination and either    |         |      |      |
|          | requested surveys or a field     |         |      |      |
|          | visit.                           |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Four informal consultations on   | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | rebuilding visitor center,       |         |      |      |
|          | installing a chain link fence to |         |      |      |
|          | enclose the base, constructing   |         |      |      |
|          | overflow parking, and drilling   |         |      |      |
|          | of extraction and monitoring     |         |      |      |
|          | wells. Service found the         |         |      |      |
|          | projects either did not occur on |         |      |      |
|          | suitable Gaura habitat or that   |         |      |      |
|          | the projects were not likely to  |         |      |      |
|          | adversely affect Gaura.          |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Three informal consultations on  | N/A     | N/A  | N/A  |
|          | building construction and        |         |      |      |
|          | remodeling and creation of       |         |      |      |
|          | outdoor recreation facilities.   |         |      |      |
|          | The service concluded no effect  |         |      |      |
|          | because Gaura was not present in |         |      |      |
|          | vicinity of the project.         |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| ###      |                                  |         |      |      |
| COLORADO |                                  |         |      |      |
|  {#color |                                  |         |      |      |
| ado .unn |                                  |         |      |      |
| umbered} |                                  |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Seventeen Technical Assistance   | \       | N/A  | \$14 |
|          | efforts -- responding to species | $14,620 |      | ,620 |
|          | requests.                        | --      |      | --   |
|          |                                  | \       |      |      |
|          |                                  | $37,060 |      | \$37 |
|          |                                  |         |      | ,060 |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Fifteen Technical Assistance     | \       | N/A  | \$12 |
|          | efforts -- concurrence letters   | $12,900 |      | ,900 |
|          | based on no habitat presence on  | --      |      | --   |
|          | surveys that were done           | \       |      |      |
|          |                                  | $32,700 |      | \$32 |
|          |                                  |         |      | ,700 |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Twelve Technical Assistance      | \       | N/A  | \$10 |
|          | efforts -- concurrence letters   | $10,320 |      | ,320 |
|          | stating "not likely to adversely | --      |      | --   |
|          | effect" based on a description   | \       |      |      |
|          | of the project.                  | $26,160 |      | \$26 |
|          |                                  |         |      | ,160 |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | Five informal consultations      | \       | N/A  | \$17 |
|          | with/recommendations             | $17,500 |      | ,500 |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Conduct a survey             |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Reintroduction of plant into |         |      |      |
|          |     area                         |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Test species for host        |         |      |      |
|          |     specificity for bio-control  |         |      |      |
|          |     method.                      |         |      |      |
|          |                                  |         |      |      |
|          | -   Not enough information to    |         |      |      |
|          |     evaluate.                    |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
| ###      |                                  |         |      |      |
| NEBRASKA |                                  |         |      |      |
|  {#nebra |                                  |         |      |      |
| ska .unn |                                  |         |      |      |
| umbered} |                                  |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | ##                               | \$3,500 | N/A  | \$3  |
|          | ###### One informal consultation |         |      | ,500 |
|          | s on a road construction project |         |      |      |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+
|          | ######## TOTAL COST              | **\$    | **\$ | **\  |
|          |                                  | 258,560 | 0 -- | $258 |
|          |                                  | --**    | \$   | ,560 |
|          |                                  |         | 20,8 | --** |
|          |                                  | **\$37  | 00** |      |
|          |                                  | 3,880** |      | *    |
|          |                                  |         |      | *\$3 |
|          |                                  |         |      | 94,6 |
|          |                                  |         |      | 80** |
+----------+----------------------------------+---------+------+------+

**4.2 [Post-Designation Impacts]{.underline}**

83. This section forecasts costs that may occur after the designation is
    finalized in December 2004 through 2024. It discusses future
    management actions involving species and habitat protection,
    including a discussion of the types of economic impacts associated
    with each component of these management actions.

84. This analysis focuses on the following activities identified as the
    most likely to be affected by critical habitat designation for
    Gaura: conservation strategy for private landowners (conservation
    agreements), natural gas pipelines, residential and commercial
    development, road and bridge construction and maintenance,
    agriculture, and oil and gas drilling.

    1.  **Conservation Agreements**

85. The primary land use within the proposed designation is cattle
    ranching and irrigated hay production in support of livestock
    operations. Agricultural activities on private lands that may
    adversely impact Gaura and/or its habitat (e.g., application of
    herbicides, grazing, timing of hay cutting) do not typically involve
    a Federal nexus. Further, since the section 9 take provisions of the
    ESA do not apply to threatened plants, there are no requirements for
    private landowners to bear economic costs to protect Gaura from
    normal agriculture activities that may be damaging to the plant
    and/or its habitat. Therefore, there is an ongoing effort by the
    Service to work cooperatively with private landowners to establish
    conservation agreements to target specific threats to Gaura on a
    local scale.

86. The Service believes that the conservation agreements will provide
    for the conservation needs of Gaura above and beyond what is
    achievable through the designation of critical habitat while meeting
    the needs of individual landowners. It is also the Service's
    intention to exclude from the designation of critical habitat any
    lands included in these conservation agreements prior to
    finalization of critical habitat. Therefore, the economic analysis
    quantifies the costs associated with the conservation measures as
    costs motivated by the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    Because the conservation strategy is centered on activities
    associated with the primary land use, farming and ranching, the
    costs associated with the conservation measures are incorporated
    into the quantification of impacts of critical habitat designation
    related to agriculture activities.

87. This analysis assumes that conservation agreements are motivated by
    the potential exclusion from critical habitat and that all are
    processed prior to the finalization of the designation in
    December 2004. While the administrative and project modification
    costs related to the conservation agreements are technically
    pre-designation impacts, because more than 75 percent of the
    forecast project modification costs resulting from the conservation
    agreements occur after December 2004, this analysis considers the
    costs of the conservation measures a post-designation impact.

    1.  **Modeling of Costs**

88. The agricultural impacts of critical habitat designations for Gaura
    will likely be reflected primarily by changes in farm and ranch
    income. Changes in farm income potentially could result from
    increased costs (e.g., hand-application of herbicides) as well as
    from decreases in forage production (e.g., restrictions on haying
    during certain times of the year). Specifically, this economic
    analysis measures the potential costs associated with a typical
    agriculture operation entering into a conservation agreement to
    protect the plant and its habitat. Information concerning potential
    cost increases and production decreases were obtained through
    interviews with ranching industry representatives, other
    agricultural experts, and a small sample of individual ranchers.

89. The typical agriculture operation is defined as an average
    individual operator, adjusting for the number of operations that own
    more than one parcel of land within the boundaries of the proposed
    designation. The designation encompasses approximately 53 parcels of
    land (assuming one parcel within Tepee Ring Creek, Unit 1), and 37
    individuals (or entities) own these parcels (assuming one operation
    in Tepee Ring Creek, Unit 1). This count of operations defines the
    number of agriculture operations potentially impacted by the
    proposed designation.

90. The characteristics of the "typical agriculture operation" are based
    on data on the size of the designation, the area of concentrated
    subpopulations of the plant on a landowner\'s property and the
    existing land use. Given the total area encompassed by the
    designation (8,486 acres) and the average percent of the designation
    occupied by concentrated subpopulations of the plant (27 percent),
    the typical agriculture operation is assumed to own 229 acres of
    habitat and 62 acres of habitat containing concentrated
    subpopulations of the plant. However, while the proposed designation
    contains all the primary constituent elements necessary for this
    species, and smaller numbers of plants may occur throughout the
    designation, the special management provisions of the conservation
    agreements will focus on the core of the concentrated subpopulations
    (\"core subpopulations\").

91. The Service estimates the average size of a core subpopulation for
    which special management would be considered in a conservation
    agreement is 50 feet by 50 feet, or 250 square feet. In addition,
    the Service expects the average landowner will have four of these
    core subpopulations on their property within the proposed
    designation, or 1,000 square feet.[^38] To allow for uncertainty,
    this analysis assumes that each landowner will have 0.5 acres of
    core subpopulations on their property within the proposed
    designation for which special management actions should be taken, or
    21,780 square feet. Based on existing land use, approximately 60
    percent of the habitat occupied by core subpopulations is assumed to
    be under hay production (0.3 acres) and the remaining 40 percent is
    assumed to be used solely as pasture for grazing (0.2 acres). The
    typical ranching operation also is assumed to spray herbicides on 10
    acres of Gaura habitat.

92. The average estimated cost of the conservation agreement's
    protective measures to the typical agriculture operation is then
    multiplied by the number of landowners forecast to enter into
    conservation agreements to determine the potential cost of critical
    habitat to agriculture activities. Because landowner participation
    in the conservation agreement program is uncertain, the impact of
    critical habitat designation related to agriculture activities is
    presented as a range. Given the entire designation is not federally
    owned, the upper bound for program participation is the number of
    individual landowners within the designation. By using the number of
    individual landowners to define the upper bound, the analysis
    assumes that those individuals owning multiple parcels within the
    designation only consult once on all lands owned within the boundary
    of the designation. Conversely, the lower bound on program
    participation is zero, considering rancher participation in the
    program is voluntary.

    1.  **Future Costs**

93. There are four major threats to Gaura from agricultural
    activities: (1) indiscriminant use of herbicides, (2) livestock
    grazing, (3) haying operations, and (4) building new impoundments
    that flood the habitat. The following section describes the threat
    of each activity to Gaura, the project modifications the Service
    would likely recommend,[^39] and additional cost impacts of these
    project modifications to the typical agriculture operation.

> [Indiscriminant Use of Herbicides]{.underline}

94. The most serious threat to Gaura on agriculture land is the
    indiscriminant application of herbicides to control noxious weeds.
    The two major noxious weeds infesting Gaura habitat are leafy spurge
    (*Euphorbia esula*) and Canada thistle (*Cirsium arvense*). These
    weeds are so pervasive in certain areas that aerial spraying is
    often used to apply the chemicals. However, the Gaura is highly
    susceptible to commonly used herbicides when the chemicals are
    applied non-selectively.

95. The Service would likely recommend no spraying within 50 feet of a
    Gaura population. If spraying occurs on a side hill or an embankment
    above a plant population, a 100-foot buffer zone is suggested to
    prevent drift downhill. These recommendations would necessitate hand
    spraying around areas where Gaura is found. Aerial spraying for most
    farm applications costs between \$4.50 and \$9.00 per acre, and
    custom ground spray application costs approximately \$35 per
    hour.[^40] Assuming it takes 0.5 hours per acre to spray around a
    Gaura population ground spraying costs approximately \$17.50 per
    acre. This increases the cost of herbicide application by \$8.50 to
    \$13.00 per acre, or approximately \$10.75 per acre.

96. This model assumes the typical agriculture operation will conform to
    the suggested buffer zones to prevent drift and protect the 0.5 acre
    core subpopulation. This model also assumes, given the potential
    threat herbicides pose to the plant, that the typical agriculture
    operation will hand spray areas of proposed designation outside of
    the core subpopulation and its surrounding bufferzone. The model
    assumes the proposed designation is treated with herbicides at the
    same proportion as the farmland treated within the county during the
    2002 and 1997 crop seasons. According to the 2002 Census of
    Agriculture, 1,754,794 acres were farmed in Laramie County in 2002,
    and 1,760,647 acres in 1997,[^41] and herbicides were used to
    control weeds, grass, or brush on 3.5 percent of the farmland in
    2002 (63,072 acres) and five percent of the farmland in 1997 (87,188
    acres).[^42] Based on this assumption, 305 to 428 acres of the
    proposed designation (8,486 acres) will be sprayed with herbicides
    annually. The typical agriculture operation will therefore spray
    herbicides on eight to 11 acres per annum, or approximately 10 acres
    on average.

97. Changing from aerial application to ground application increases the
    annual cost of herbicide application to the typical agriculture
    operator by approximately \$105 (9.8 acres multiplied by \$10.75 per
    acre).

> [Livestock Grazing]{.underline}

98. Moderate to light grazing of Gaura habitat by livestock is
    beneficial to the plant's survival as it opens the habitat and
    decreases competition. Grazing is only dangerous to the plant if it
    occurs during flowering and seed setting in July and August.

99. The Service would likely recommend light grazing before late May in
    areas occupied by core subpopulations of the plant. The area would
    not be grazed again until after August, at which time it could be
    heavily grazed by livestock. While timing restrictions exclude
    grazing activities during the summer, grazing activities around
    Gaura could work into a rancher's existing pasture rotation
    schedule. The timing restrictions, therefore, are not expected to
    decrease the carrying capacity of the typical agriculture operation.
    However, some ranchers may be required to cross-fence grazing areas
    or enclose the area occupied by the core subpopulations to
    accommodate these grazing restrictions. If the core subpopulations
    are enclosed, the enclosure can be made available for grazing after
    the plant has set seed.

100. Custom fencing on smooth to rolling terrain typically costs
     approximately \$7,000 per mile or \$1.32 per linear foot.[^43]
     Assuming the typical farming operation fences the 0.2 acres of
     livestock pasture occupied by core subpopulations, the enclosure
     would cost approximately \$494.[^44] However, the cost of fencing
     would be borne by PFW. PFW engage in cost sharing on a case-by-case
     basis and have provided assistance to at least one rancher that has
     entered into a conservation agreement with the Service to protect
     Gaura.[^45] The organization typically provides the fencing
     materials, and considers this a 50 percent cost share. The rancher
     provides the other 50 percent of the fencing cost in labor.
     However, PFW has indicated it will pay for 100 percent of the costs
     (including materials and installation) considering the small size
     of the fencing projects associated with Gaura protection.[^46]
     Assuming the typical agriculture operation participates in the PFW
     cost-share program, the rancher is expected to bear no capital
     costs for fencing; that is, all of the costs will be borne by PFW.
     The analysis also forecasts an hour of labor (\$32 per hour) for
     annual fence repair and maintenance for the barbed wire fence
     surrounding the core subpopulation.[^47] The fence repair and
     maintenance costs will be borne by the rancher.

101. Additional forage could be leased during the grazing restriction
     period, if needed, for approximately \$13.50 per animal unit month
     (AUM).[^48] Costs for transporting the livestock to the leased
     pasture would cost approximately \$3.68 per loaded mile for a
     tractor-trailer with a capacity of around 50,000 lbs.[^49] However,
     as previously mentioned, the analysis assumes grazing restrictions
     on livestock pasture occupied by core subpopulations will fit
     within the existing pasture rotation schedule of the typical
     agriculture operation.

> [Haying Operations]{.underline}

102. Flood irrigated native grass hay is the most common harvested
     forage grown in areas where Gaura is most likely to be found.
     Harvesting typically begins during the first part of July and
     continues throughout the month. Because there is usually
     insufficient water in the creeks to irrigate the hay meadows after
     the July harvest, only one cutting is obtained each summer. Cattle
     graze the regrowth in the meadows during the fall, and the
     harvested forage is fed to the herd during the winter months. Like
     grazing, hay mowing is only injurious to the plant if it occurs
     during flowering and seed setting in July and August.

103. The Service would likely recommend that haying operations in areas
     occupied by core subpopulations not occur until September so that
     the plant is not disturbed until seeds are set. However, delaying
     hay activities by six to eight weeks greatly impacts the quality of
     harvested hay. Studies in western Nebraska show that delaying the
     optimal harvesting date for grass hay by 60 days decreases total
     forage yield (harvested plus regrowth) by five to ten percent. The
     delay in harvest also decreases the nutritional value of the hay,
     lowering the crude protein (CP) from around 7.5 percent to six
     percent, and the total digestible nutrients (TDN) from
     approximately 49 percent to 42 percent.[^50] Using beef cattle feed
     concentrate (32 percent CP and 82 percent TDN) to compensate for
     the lost forage and nutritional value would cost the typical
     agriculture operation approximately \$40 per acre (at an average
     five-year cost for concentrate in Wyoming of \$287 per ton).[^51]

104. Purchasing beef cattle concentrate to compensate for lost forage
     and nutritional value increases the typical agriculture operator's
     annual operating costs by approximately \$12 (0.2 acres multiplied
     by \$40 per acre).

> [Building New Impoundments]{.underline}

105. The Service recommends against the development of additional water
     impoundments that would flood Gaura habitat. This analysis assumes
     that irrigation and watering structures for agricultural activities
     are in place and that no new development will likely occur.

     1.  **Economic Impacts: Typical Ranching Operation**

106. Assuming a 20-year planning horizon and a seven-percent discount
     rate, the present value of the economic impact to a typical
     agriculture operation of entering into a conservation agreement is
     approximately \$2,787, or \$263 annualized (see Figure 4-1).

107. ![](media/image9.wmf)As part of the conservation agreement process,
     each individual landowner will enter into a low-level informal
     consultation with the Service. Technically, while no Federal nexus
     exists for the conservation agreement program, the model assumes
     the Service will conduct an intra-agency consultation because of
     the funding the PFW (i.e. the Service) provides for fencing. The
     Service Field Office in Cheyenne indicates the landowner will not
     be required to perform a Biological Assessment and that the
     administrative costs allocated to the Service and PFW for
     consultation efforts (\$1,000 and \$1,300, respectively) is
     sufficient to cover all expenses, including contracting plant
     surveys.[^52] The typical agriculture operation will spend
     approximately \$1,200 of their time in consultation with the
     Service in the development of the conservation agreement during
     2004, or \$113 annualized for the 20-year period of this analysis.

108. Using the cost information previously described, the economic
     impact per agriculture operation to protect the plant and its
     habitat are listed in Exhibit 4-3. These include capitalized costs
     associated with the section 7 consultation process undertaken
     during 2004 (year 1) and annual costs to purchasing beef cattle
     concentrate, for fence repairs and maintenance, and additional
     costs associated with ground application of herbicides. The present
     value of all over a 20-year period is \$2,787 for the typical
     agriculture operation, or \$263 annualized.

+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **EXHIBIT 4-3**         |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| ##### PRESENT VALUE OF  |       |       |       |        |        |
| ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIA |       |       |       |        |        |
| TED WITH CONSERVATION A |       |       |       |        |        |
| GREEMENTS TO THE TYPICA |       |       |       |        |        |
| L AGRICULTURE OPERATION |       |       |       |        |        |
|                         |       |       |       |        |        |
| ###                     |       |       |       |        |        |
| ## (20-Years at a Seven |       |       |       |        |        |
|  Percent Discount Rate) |       |       |       |        |        |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **Activity**            | **    | **C   | **A   | **P    | **Annu |
|                         | Acres | apita | nnual | resent | alized |
|                         | Impac | lized | C     | Value  | Value  |
|                         | ted** | C     | ost** | of     | of     |
|                         |       | ost** |       | Capit  | C      |
|                         |       |       |       | alized | apital |
|                         |       |       |       | and    | and    |
|                         |       |       |       | Annual | Annual |
|                         |       |       |       | C      | C      |
|                         |       |       |       | osts** | osts** |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| Administrative cost of  |       | \$    |       | \      | \$113  |
| consultation            |       | 1,200 |       | $1,200 |        |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| Hay production          | 0.3   |       | \$12  | \$132  | \$12   |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| Livestock grazing       | 0.2   |       | \$32  | \$339  | \$32   |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| Herbicide spraying      | 9.8   |       | \$105 | \      | \$105  |
|                         |       |       |       | $1,116 |        |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+
| **TOTAL**               |       |       |       | **\$2  | **\    |
|                         |       |       |       | ,787** | $263** |
+-------------------------+-------+-------+-------+--------+--------+

1.  **Economic Impacts: By Third Party, Service and Action Agency**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
109. As illustrated in Exhibit 4-4, the present value of costs to
     protect the plant and its habitat through voluntary conservation
     agreements with the Service over the 20-year period of this
     analysis is estimated at \$207,000 (approximately \$130,000 in
     administrative costs and \$77,000 in project modifications). This
     represents the upper bound of costs assuming all landowners
     participate in the conservation agreement program with the Service.
     The lower bound, assuming no ranchers participate in the program
     because it is voluntary, is zero.

-   The upper bound cost to agriculture operations is approximately
    \$103,000 (\$44,000 in administrative consultation costs and
    \$59,000 in project modification costs).

-   The Service is expected to incur only administrative costs for its
    efforts in the consultation process. At a cost of \$1,000 per
    consultation, the forecast upper bound cost to the Service is
    approximately \$37,000.

-   PFW (also the Service) is expected to incur administrative costs for
    its role in the consultation process (\$1,300 per consultation) and
    project modification costs related to its share (100 percent) of the
    fencing costs to enclose livestock pastures. The total estimated
    upper bound cost to PFW is approximately \$66,000 (\$48,000 in
    administrative costs and \$18,000 in project modification costs).

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="11"><strong>EXHIBIT 4-4</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="11"><p><strong>PRESENT VALUE OF AGRICULTURE
COSTS</strong></p>
<p><strong>(20-Years at a Seven Percent Discount Rate)</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Unit or Reach</strong></td>
<td><strong>Service Admin. Costs</strong></td>
<td><strong>PFW Admin. Costs</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>PFW Project Mod.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Costs</strong></p></td>
<td><em><strong>Total PFW Costs</strong></em></td>
<td><strong>Third Party Admin. Costs</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Third Party Project Mod.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Costs</strong></p></td>
<td><p><em><strong>Total</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>Third Party Costs</strong></em></p></td>
<td><strong>Admin. Costs</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>Project Mod.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Costs</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>Total Costs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>109</td>
<td><em>1,409</em></td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>350</td>
<td><em>1,550</em></td>
<td>3,500</td>
<td>459</td>
<td>3,959</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2</td>
<td>2,125</td>
<td>2,763</td>
<td>817</td>
<td><em>3,580</em></td>
<td>2,550</td>
<td>2,624</td>
<td><em>5,174</em></td>
<td>7,438</td>
<td>3,442</td>
<td>10,879</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3.1</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>423</td>
<td>109</td>
<td><em>531</em></td>
<td>390</td>
<td>348</td>
<td><em>738</em></td>
<td>1,138</td>
<td>457</td>
<td>1,594</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3.2</td>
<td>325</td>
<td>423</td>
<td>671</td>
<td><em>1,093</em></td>
<td>390</td>
<td>2,153</td>
<td><em>2,543</em></td>
<td>1,138</td>
<td>2,823</td>
<td>3,961</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3.3</td>
<td>200</td>
<td>260</td>
<td>660</td>
<td><em>920</em></td>
<td>240</td>
<td>2,119</td>
<td><em>2,359</em></td>
<td>700</td>
<td>2,779</td>
<td>3,479</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4.1</td>
<td>1,325</td>
<td>1,723</td>
<td>2,975</td>
<td><em>4,697</em></td>
<td>1,590</td>
<td>9,550</td>
<td><em>11,140</em></td>
<td>4,638</td>
<td>12,525</td>
<td>17,163</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4.2</td>
<td>1,825</td>
<td>2,373</td>
<td>1,692</td>
<td><em>4,064</em></td>
<td>2,190</td>
<td>5,431</td>
<td><em>7,621</em></td>
<td>6,388</td>
<td>7,123</td>
<td>13,511</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>5,625</td>
<td>7,313</td>
<td>2,514</td>
<td><em>9,826</em></td>
<td>6,750</td>
<td>8,070</td>
<td><em>14,820</em></td>
<td>19,688</td>
<td>10,583</td>
<td>30,271</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6.1</td>
<td>15,625</td>
<td>20,313</td>
<td>5,041</td>
<td><em>25,353</em></td>
<td>18,750</td>
<td>16,183</td>
<td><em>34,933</em></td>
<td>54,688</td>
<td>21,224</td>
<td>75,911</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>6.2</td>
<td>1,500</td>
<td>1,950</td>
<td>1,048</td>
<td><em>2,998</em></td>
<td>1,800</td>
<td>3,364</td>
<td><em>5,164</em></td>
<td>5,250</td>
<td>4,412</td>
<td>9,662</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7.1</td>
<td>4,500</td>
<td>5,850</td>
<td>1,162</td>
<td><em>7,012</em></td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>3,729</td>
<td><em>9,129</em></td>
<td>15,750</td>
<td>4,891</td>
<td>20,641</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>7.2</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>137</td>
<td><em>1,437</em></td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>439</td>
<td><em>1,639</em></td>
<td>3,500</td>
<td>576</td>
<td>4,076</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>7.3</td>
<td>625</td>
<td>813</td>
<td>523</td>
<td><em>1,336</em></td>
<td>750</td>
<td>1,680</td>
<td><em>2,430</em></td>
<td>2,188</td>
<td>2,204</td>
<td>4,391</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>8</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,300</td>
<td>834</td>
<td><em>2,134</em></td>
<td>1,200</td>
<td>2,676</td>
<td><em>3,876</em></td>
<td>3,500</td>
<td>3,509</td>
<td>7,009</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td>
<td><strong>37,000</strong></td>
<td><strong>48,100</strong></td>
<td><strong>18,290</strong></td>
<td><em><strong>66,390</strong></em></td>
<td><strong>44,400</strong></td>
<td><strong>58,718</strong></td>
<td><em><strong>103,118</strong></em></td>
<td><strong>129,500</strong></td>
<td><strong>77,008</strong></td>
<td><strong>206,508</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

1.  **Economic Impacts: By Unit**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
110. Based on the proportion of habitat occupied by concentrated
     subpopulations within each unit or reach (sub-unit), the present
     value of costs associated with the proposed critical habitat
     designation can be allocated based on the average forecast cost per
     acre of concentrated subpopulation. The administrative costs
     associated with consultation, on the other hand, are allocated
     based on the number of individual consultations that occur within
     each unit. This allocation assumes that those individuals owning
     multiple parcels within the designation only consult once on all
     lands owned within the boundary of the designation. For example,
     the administrative cost of consultation associated with a landowner
     that owns a parcel in Unit 7, Reach 1, and another in Unit 7, Reach
     2, would be allocated equally between the two reaches. The unit
     costs are detailed in Exhibit 4-4 above, and presented graphically
     in Figure 4-2 below.

111. On a cost per unit basis the largest portion of forecast
     agriculture-related costs are expected to occur in Reach 1 of Unit
     6, Lodgepole Creek East (37 percent). The next most costly units
     are Unit 5, Lodgepole Creek West (15 percent), and Reach 1 of Unit
     7, Borie (10 percent). Together, these three units account for more
     than 60 percent (approximately \$127,000) of forecast costs. These
     costs are driven primarily by the acres of habitat occupied by
     concentrated subpopulations within the units. The three units also
     contain almost 50 percent (approximately 1,110 acres) of the area
     of concentrated subpopulations within the proposed critical habitat
     designation. The three largest units, in terms of area of
     concentrated subpopulations, account for almost 60 percent of the
     area occupied by concentrated subpopulations (1,341 acres) and 60
     percent of forecast agriculture-related costs (approximately
     \$123,000). These units are Reach 1 of Unit 6 (Lodgepole Creek
     East), Reach 1 of Unit 4 (Little Bear Creek/Horse Creek) and Unit 5
     (Lodgepole Creek west).

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.354861111111111in" height="4.25in"}

1.  **Natural Gas Pipelines**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
112. Natural gas pipeline projects can impact Gaura by altering the
     landscape within a unit. Habitat can be damaged during the clearing
     of the right-of-way, soil removal and stockpiling, and during
     clean-up and restoration efforts.[^53] Additionally, wetland
     crossings associated with pipeline projects can specifically impact
     Gaura habitat.[^54] The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
     has indicated two major pipeline projects may pass in the vicinity
     of the proposed critical habitat designation over the next 10
     years.[^55]

113. Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc. is planning to construct a 327-mile
     interstate gas pipeline that will extend from Rio Blanco County,
     Colorado, to Wamsutter, Wyoming, continuing on to the Cheyenne Hub
     in Weld County, Colorado.[^56] The Entrega Gas Pipeline project is
     not expected to impact known plant populations. However, the
     proposed route will cross in the vicinity of unoccupied Gaura
     habitat, and surveys are being conducted to determine the presence
     of Gaura in the project area. Natural Resource Group, Inc., on
     behalf of Entrega Gas Pipeline Inc., has been in consultation with
     the Service regarding surveys for and conservation of threatened
     and endangered species potentially occurring along the proposed
     project route. The Service recently approved Entrega\'s Survey
     Plan, which identifies the survey protocol to be used to determine
     the presence or absence of each threatened and endangered species
     requiring surveys in the proposed project area. Since the proposed
     route of the project does not cross occupied Gaura habitat (Reaches
     2 and 3 of Unit 7 are north of the pipeline route), this analysis
     assumes that the project may result in an informal consultation
     with the Service, and assesses costs accordingly.[^57] Therefore,
     total nominal costs of Gaura mitigation efforts are expected to
     range from \$3,500 to \$13,900.[^58]

114. Secondly, the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Company is planning the
     construction of approximately 380 miles of 30-inch pipeline from
     the Cheyenne Hub (located near the Colorado/Wyoming border)
     southeast across Colorado and Kansas to the town of Greensburg,
     Kansas.[^59] The Cheyenne Plains line starts in Colorado at a
     location 5 miles east of Interstate 25, and approximately 5 miles
     south of the Wyoming State line, several miles south of Reach 3 of
     Unit 7 of the proposed critical habitat designation. Field studies
     have been conducted over the past two seasons along its alignment
     and found no Gaura present. An additional study will be conducted
     this summer, but it is not expected that this project will impact
     Gaura populations.[^60]

115. Construction is set to begin the spring of 2005 and is expected to
     continue for four to five months, followed by restoration
     activities.[^61] Since the proposed route of the project does not
     cross Gaura habitat, this analysis assumes an informal consultation
     will occur with the Service regarding the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline
     project and attributes these costs to Reach 3 of Unit 7. Total
     costs of Gaura mitigation efforts are expected to range from
     \$3,500 to \$13,900 for the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Project.

116. In summary, the analysis forecasts two informal consultations
     regarding natural gas pipeline projects over the next 10 years.
     Both projects may potentially impact Reach 3 of Unit 7 of the
     proposed critical habitat designation. Total administrative costs
     are anticipated to range from \$7,000 to \$27,800 for these
     projects. Project modifications are not expected since neither
     project crosses Gaura habitat directly.

     1.  **Residential and Commercial Development**

117. Future residential and commercial development has been identified
     as a potential threat to Gaura. The development of houses and
     residential-related infrastructure (i.e. roads, water supply, and
     sewage treatment) could cause direct take of the species.
     Additionally, Gaura prefers grazed pasture, and as development
     increases, more land is left idle, increasing competition from
     other species.[^62]

118. Reductions in property value may occur through public perception
     that the designation will restrict land uses, inhibit private
     development, or cause project delays. Such loss in property value
     can be experienced for as long as such perception persists. Thus,
     any potential reduction in property value would primarily be due to
     the regulatory uncertainty, engendered by critical habitat
     designation, concerning land use within critical habitat areas. No
     development-related effects are anticipated, however, for the
     following reasons:

-   While uncertainties about the impacts of the proposed critical
    habitat designation and the perception that the designation will
    impose land use restrictions can cause reduction in property value,
    this effect is likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties
    and perceptions dissipate and/or become clarified over time;

-   Consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that are
    carried out, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency. As such, the
    designation of critical habitat will not afford any additional
    protections for species with respect to strictly private activities.
    Because the entire designation is on non-Federal property and
    development on private land is not usually federally funded or
    permitted, there is no Federal nexus for development activities
    under section 7 of the Act. However, the Gaura habitat consists of a
    narrow riparian zone, and while unlikely for rural residential
    development on private land, regulation under Section 10 of the
    Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are
    possible Federal nexuses for development if the activity occurs in
    or around the water.[^63]

Development within the proposed critical habitat designation areas is
described in more detail below.

1.  **Nebraska**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
119. A portion of Unit 6 is located in Kimball County, Nebraska. Kimball
     County is a sparsely populated area with a population numbering
     fewer than 4,000, or about 4.3 people per square-mile.[^64] While
     the 2000 to 2020 population forecast for the County projected
     slight growth, the county has actually lost six percent of its
     population since 1990. Conservation measures for Gaura are not
     expected to impact development activities for this unit in
     Nebraska.

     1.  **Colorado**

120. Unit 8 is located on the border of Larimer and Weld counties in
     Colorado, both of which are forecasting strong growth. While the
     unit does front Interstate Highway 25 North, and is located less
     than one-half mile from exit 293, the unit is located in a sparsely
     populated area. Wellington, about 15 miles south of the unit on
     Interstate Highway 25, is the closest town of any sizeable
     population (2,672 individuals as of 2000).[^65] The City of Ft.
     Collins, population 120,000,[^66] is located another 13 miles
     further south from Wellington. The City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, is
     the closest town north of the unit, and it is located about 18
     miles north on Interstate Highway 25.

121. This unit contains Meadow Springs Ranch and Soapstone Ranch, two
     properties owned and managed by the City of Fort Collins.[^67] The
     Fort Collins Utilities Department uses the Meadow Springs Ranch for
     the application of biosolids, and there are currently no plans for
     development on this site. As for the recently acquired Soapstone
     Ranch, the City intends to continue leasing the property to a local
     rancher for grazing and allowing the public use of the land for
     recreation. With the exception of road improvements to improve
     public access and the development of a parking lot, there are no
     plans for development in this unit. These improvements will be
     planned to avoid Gaura populations, and the additional costs, if
     any, are expected to be minor.[^68]

     1.  **Platte County, Wyoming**

122. Unit 1 is located on the upper reaches of the Richeau Creek
     drainage, and except for ranching and the Diamond Guest Ranch,
     there is no development in this area. The Platte County Planning
     Department does not foresee future development in this part of the
     County.[^69]

     1.  **Rural Laramie County**

123. Laramie County experienced steady population growth throughout the
     1990s.[^70] Should the County's population continue to increase
     over the next twenty years at a rate similar to the 1990s (one
     percent), the population will increase from just over 81,000 in
     2000, to nearly 86,000 in 2005 and to nearly 100,000 by 2020.[^71]
     However, the Wyoming Business Council forecasts a more modest
     growth rate, 0.5 percent, suggesting a County population of
     approximately 90,000 by 2020. This increase in population may see a
     corresponding growth in infrastructure, including the expansion of
     existing roads and highways to meet the County's growing
     needs.[^72] However, according to Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning
     Organization, the extent and location of future development are
     unknown at this time.[^73]

124. Regardless of the location of future development activities within
     the County, the designation of critical habitat is unlikely to
     substantially affect the course of regional development in the
     County. Given the population of the County (approximately 85,000)
     relative to the County area (2,688 square miles, or about one
     person per 20 acres), substitute home sites would be available, if
     necessary. Furthermore, the existing County regulations already
     require a minimum lot size of five acres for homes utilizing a
     small private wastewater system (septic) and water supply
     (well).[^74] While the designation could influence the siting of a
     future home on a rural lot, sufficient space remains to site the
     home to avoid areas of concentrated plant populations. The
     implications of this re-siting, if any, would be site specific and
     are anticipated to be modest. Because the proposed designation is
     not expected to prohibit home development (i.e., the number of
     homes) in rural areas of the County, and because the costs, if any,
     are anticipated to be modest, this analysis does not anticipate any
     impacts regarding development activities in rural areas of Laramie
     County.

     1.  **City of Cheyenne**

125. Areas close to the city of Cheyenne are most likely to experience
     development pressures in the coming years (Unit 7).[^75] Crow Creek
     in Unit 7 is a large drainage and most of the western portion of
     the drainage runs through WAFB. While some development pressures
     will be seen around Crow Creek west of the base, according to the
     Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization, it is unclear when, or
     to what extent development will occur.[^76]

     1.  **Road and Bridge Construction and Maintenance**

126. Interstate and state highways, as well as county roads cross the
     proposed critical habitat in several places. Therefore, future road
     and bridge construction and maintenance activities have the
     potential to impact Gaura.

127. The main Federal nexus for road and bridge construction and
     maintenance is Federal funding from the Federal highway
     Administration (FHWA). FHWA has consulted with the Service on other
     species within the proposed critical habitat area, but no
     consultations have been conducted on Gaura to date.[^77]

     1.  **Colorado and Nebraska**

128. Representatives from the Colorado Department of Transportation
     (CDOT) have stated that one major project is planned along
     Interstate Highway 25 (I-25) in the vicinity of Unit 8 during the
     next twenty years.[^78] This project, the expansion of I-25 from
     Denver to Exit 286, will occur nearly 15 miles south of Unit 8.
     Thus, there are no potential impacts from road and bridge projects
     to this unit. Additionally, the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)
     has identified one planned project for Kimball County during the
     next 20 years, the resurfacing of Interstate Highway 71 (I-71) from
     Kimball City to Interstate Highway 80 (I-80).[^79] The plan
     indicates the project will occur several miles east of Unit 6, and
     thus, there are no expected impacts to Gaura habitat.

     1.  **Wyoming**

129. The majority of road and bridge development with the proposed
     critical habitat designation would be within the Cheyenne area
     (Unit 7).[^80] Cheyenne has shown consistent growth and expansion
     and is currently developing commercial areas to the south and to
     the west of the current urban limits. This growth may impact the
     tributaries of Crow Creek in Unit 7.[^81]

130. Presently, three major projects along I-25 and I-80 are being
     developed within the Cheyenne area: (1) I-25 expansion from the
     Colorado border to Cheyenne; (2) installation of a new I-25
     interchange south of Cheyenne; and (3) installation of a new I-80
     interchange immediately west of Cheyenne. These improvements are
     not expected to impact the drainages identified in the proposed
     critical habitat designation. In addition, Wyoming Highway WYO-210
     immediately west of Cheyenne and continuing approximately seven
     miles to the west is currently under construction. Improvements to
     this highway will continue west in future years. Future projects
     along I-25 in northern Laramie County also have the potential to
     impact the habitat, but there are no proposed Wyoming Department of
     Transportation (WYDOT) projects that would impact the Horse Creek
     and Bear Creek drainages (Units 2-4).[^82] Finally, commenters
     identified a road widening threat adjacent to a landowner's
     property that was not addressed in the draft economic analysis. The
     Public Works Department of Laramie County indicates there is no
     planned work along this section of road (i.e., route 149 bridge
     crossing Lodgepole Creek).[^83]

131. The Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has published
     a Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) which includes capital
     transportation improvements within the City of Cheyenne for
     2004-2006.[^84] The TIP indicates that the majority of future
     development will occur within central Cheyenne, with a few projects
     planned west of the city limits. All federally-funded projects
     planned for years 2004-2006 that occur within close proximity of
     Gaura populations are presented in Exhibit 4-5.

+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| **E |                 |                    |              |          |
| XHI |                 |                    |              |          |
| BIT |                 |                    |              |          |
| 4-  |                 |                    |              |          |
| 5** |                 |                    |              |          |
|     |                 |                    |              |          |
| **  |                 |                    |              |          |
| FUT |                 |                    |              |          |
| URE |                 |                    |              |          |
| TR  |                 |                    |              |          |
| ANS |                 |                    |              |          |
| POR |                 |                    |              |          |
| TAT |                 |                    |              |          |
| ION |                 |                    |              |          |
| PR  |                 |                    |              |          |
| OJE |                 |                    |              |          |
| CTS |                 |                    |              |          |
| P   |                 |                    |              |          |
| LAN |                 |                    |              |          |
| NED |                 |                    |              |          |
| WIT |                 |                    |              |          |
| HIN |                 |                    |              |          |
| GA  |                 |                    |              |          |
| URA |                 |                    |              |          |
| HAB |                 |                    |              |          |
| ITA |                 |                    |              |          |
| T** |                 |                    |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| #   | **Project       | **Description**    | ### Action A | ##       |
| ##  | Name**          |                    | gency {#acti | # CH Uni |
| Yea |                 |                    | on-agency-1  | t {#ch-u |
| r { |                 |                    | .unnumbered} | nit .unn |
| #ye |                 |                    |              | umbered} |
| ar  |                 |                    |              |          |
| .un |                 |                    |              |          |
| num |                 |                    |              |          |
| ber |                 |                    |              |          |
| ed} |                 |                    |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| 2   | Happy Jack Road | Widening and       | FHWA         | Unit 7   |
| 004 |                 | Overlay From       |              |          |
|     |                 | Roundtop Rd. West  |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| 2   | I-25            | Concrete           | FHWA         | Unit 7   |
| 005 | Reconstruction  | Reconstruction     |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| 2   | Fort Access     | Add ramps to the   | FHWA         | Unit 7   |
| 005 | Road Separation | separation         |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| 2   | Cheyenne Speer  | Design New         | FHWA         | Unit 7   |
| 005 | Interchange     | Interchange        |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+
| 2   | WYDOT           | Extend 12\"        | FHWA         | Unit 7   |
| 005 | Reconstruction  | diameter water     |              |          |
|     | between I-25    | main               |              |          |
|     | and Westland    |                    |              |          |
|     | Rd.             |                    |              |          |
+-----+-----------------+--------------------+--------------+----------+

132. Although all projects listed in Exhibit 4-5 will pass through Unit
     7, FHWA expects that none of the projects will impact drainages or
     Gaura habitat. Thus, FHWA does not foresee any future consultations
     with the Service regarding Gaura.[^85]

     1.  **Agriculture**

133. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, agricultural activities on private
     lands that may adversely impact Gaura and/or its habitat do not
     typically involve a Federal nexus. The main Federal nexus for
     agriculture activities on private land is theNumber range CHAPTER
     Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS provides
     funding for several agriculture-related activities, including
     property fencing, grazing, and the development of stock ponds and
     reservoirs.[^86] The proposed rule for Gaura identifies these types
     of activities as potentially harmful to the survival of the
     species.[^87]

134. The NRCS has identified three main conservation programs that exist
     within the study area. First, the Environmental Quality Incentives
     Program (EQIP) provides a voluntary conservation program for
     farmers and ranchers that promote agricultural production and
     environmental quality as compatible national goals. Second, the
     Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) is a voluntary program offering
     landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance
     grasslands on their property. The GRP helps landowners restore and
     protect grassland, rangeland, pastureland, and shrubland. Finally,
     the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program offering
     landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance
     wetlands on their property. The NRCS provides technical and
     financial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration
     efforts. [^88] NRCS is required to consult with the Service if
     projects associated with these programs are anticipated to impact
     the habitat of federally listed species. The consultation history
     indicates that NRCS has not consulted with Service in the past for
     Gaura.

135. While the NRCS is unable to forecast long-term participation in
     conservation programs in the future, the agency states that future
     consultations with the Service for Gaura are unlikely. In the
     coming year, NRCS estimates that there will be less than five stock
     pond and reservoir projects in the southeastern portion of Wyoming
     (Laramie and Platte County), and that consultation with the Service
     for Gaura is not likely for these projects. Additionally, NRCS does
     not anticipate changes in conservation program participation due to
     Gaura.[^89]

136. Considering NRCS has not previously consulted with the Service for
     Gaura, that participation in NRCS programs in Laramie and Platte
     counties is low, and because future program participation is not
     expected to differ from the past rates, this analysis does not
     foresee economic impacts related to NRCS-funded activities within
     the proposed designation.

     1.  **Oil and Gas Drilling**

137. There is minimal oil and gas drilling in Laramie County (Units
     2-7). Since listing, only 11 Applications for Permits to Drill
     (APD) have been issued for oil and gas well drilling in Laramie
     County, four in 2004, one in 2003, three in 2002, and three
     in 2001. For comparison, 7,404 APDs were issued statewide in 2000,
     10,514 in 2001, and 6,473 in 2002. Furthermore, during the period
     October 1, 2000 (approximate date of listing) through March 31,
     2004, county oil and gas production accounted for less than 0.6
     percent and 0.01 percent of statewide production,
     respectively.[^90]

138. Personal communication with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation
     Commission[^91] and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming[^92]
     indicates that the level of oil and gas drilling in Laramie County
     is likely to remain low. Therefore, impacts to Gaura habitat are
     not anticipated in the County.

139. Oil and gas development in the rest of the designation is not
     expected. A review of the county records indicates little or no
     annual oil or gas production in Platte County during the past 25
     years, and no oil or gas drilling activities is currently occurring
     in the County (Unit 1).[^93] There are no oil and gas wells in the
     vicinity of Unit 8, and there have been no drilling permits
     allotted in this area.[^94] Furthermore, the Colorado Oil and Gas
     Conservation Commission (COGCC) does not anticipate future drilling
     in this area.[^95]

**4.3 [Summary of Impacts]{.underline}**

140. The analysis estimates the pre-designation costs incurred between
     the time of listing in October 2000 through the final critical
     habitat designation in December 2004 and the potential future costs
     associated with conservation activities for the species from 2005
     through 2024. Total estimated pre-designation costs are estimated
     to have ranged from \$260,000 to \$395,000. The vast majority of
     these historic costs, more than 96 percent, are administrative
     costs associated with the consultation process. Most of the past
     consultations were either general in nature (non-species and
     non-project specific), requests for comments and information from
     the Service, or findings by the Service of "no effect" or "not
     likely to adversely affect." The total present value of
     post-designation costs are forecast to be as high as \$232,600, or
     upwards of \$22,000 annually. Most of the forecast costs (up to 56
     percent) are comprised of the administrative costs of the
     consultation process associated with the voluntary conservation
     agreements (\$129,600).

141. Because the entire designation is non-Federal land, and the primary
     land use is cattle ranching and irrigated hay production, the
     activity that may be most affected by future conservation measures
     to protect Gaura and/or its habitat is ranching. The analysis
     forecasts 39 informal consultations during the next 20-years, 37
     between ranchers and the Service developing conservation agreements
     throughout the designation, and two in Reach 3 of Unit 7 (Borie)
     for natural gas pipeline projects. The agriculture-related
     conservation agreements account for up to 90 percent of forecast
     costs (\$258,900). The two natural gas pipeline projects account
     for the remaining ten percent of total costs (\$27,800).

142. As mentioned above, the economic impacts to ranchers will be
     manifested primarily as the administrative cost of the consultation
     process associated with the voluntary conservation agreement
     program. The administrative cost of the consultation process with
     the Service to set up the conservation agreement in 2004 is
     forecast to comprise approximately two-thirds of the costs related
     to the conservation agreements. Post-2004 project modification
     costs associated with the voluntary conservation agreements
     comprise the remaining one-third of conservation agreement-related
     costs.[^96] Project modifications may include the installation of
     additional fencing and additional annual costs for supplemental
     feed, fence repairs and maintenance and herbicide spraying. The
     analysis expects that ranchers who install additional fencing will
     also participate in a PFW cost share program, and that PFW will pay
     the entire cost of the fence (materials and installation).

143. All of the agriculture-related costs forecast in the analysis are
     associated with [voluntary]{.underline} conservation agreements
     that target specific threats to Gaura on private agriculture lands.
     Because landowner participation in the conservation agreement
     program is voluntary, and thus uncertain, the impact of
     conservation measures for Gaura related to agriculture activities
     is presented as a range. The analysis assumes the upper bound for
     program participation is the number of individual landowners within
     the designation (37). Conversely, the lower bound on program
     participation is zero (i.e., no landowners participate in the
     program).

144. Assuming full program participation, private entities are forecast
     to bear up to approximately 59 percent of the total cost of Gaura
     conservation, the Service (including PFW) is anticipated to bear
     approximately 38 percent of forecast costs, and Federal agencies
     other than the Service less than three percent of total costs.
     Exhibit 4-6 represents the distribution of costs borne by party.

145. The only other category of costs is related to two informal
     consultations regarding natural gas pipeline projects over the next
     10 years. Both projects may potentially impact Reach 3 of Unit 7 of
     the proposed critical habitat designation. Total administrative
     costs are anticipated to range from \$7,000 to \$27,800 for these
     projects. Project modifications are not expected since neither
     project crosses occupied Gaura habitat.

+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **EXHIBIT |        |           |           |           |           |
| 4-6**     |        |           |           |           |           |
|           |        |           |           |           |           |
| **SUMMARY |        |           |           |           |           |
| OF COSTS  |        |           |           |           |           |
| A         |        |           |           |           |           |
| SSOCIATED |        |           |           |           |           |
| WITH EACH |        |           |           |           |           |
| PARTY**   |        |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Cost    | **R    | **        | **Other   | **        | **Total** |
| C         | ange** | Service** | Federal   | Private** |           |
| ategory** |        |           | A         |           |           |
|           |        |           | gencies** | **E       |           |
|           |        |           |           | ntities** |           |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Admin     | Low    | \$2,000   | \$2,600   | \$2,400   | \$7,000   |
| istrative |        |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | High   | \$91,200  | \$7,800   | \$58,400  | \$157,300 |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Project   | Low    | \$0       | \$0       | \$0       | \$0       |
| Mod       |        |           |           |           |           |
| ification |        |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | High   | \$18,200  | \$0       | \$111,100 | \$129,300 |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| Total     | Low    | \$2,000   | \$2,600   | \$2,400   | \$7,000   |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|           | High   | \$109,400 | \$7,800   | \$169,500 | \$286,700 |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| \*Note    |        |           |           |           |           |
| totals    |        |           |           |           |           |
| may not   |        |           |           |           |           |
| sum due   |        |           |           |           |           |
| to        |        |           |           |           |           |
| rounding. |        |           |           |           |           |
+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

146. ![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.492361111111111in"
     height="3.9006944444444445in"}Costs are driven primarily by the
     acres of habitat occupied by concentrated Gaura subpopulations
     within the units. Figure 4-3 is a graphical representation of the
     costs by unit over the next 20 years, based on the proportion of
     habitat occupied by concentrated subpopulations within each unit or
     reach (sub-unit). On a cost per unit basis the largest portion of
     forecast costs are expected to occur in Reach 1 of Unit 6,
     Lodgepole Creek East (32 percent). The next most costly units are
     Unit 5, Lodgepole Creek West (13 percent), and Reach 3 of Unit 7,
     Borie (12 percent). Together, these three units account for
     approximately 56 percent (\$161,400) of forecast costs. The three
     units also contain approximately 44 percent (approximately 1,029
     acres) of the area of concentrated subpopulations within the
     proposed critical habitat designation.

147. Costs are driven primarily by the acres of habitat occupied by
     concentrated subpopulations within the units. The three largest
     units, in terms of area of concentrated subpopulations, account for
     almost 60 percent of the area occupied by concentrated
     subpopulations (1,341 acres) and approximately 54 percent of
     forecast costs (approximately \$153,400). These units are Reach 1
     of Unit 6 (Lodgepole Creek East), Reach 1 of Unit 4 (Little Bear
     Creek/Horse Creek) and Unit 5 (Lodgepole Creek west).

148. Exhibit 4-7 provides an overview of the present value of costs
     associated with conservation measures for Gaura over the next 20
     years. To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the
     Office of Management and Budget (OMB) specifies the use of real
     rates of three and seven percent.

+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| **EXHIBIT 4-7**      |                        |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
| **PRESENT VALUE OF   |                        |                     |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC       |                        |                     |
| COSTS**              |                        |                     |
|                      |                        |                     |
| **(20 Years)**       |                        |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                      | **Total Cost**         |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                      | **Low**                | **High**            |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Total Activity Cost  | \$7,000                | \$286,700           |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Present Value (3%)   | \$6,800                | \$257,200           |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Present Value (7%)   | \$6,600                | \$232,600           |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Annualized (3%)      | \$500                  | \$22,000            |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Annualized (7%)      | \$600                  | \$17,300            |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Note: This table     |                        |                     |
| presents nominal     |                        |                     |
| costs as well as     |                        |                     |
| discounted present   |                        |                     |
| value of total costs |                        |                     |
| based on three and   |                        |                     |
| seven percent        |                        |                     |
| discount rates.      |                        |                     |
| Discounted costs are |                        |                     |
| then annualized.     |                        |                     |
+----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+

149. Exhibit 4-8 provides a detailed summary of the total costs
     associated with conservation activities for Gaura by unit over the
     next 20 years. Exhibit 4-9 presents the present value of these
     costs using a seven-percent discount rate.

+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *    |           |           |           |           |           |
| *EXH |           |           |           |           |           |
| IBIT |           |           |           |           |           |
| 4    |           |           |           |           |           |
| -8** |           |           |           |           |           |
|      |           |           |           |           |           |
| *    |           |           |           |           |           |
| *SUM |           |           |           |           |           |
| MARY |           |           |           |           |           |
| OF   |           |           |           |           |           |
| C    |           |           |           |           |           |
| OSTS |           |           |           |           |           |
| BY   |           |           |           |           |           |
| U    |           |           |           |           |           |
| NIT, |           |           |           |           |           |
| HIGH |           |           |           |           |           |
| RAN  |           |           |           |           |           |
| GE** |           |           |           |           |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **   | **Number  | **        | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** |
| Unit | of        | Service** |           |           |           |
| or   | Informal  |           | **Action  | **Third   | **Costs** |
| Rea  | Consul    | **Costs** | Agency**  | Party**   |           |
| ch** | tations** |           |           |           |           |
|      |           |           | #         | **Costs** |           |
|      |           |           | **Costs** |           |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1    | 1.0       | \$2,400   | \$0       | \$1,900   | \$4,300   |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2    | 2.1       | 5,700     | 0         | 7,600     | 13,300    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.1  | 0.3       | 800       | 0         | 1,100     | 1,900     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.2  | 0.3       | 1,400     | 0         | 4,500     | 5,900     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.3  | 0.2       | 1,200     | 0         | 4,200     | 5,400     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4.1  | 1.3       | 6,000     | 0         | 19,600    | 25,600    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4.2  | 1.8       | 5,900     | 0         | 12,500    | 18,400    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 5    | 5.6       | 15,400    | 0         | 22,000    | 37,400    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6.1  | 15.6      | 40,900    | 0         | 49,400    | 90,300    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6.2  | 1.5       | 4,500     | 0         | 8,200     | 12,700    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.1  | 4.5       | 11,600    | 0         | 12,400    | 24,000    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.2  | 1.0       | 2,400     | 0         | 2,000     | 4,400     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.3  | 2.6       | 8,100     | 7,800     | 17,800    | 33,700    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 8    | 1.0       | 3,100     | 0         | 6,300     | 9,400     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *    | **39.0**  | **\$      | **        | **\$      | **\$      |
| *TOT |           | 109,400** | \$7,800** | 169,500** | 286,700** |
| AL** |           |           |           |           |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *    |           |           |           |           |           |
| *EXH |           |           |           |           |           |
| IBIT |           |           |           |           |           |
| 4    |           |           |           |           |           |
| -9** |           |           |           |           |           |
|      |           |           |           |           |           |
| # *  |           |           |           |           |           |
| *SUM |           |           |           |           |           |
| MARY |           |           |           |           |           |
|  OF  |           |           |           |           |           |
| PRES |           |           |           |           |           |
| ENT  |           |           |           |           |           |
| VALU |           |           |           |           |           |
| E OF |           |           |           |           |           |
|  COS |           |           |           |           |           |
| TS B |           |           |           |           |           |
| Y UN |           |           |           |           |           |
| IT,  |           |           |           |           |           |
| HIGH |           |           |           |           |           |
|  RAN |           |           |           |           |           |
| GE** |           |           |           |           |           |
|      |           |           |           |           |           |
| **(  |           |           |           |           |           |
| 20-Y |           |           |           |           |           |
| ears |           |           |           |           |           |
| at a |           |           |           |           |           |
| 7    |           |           |           |           |           |
| Per  |           |           |           |           |           |
| cent |           |           |           |           |           |
| Disc |           |           |           |           |           |
| ount |           |           |           |           |           |
| Rat  |           |           |           |           |           |
| e)** |           |           |           |           |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **   | **Number  | **        | **Total** | **Total** | **Total** |
| Unit | of        | Service** |           |           |           |
| or   | Informal  |           | **Action  | **Third   | **Costs** |
| Rea  | Consul    | **Costs** | Agency**  | Party**   |           |
| ch** | tations** |           |           |           |           |
|      |           |           | **Costs** | **Costs** |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1    | 1.0       | \$2,400   | \$0       | \$1,600   | \$4,000   |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2    | 2.1       | 5,700     | 0         | 5,200     | 10,900    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.1  | 0.3       | 800       | 0         | 700       | 1,500     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.2  | 0.3       | 1,400     | 0         | 2,600     | 4,000     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 3.3  | 0.2       | 1,200     | 0         | 2,300     | 3,500     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4.1  | 1.3       | 6,000     | 0         | 11,200    | 17,200    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4.2  | 1.8       | 5,900     | 0         | 7,600     | 13,500    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 5    | 5.6       | 15,400    | 0         | 14,900    | 30,300    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6.1  | 15.6      | 40,900    | 0         | 35,000    | 75,900    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 6.2  | 1.5       | 4,500     | 0         | 5,200     | 9,700     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.1  | 4.5       | 11,600    | 0         | 9,100     | 20,700    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.2  | 1.0       | 2,400     | 0         | 1,600     | 4,000     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7.3  | 2.6       | 7,700     | 7,300     | 15,400    | 30,400    |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 8    | 1.0       | 3,100     | 0         | 3,900     | 7,000     |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| *    | **39.0**  | **\$      | **        | **\$      | **\$      |
| *TOT |           | 109,000** | \$7,300** | 116,300** | 232,600** |
| AL** |           |           |           |           |           |
+------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**4.4** Number range CHAPTER**[Small Business Impact
Analysis]{.underline}**

150. This section considers the extent to which the analytic results
     presented in the economic analysis reflect impacts to small
     businesses. The small business analysis presented in this section
     is based on information gathered from the Small Business
     Administration (SBA), U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of
     Agriculture, and Dun and Bradstreet, and comparisons with the
     results of the economic analysis.[^97] The following summarizes the
     sources of potential future impacts on small businesses
     attributable to conservation measures to protect Gaura and/or its
     habitat.

151. Based on the results reported in the economic analysis, activities
     undertaken by small business that are potential affected by
     conservation measures to protect the Gaura and/or its habitat
     include agriculture production.[^98] SBA's small business size
     standard for farming and ranching is annual sales of
     \$750,000.[^99] Recent county-level farm sales data from the NASS
     2002 Agriculture Census is used to determine the number of small
     agri-businesses operating within the proposed critical habitat
     designation.[^100] Unfortunately, the largest reported category of
     sales information reported in the 2002 Agriculture Census data is
     for the number of operations with annual farm sales greater than
     \$500,000, less than the SBA small business threshold.
     Nevertheless, the 2002 Agriculture Census data does indicate that
     95 percent of the farmers operating within the five counties
     encompassed by the proposed designation have annual sales less than
     \$500,000 (see Exhibit 4-10). In Laramie County, where more than 85
     percent of the critical habitat is located, 736 of 755 farmers
     reported annual farm sales less than \$500,000. These data indicate
     that ranching operations in the area surrounding the proposed
     designation tend to be small. For the purpose of this small
     business analysis, because of the high percentage of farming
     operations with annual sales below \$500,000, [all]{.underline}
     agriculture operations forecast to be impacted by the proposed
     designation of critical habitat for Gaura are considered small.

152. Assuming all landowners within the proposed designation participate
     in the voluntary conservation agreement program with the Service,
     up to 37 small agriculture operations could be impacted by
     conservation measures for Gaura.[^101] These operations represent
     less than one percent of the number of small farms operating within
     the five counties surrounding critical habitat (see Exhibit 4-10).
     The percent of small agriculture operations impacted ranges from
     less than one percent in Platt (Wyoming), Larimer (Colorado) and
     Weld (Colorado) Counties to 1.4 percent in Kimball County
     (Nebraska).[^102] In Laramie County (Wyoming), where more than 85
     percent of the designation is located, the 30 small agriculture
     operations represent approximately four percent of the small farms
     in the county (755). It is important to note that these costs will
     only be incurred by rancing operations to the extent that they
     agree to participate in the voluntary conservation agreement
     program with the Service.

153. The total annualized costs of conservation measures (\$263 per
     landowner, or approximately \$10,000 in total) are less than one
     one-thousandth of a percent of annual farm sales in the five
     counties that encompass the proposed designation. In Laramie and
     Kimball counties, the annualized impact represents approximately
     one one-hundredth of a percent of annual farm sales in the
     counties. For each of the remaining three counties, the annualized
     impacts are less than one one-thousandth of a percent of each
     counties\' annual farm sales (see Exhibit 4-10).

154. Assuming an operation is required to implement all of the
     activities recommended to protect the species and its habitat, the
     annualized cost of the conservation measures to the operator
     (\$263) represents one-tenth of a percent of the average annual
     farm's sales in the five counties surrounding the proposed
     designation (see Exhibit 4-10). The annualized impact ranges
     between one-tenth of a percent of a average farm's annual sales in
     Weld County, to four-tenths of a percent in Larimer and Kimball
     counties. In Laramie County the annualized impact represents
     three-tenths of a percent of the average farmer's annual sales.

155. The conservation measures for Gaura are expected to impact the
     profitability of up to 37 small agriculture operations. For the
     purpose of this small business analysis, profitability is defined
     as the net cash farm income of the operator, as reported in the
     NASS 2002 Agriculture Census.[^103] As shown in Exhibit 4-10, the
     total annualized cost of the conservation measures to the operator
     (\$263) represents 2.5 percent of the average farm's annual net
     cash farm income in the five counties surrounding the proposed
     designation. The annualized impact ranges between 1.4 percent of an
     average farm's annual net cash farm income in Weld County, to 34.7
     percent of the average farm's annual net cash farm income in
     Larimer County. Unit 8 in Weld County is owned by the City of Fort
     Collins, located in Larimer County, and leased to a rancher. The
     City of Fort Collins would likely bear these costs (either directly
     or in the form of a lower lease cost). In Laramie County, the
     annualized impact represents 8.6 percent of the average farmer's
     annual net cash farm income. Note that, given the very small number
     of farming operations expected to be impacted by this designation,
     and the variability of farm revenue and net farm income, actual
     impacts will likely vary from these estimates.

+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **EXHIBIT 4-10**         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| **COUNTY AGRICULTURE     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| STATISTICS AND SMALL     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| BUSINESS ANALYSIS**      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| **Item**                 | **W  |      | **Co |      | **Ne | *    |
|                          | yomi |      | lora |      | bras | *Tot |
|                          | ng** |      | do** |      | ka** | al** |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      | **Ar |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      | ea** |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|                          | **L  | **   | **L  | **We | **K  |      |
|                          | aram | Plat | arim | ld** | imba |      |
|                          | ie** | te** | er** |      | ll** |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of farms          | 755  | 462  | 1    | 3    | 362  | 6    |
|                          |      |      | ,564 | ,121 |      | ,264 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Farms with sales         | 736  | 446  | 1    | 2    | 353  | 5    |
| \<\$500,000              |      |      | ,536 | ,920 |      | ,991 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Farms with sales \>      | 19   | 16   | 28   | 201  | 9    | 273  |
| \$500,000                |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of farms with    | 3%   | 3%   | 2%   | 6%   | 2%   | 4%   |
| sales \>\$500,000        |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of small farms    | 30   | 1    | 1    |      | 5    | 37   |
| impacted by the          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| designation              |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percent of small farms   | 4.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% |      | 1.4% | 0.6% |
| impacted                 |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total sales (\$1,000)    | \$65 | \$79 | \    | \$1  | \$21 | \$1  |
|                          | ,522 | ,906 | $101 | ,127 | ,873 | ,396 |
|                          |      |      | ,097 | ,854 |      | ,253 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Total annualized cost of | \$7  | \    | \    |      | \$1  | \$9  |
| designation (\$)         | ,892 | $263 | $263 |      | ,315 | ,734 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Annualized cost as a     | 0    | 0    | 0    |      | 0    | 0    |
| percent of total farm    | .01% | .00% | .00% |      | .01% | .00% |
| sales                    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Average sales per farm   | \$86 | \    | \$64 | \    | \$60 | \    |
|                          | ,784 | $172 | ,640 | $361 | ,424 | $222 |
|                          |      | ,957 |      | ,376 |      | ,901 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Average net cash farm    | \$3  | \$5  | \    | \$18 | \$9  | \$10 |
| income per operator      | ,059 | ,918 | $759 | ,374 | ,342 | ,689 |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Number of farm operators | 422  | 273  | 1    | 1    | 111  | 3    |
| reporting net cash farm  |      |      | ,162 | ,765 |      | ,733 |
| losses                   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Percentage of farm       | 56%  | 59%  | 74%  | 57%  | 31%  | 60%  |
| operators reporting net  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| cash farm losses         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Annualized cost of       | \    |      |      |      |      |      |
| designation per operator | $263 |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Annualized cost of       | 0.3% | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.4% | 0.1% |
| designation as a percent |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| of average farm sales    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| per operator             |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Annualized cost of       | 8.6% | 4.4% | 34.  | 1.4% | 2.8% | 2.5% |
| designation as a percent |      |      | 7%\* |      |      |      |
| of average net cash farm |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| income per operator      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Source: U.S. Department  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| of Agriculture, National |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Agricultural Statistical |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Service, "2002 Census of |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Agriculture," Wyoming    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| State and County Data,   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Volume 1 Geographic Area |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Series, Part 50, Chapter |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 2, Table 2. Market Value |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| of Agricultural Products |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Sold Including Direct    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| and Organic: 2002 and    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 1997, and Table 4. Net   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Cash Farm Income of the  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Operations and           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Operators: 2002.         |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| Available at             |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| [[http://www.nass.usda.g |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| ov/census/census02/volum |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| e1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.und |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| erline}](http://www.nass |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| .usda.gov/census/census0 |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| 2/volume1/wy/index2.htm) |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|                          |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| \* This unit is owned by |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| the City of Fort Collins |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| and leased to a rancher. |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| The City of Fort Collins |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| would likely bear these  |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| costs (either directly   |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| or in the form of a      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| lower lease cost).       |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+--------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

156. County-level data in the 2002 Agriculture Census indicate that the
     majority of farms (approximately 60 percent) within the five county
     area operate at a net cash loss (see Exhibit 4-10). By definition,
     net cash income is cash sales less cash expenses (ignoring non-cash
     expenses, such as depreciation), a net cash loss means most of the
     small farm operators in the five county area are operating below
     break-even (i.e., cash expenses exceed cash income). The greatest
     proportion of farmers operating below break-even are located in
     Larimer County, where 74 percent of the farms operate at a net
     loss. Kimball County contains the lowest percentage of farms
     operating at a net loss (31 percent). In Laramie County, where more
     than 85 percent of the designation is located, 56 percent of the
     farms operated at a net loss in 2002.

157. The extent to which impacts are significant to any of the 37
     agriculture operations will depend on the individual financial
     condition of the operation. Considering this analysis assumes each
     operation implements [all]{.underline} of the actions recommended
     to protect the species and its habitat, this analysis likely
     overstates the impacts to any one rancher. However, while the
     annual cost to the typical agriculture operation forecast in this
     analysis appears small, costs will vary, farming and ranching
     operations in the region are suffering through a fourth year of
     drought, and their financial situation suggests the average
     operation is only marginally profitable.

Number range CHAPTER**4.5 [Potential Impacts to the Energy
Industry]{.underline}**

158. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, "Actions Concerning
     Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
     or Use," issued May 18, 2001, Federal agencies must prepare and
     submit a "Statement of Energy Effects" for all "significant energy
     actions." The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all
     Federal agencies "appropriately weigh and consider the effects of
     the Federal Government's regulations on the supply, distribution,
     and use of energy."[^104] The Office of Management and Budget has
     provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that
     outlines nine outcomes that may constitute "a significant adverse
     effect" when compared without the regulatory action under
     consideration:

-   Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day
    (bbls);

-   Reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day;

-   Reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year;

-   Reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million Mcf per
    year;

-   Reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion
    kilowatts-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed
    capacity;

-   Increases in energy use required by the regulatory action that
    exceed the thresholds above;

-   Increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent;

-   Increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one
    percent; or

-   Other similarly adverse outcomes.[^105]

159. Number range CHAPTERThree of these criteria are potentially
     relevant to this analysis: 1) potential reductions in crude supply
     in excess of 10,000 barrels per day; 2) potential reductions in
     natural gas production in excess of 25 million Mcf per year; 3) and
     increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one
     percent.

160. The analysis forecasts that oil and gas drilling/production will
     not be impacted by the conservation measures to protect Gaura
     and/or its habitat. However, two natural gas pipelines are expected
     to cross unoccupied Gaura habitat (the Entrega Gas Pipeline, Inc.
     Pipeline) or nearby Gaura habitat (the Cheyenne Plains Pipeline
     Company pipeline). Project modifications are not anticipated for
     either project. Each company will, however, enter into an informal
     consultation with the Service at an estimated cost of approximately
     \$14,000 per consultation. Considering the total estimated cost of
     Cheyenne Plains' 380-mile 36-inch-diameter pipeline project is
     \$420 million, the cost of consulting with the Service on the
     project fall far below the one-percent threshold.[^106] While
     specific cost information is not available for Entrega's pipeline
     project, considering it is similar in length (330-mile) and size
     (36- to 42-inch-diameter) to Cheyenne Plains' pipeline, this energy
     impacts analysis also expects the cost of consulting with the
     Service will fall far below the one-percent threshold.[^107]

161. As described above, the energy industry will not experience a
     "significant adverse effect" because of conservation measures to
     protect Gaura and its habitat.

REFERENCES

Center for Economic and Business Data. *Economic Indicators for Greater
Cheyenne, Annual Trends Addition*. From:
<http://www.lccc.wy.edu/cebd/Default.htm>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC. *Fact Sheet Web Page*. From:
<http://www.cmenergy.com/cheyenne/fact.asp>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization. *Transportation Improvement
Program, Annual and Three Year Element, For Fiscal Years 2004-2006.*

City-data.com. From:
<http://www.city-data.com/city/Fort-Collins-Colorado.html>, as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

City-data.com. From:
<http://www.city-data.com/city/Wellington-Colorado.html>, as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Office*, Draft
Population Forecasts by County, 2000-2030*. From:
<http://dola.colorado.gov/demog/PopulationTotals.cfm>, as viewed on June
30, 2004.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. *Map Data Base*. From:
<http://oil-gas.state.co.us/?main_src=/cogis/DrillingPermits.asp>, as
viewed on June 27, 2004.

El Paso Corporation. 2002. *Form 10-K.* *Annual Report Pursuant to
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002*. From:
<http://www.epenergy.com/investor/03_1q/EPC10K_FINAL.pdf>

El Paso Corporation. 2004. *El Paso Corporation Provides Financial and
Operational Update,"* May 28 press release. From:
<http://www.epenergy.com/press/newsquery.asp?sId=4279>, as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

EnCana Corporation, 2003 Annual Report to Shareholders. "What Matters."
Available at
<http://www.encana.com/investor/financial_info/annual2003/pdf/encana_full.pdf>

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. *Regulatory Planning and
Review*. Available at
<http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/pdf/12866.pdf>

Executive Order 13211 of May 18, 2001. *Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use*.
Available at
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=fr22my01-133.pdf>

Federal Register. 1998. *Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Proposed Threatened Status for the Plant Gaura Neomexicana ssp.
Coloradens*. March 24, Vol 63, No. 56, page 14,060.

Federal Register. 2001. *Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions.* January 8, 2001, Vol.
66, No. 5, page 1,295.

Federal Register. 2003. *Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse
(Zapus hudsonius preblei).* June 23, Vol. 68, No. 120, page 37,276.

Federal Register. 2003. *Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to List the Mountain Plover as
Threatened.* September 9, Vol. 68, No. 174, page 53,083.

Federal Register. 2004. *Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC and
Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Cheyenne Plains Pipeline
Project.* February 20, Vol 69, No. 38, page 8,957.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2003. *Wetland and Waterbody
Construction and Mitigation Procedures*. Available at
<http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf>

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects.
*National Environmental Policy Act Pre-Filing Environmental Review and
Scoping For the Entrega Pipeline Project.* Docket No. P404-7-000.
Available at
<http://www.entregapipeline.com/openhousematerials/fercprojectstatement.pdf>

Francis E. Warren Air Force Base. *Community/Wyomingites Web Page*.
From:
<http://www.militarynewcomers.com/FEWARREN03/Resources/Community.html>,
as viewed on june 30, 2004.

Gramlich, E.M. 1990. *A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis (2^nd^ Ed.)*.
Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce. *Community Information Web Page*.
From: <http://www.cheyennechamber.org/website/community/index.asp>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.

Hewlett, J.P., J. Brown and C.E. Olson. 2004. *Custom rates for Wyoming
farm and ranch operation: 2000-2002*. University of Wyoming Cooperative
Extension Service, B-1142. Available at
<http://agecon.uwyo.edu/FarmMgt/PUBS/B1142.pdf>

Laramie County Planning Department. 2001. *Laramie County Comprehensive
Plan, 2001 Final Draft*. Available at
<http://webgate.co.laramie.wy.us/departments/planning/_documents/comprehensive_plan.pdf>

Long, Michael M., Filed Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, to Paul Friedman, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, May 25, 2001, transmitting the Fish and Wildlife Service\'s
biological opinion for Medicine Bow Lateral Loop Natural Gaseline
project.

Moline, B.R., R.R. Fletcher, D.T. Taylor, G. Fink, F. Henderson, and L.
Bourret. 1994. *Livestock Production, 1992*. University of Wyoming
College of Agriculture Publication B-993. Available at
<http://www.uwyo.edu/CES/PUBS/B-993.htm>

Pfost, D., J. Gerrish, M. Davis, and M. Kennedy. 2000. *Pumps and
watering systems for managed beef grazing, 2000*. University of Missouri
Extension Service, Bulletin EQ380. Available at
<http://muextension.missouri.edu/explore/envqual/eq0380.htm>

Reece, P.E., J.T Nichols, J.E. Brummer, R.K. Engel, and K.M. Eskridge.
1994. Harvest date and fertilizer effects on native and interseeded
wetland meadows. Journal of Range Management. 47:178-183.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §601 *et seq.*)

Short, S.D. 2001. *Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Cow-Calf
Operations., 2001*, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, ERS Statistical Bulletin No. 974-3. Available at
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/catalog/OneProductAtATime.asp?ARC=c&PDT=2&PID=1255>.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-121).

> United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. 2001. *New Mexico
> Cattle Growers Association v. U.S.F.W.S. 248 F.3d 1277 (1oth Cir.
> 2001)*. Available at
> <http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-2050.htm>

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, College of Business Administration,
Bureau of Business Research, Population Projections Web Page. *Kimball
County by Age Group*. From:
<http://www.bbr.unl.edu/PopProjections/PopProj.html>, as viewed on June
30, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau. *Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties:
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003.* From:
<http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/CO-EST2003-01.php>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S Census Bureau. *CenStats Databases Web Page, County Business
Patterns Data (NAICS) 2001*. From:
[http://censtats.census.gov](http://censstats.census.gov/), as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau. *Incorporated Place Population Estimates and
Population Change, Sorted within County: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002*.
From: <http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/subtab12.php>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau. *State and County Quick Facts*. From:
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Census Bureau. *Time Series of State Intercensal Population
Estimates by County, April 1, 1990 to April 1, 2000*. From:
<http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/tables/CO-EST2001-12.php>,
as viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
Service. *2002 Census of Agriculture -- Wyoming State and County Data,
Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50*. Available at
[[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service.
*Agricultural Statistics Data Base, Quick Stats.* From:
<http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource and Conservation
Service. From: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. *Regional
Economic Accounts, Local Area BEARFACTS 1992-2002.* From:
<http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/countybf.cfm>, as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. *Regional
Economic Accounts, Local Area Personal Income, Total full-time and
part-time employment by industry.* From:
<http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics*. Labor Force Data
by County, 2003 Annual Averages*. From:
<ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucounty.txt>, as viewed on
June 30, 2004.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. *Unemployment
Rates for States, 2003*. From: <http://www.bls.gov/lau/lastrk03.htm>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Endangered Species Act, Section 9 (16 U.S.C. §1532, 16 U.S.C.
§1538).

U.S. Endangered Species Act, Section 4 (16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(2), 16 U.S.C.
§1533(b)(1)(A)).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 240-R-00-003). 2000.
*Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses*. Available at
<http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/Pref-ack.pdf>

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. *Draft Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Colorado Butterfly Plant (Gaura neomexicana
ssp. coloradensis),* May 15, 2004 draft.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. *Endangered Species and Habitat
Conservation Planning.* From: <http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/>, as
viewed on June 30, 2004.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2000. "Appendix 4: Guidelines to
Standardize Measure of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting
Statements.\" In: *Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations*. March 22.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. *Circular A-4*. September
17. Available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf>.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 2003. *Draft 2003 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations; Notice*. 68
*Federal Register* 5492.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of the
President. 2001. *Memorandum For Heads of Executive Department Agencies,
and Independent Regulatory Agencies, Guidance For Implementing E.O.
13211, M-01-27.* From:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-27.html>, viewed on June
30, 2004.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2002. *Federal Government General
Schedule Rates.* Available at
<http://www.opm.gov/oca/02tables/02gsh.pdf>

U.S. Small Business Administration. *Small Business Size Standards
matched to North American Industry Classification System, Effective
January 28, 2004*. From: <http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html>,
as viewed on June 30, 2004.

Wyoming Agricultural Statistical Service. *Wyoming Agricultural
Statistics 2003*. Available at
<http://www.nass.usda.gov/wy/bulletin/bulletin2003.pdf>

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis
Division, *Wyoming Population Estimates and Forecasts for Counties,
Cities, and Towns: 1991 to 2010*. Available at
<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/Wyc&sc10.pdf>

Wyoming Department of Administration. Economic Analysis Division. From:
<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop.htm>[, as viewed on June 30,
2004.]{.underline}

Wyoming Department of Employment, Wyoming Labor Market Information:
Research & Planning Home Page, Local Area Unemployment Statistics*. 2003
Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates*. From:
<http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/LAUS/03bmk.htm>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2004. *2003 Wyoming Oil and
Gas Statistics*. From: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/>, as viewed on June
30, 2004.

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. *Database*. From:
<http://wogcc.state.wy.us/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[Personal Communication with]{.underline}:

Alan Gray, Professor of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming

Bobbie Frank, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts

Brandon Cammaratta, City of Cheyenne Development Office

Brian Lovett, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Bryce Reese, Wyoming Woolgrowers

C. Val Grant, Ph.D. , Bioresources, Inc.

Carol Par, Colorado Department of Transportation

Cindy Veys, Nebraska Department of Roads, June 6, 2004.

Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, June 15, 2004.

Craig Coombs, Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company

Darrell Johnson, Colorado Department of Transportation

Deb Ferguson, Wyoming Department of Transportation

Don Beard, Public Works Department of Laramie County, November 10, 2004.

Don Likwartz, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, June 17,
2004.

Dru Bauer, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, June 6, 2004.

Floyd Robertson, El Paso Company, June 22, 2004.

Garry Buffington, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands

Jeremy Lyon, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

Jim Cochran, Laramie County Conservation District, June 1 and 14, 2004.

Jim Magagna, Executive Director, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association

K-Lynn Cameron, Larimer County Planning Department

Kendrick Moholt, BioResources, Inc., June 3, 2004.

Keith Trimels, Federal Highways Administration

Kent Hamilton, Wyoming Farm Bureau

Kimball County Planning and Development

Kristi Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource Group, Inc., June 29, 2004.

Larry Tim, Laramie County Planning Department

Lee Potter, Federal Highway Administration, June 3 and 14, 2004.

Mark Reid, Laramie County Planning Department

Mark Sears, City, Fort Collins, June 14, 2004.

Marlin Johnson, Platte County Planning Department, May 26, 2004.

Martin Matsen, Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization, June 14,
2004.

Matt Hoober, Wyoming Department of Agriculture

Matthew Bilodeau, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 14, 2004.

Meegan Flenniken, Larimer County Parks and Open Lands, May 26, 2004.

Michael Boyle, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Michael Burgan, USACE Wyoming Regulatory Office

Mike Lessard, Partners for Fish and Wildlife

Partners for Fish and Wildlife personnel, June 25, 2004.

Paul Friedman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, May 26, 2004.

Paul Obert, Natural Resource Conservation Service, June 7, 2004.

Phil Rosenlund, Laramie County Cooperative Extension Agent

Philip Miller, Federal Highways Administration

Rick Marvel, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Robert Hemlick, Larimer County Planning Department

Rolland Harris, Colorado Department of Transportation

Ryan Lance, Wyoming Governor's office

Service Biologist, Cheyenne Field Office, June 17, 2004.

Service Biologist, Cheyenne Field Office, June 28, 2004.

Service Biologist, Cheyenne Field Office, July 1, 2004.

Four ranchers in Laramie County that own land within the proposed
critical habitat designation area

One rancher in Laramie County that does not own land within the proposed
critical habitat designation area

Vern Mickelsen, Federal Highways Administration

Weld County Development Office

[^1]: Twenty-percent of the proposed designation (1,707 acres) is owned
    by the City of Fort Collins (708 acres), the City of Cheyenne (254
    acres), and the State of Wyoming (745). The City of Fort Collins
    leases its land to a local rancher. This analysis assumes that lands
    owned by the City of Cheyenne and the State of Wyoming are also
    leased for ranching, and that the rancher (lessee) bears the costs
    associated with establishing a conservation agreement.

[^2]: ^5^ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, *Designation of Critical
    Habitat for the Colorado Butterfly Plant*, August 6, 2004 (Federal
    Register / Vol. 69, No, 151, pages 47834-47862).

[^3]: Dr. Van Tassell is the Department Head of the Agriculture
    Economics and Rural Sociology Department of the College of
    Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Idaho. His
    expertise and research includes Federal land grazing policies,
    private grazing leases, grazing systems, livestock production
    systems, multi-species grazing, strategic planning, and scenario
    analysis.

[^4]: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §1533(b)(2)).

[^5]: Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review," September
    30, 1993; Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations
    That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May
    18, 2001; Regulatory Flexibility Act (5. U.S.C. §601 *et seq*); and
    Small business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub Law
    No. 104-121).

[^6]: In 2001, the U.S. 10^th^ Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the
    Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts of
    proposed critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those
    impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes (*New Mexico
    Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S.F.W.S.*, 248 F.3d 1277 (10^th^ Cir.
    2001)).

[^7]: For additional information on the definition of "surplus" and an
    explanation of consumer and producer surplus in the context of
    regulatory analysis, see Gramlich, Edward M., "A Guide to
    Benefit-Cost Analysis (2^nd^ Ed.)," Prospect Heights, Illinois:
    Waveland Press, Inc., 1990; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    EPA 240-R-00-003, "Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses,"
    September 2000.

[^8]: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Circular A-4," September
    17, 2003.

[^9]: Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §601 *et seq.)*

[^10]: Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations That
    Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18,
    2001.

[^11]: Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
    §1533(b)(1)(A)).

[^12]: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered Species and Habitat
    Conservation Planning." From: http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/, as
    viewed on August 6, 2002.

[^13]: Executive Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review,"
    September 30, 1993.

[^14]: Draft Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Colorado
    Butterfly Plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis*).

[^15]: See the Draft Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the
    Colorado Butterfly Plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis*) for
    a more detailed description of the units and more detailed maps of
    the units.

[^16]: See the Draft Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the
    Colorado Butterfly Plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis*) for
    a description of the primary constituent elements.

[^17]: Federal Register, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
    Designation of Critical Habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping
    Mouse (*Zapus hudsonius preblei*)," Vol. 68, No. 120, page 37278.

[^18]: Draft Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Colorado
    Butterfly Plant (*Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis*).

[^19]: Population and income estimates are by the Wyoming Department of
    Administration, Economic Analysis Division. From:
    [http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop.htm](http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop.htm),
    as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^20]: U.S. Census Bureau, "Incorporated Place Population Estimates and
    Population Change, Sorted within County: April 1, 2000 to July 1,
    2002." From:
    <http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/cities/subtab12.php>, as viewed
    on June 30, 2004.

[^21]: Francis E. Warren Air Force Base, "Community/Wyomingites." From:
    <http://www.militarynewcomers.com/FEWARREN03/Resources/Community.html>,
    as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^22]: Greater Cheyenne Chamber of Commerce, "Community Information."
    From: <http://www.cheyennechamber.org/website/community/index.asp>,
    as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^23]: Wyoming Department of Employment, Wyoming Labor Market
    Information. Research & Planning, Local Area Unemployment
    Statistics, "2003 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates." From:
    <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/LAUS/03bmk.htm>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004.

[^24]: Center for Economic and Business Data, "Economic Indicators for
    Greater Cheyenne, Annual Trends Addition," Table 4.8. From:
    <http://www.lccc.wy.edu/cebd/Default.htm>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004. Reported housing stock represents year-round occupied housing
    units, including owner-occupied housing units plus renter-occupied
    housing units plus vacant housing units. This includes single
    family, multi-family and mobile and trailer homes.

[^25]: Center for Economic and Business Data, "Economic Indicators for
    Greater Cheyenne, Annual Trends Addition," Table 3.0. From:
    <http://www.lccc.wy.edu/cebd/Default.htm>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004.

[^26]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 1:
    County Summary Highlights: 2002. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^27]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Agricultural Statistics Data
    Base, Quick Stats, Crops County Data." From:
    <http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^28]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Agricultural Statistics Data
    Base, Quick Stats, Livestock County Data." From:
    <http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^29]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 2.
    Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct and
    Organic: 2002 and 1997. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^30]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 4.
    Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and Operators: 2002.
    Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^31]: Moline, B.R., R.R. Fletcher, D.T. Taylor, G. Fink, F. Henderson,
    L. Bourret. "Livestock Production, 1992," University of Wyoming
    College of Agriculture Publication B-993, February 1994. Available
    at <http://www.uwyo.edu/CES/PUBS/B-993.htm>

[^32]: Short, S.D. "Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S.
    Cow-Calf Operations, 2001," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
    Research Service, ERS Statistical Bulletin No. 974-3, November 2001.
    Available at
    <http://www.ers.usda.gov/catalog/OneProductAtATime.asp?ARC=c&PDT=2&PID=1255>.

[^33]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 4.
    Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and Operators: 2002.
    Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^34]: Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. §601 *et. seq*.)

[^35]: The cost of technical assistance and formal consultation efforts
    were quantified using the low and high range for each category as
    defined in Exhibit 4-1. Informal consultations were quantified using
    the low range of costs as the Service indicated biological
    assessments were not necessary for any of the historic informal
    consultations given the "not likely to adversely affect" and "no
    effect" determinations. The low range is also appropriate
    considering most of the informal consultations are either general
    (non-species and non-project specific) in nature, requests for
    comments and information from the Service, or notifications of
    available information. Personal communication with Service
    Biologist, Cheyenne Field Office, July 1, 2004.

    The vast majority of these historic costs, more than 96 percent, are
    administrative costs associated with the consultation process. Most
    of the past consultations were either general in nature (non-species
    and non-project specific), requests for comments and information
    from the Service, of findings by the Service of "no effect" or "not
    likely to adversely affect."

[^36]: Long, Michael M., Filed Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, to Paul Friedman, Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, May 25, 2001, transmitting the Fish and
    Wildlife Service\'s biological opinion for Medicine Bow Lateral Loop
    Natural Gaseline project.

[^37]: Personal communication with Kendrick Moholt of BioResources,
    Inc., June 3, 2004. These costs include biological surveys,
    drafting, increased pipe length and miscellaneous labor.

[^38]: The first Gaura conservation agreement is in process. While the
    landowner has approximately 40 acres of Gaura riparian habitat, the
    special management provisions of the conservation agreement includes
    fencing only 2,016 square feet (36-foot by 56-foot area, or 184
    linear feet) around the core subpopulation.

[^39]: For the purpose of modeling the costs of the conservation
    agreements, this analysis applies these general assumptions to all
    landowners within the designation. The Service does not necessarily
    suggest these recommendations in all cases, to all landowners, or to
    the same extent as described in this model, and there are no such
    general recommendations published by the Service. The Service may
    make such recommendations within a conservation agreement on a
    landowner specific basis to accommodate the needs of Gaura as well
    as the landowner. However, because the land management for each
    farm/ranch varies, and because each landowner has unique needs and
    constraints within which to work, the Service recommendations are
    made on a case by case basis only. Service recommendations were
    obtained from an interview with a Service Biologist from Cheyenne
    Field Office on June 17, 2004, and from comments received from the
    Service on July 21, 2004.

[^40]: Hewlett, J.P., J. Brown and C.E. Olson, "Custom rates for Wyoming
    farm and ranch operations: 2000-2002," University of Wyoming
    Cooperative Extension Service, B-1142, March 2004. Available at
    <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/FarmMgt/PUBS/B1142.pdf>

[^41]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 1:
    County Summary Highlights: 2002. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^42]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical
    Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and County
    Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2, Table 39.
    Fertilizers and Chemicals Applied: 2002 and 1997. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^43]: Hewlett, J.P., J. Brown and C.E. Olson, "Custom rates for Wyoming
    farm and ranch operations: 2000-2002," University of Wyoming
    Cooperative Extension Service, B-1142, March 2004. Available at
    <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/FarmMgt/PUBS/B1142.pdf>

[^44]: The 0.2 acres occupied by core subpopulations is equivalent to
    8,765 ft^2^, or a square with the dimensions 94 feet by 94 feet. The
    cost to place a fence around the four sides of the square is 94 feet
    multiplied by four sides multiplied by \$1.35 per foot, or \$494.

[^45]: Interview with Partners for Fish and Wildlife personnel, June 25,
    2004.

[^46]: Comments on the Draft Economic Analysis of proposed critical
    habitat for the Colorado butterfly plant received from the Service
    on July 21, 2004.

[^47]: Hewlett, J.P., J. Brown and C.E. Olson, "Custom rates for Wyoming
    farm and ranch operations: 2000-2002," University of Wyoming
    Cooperative Extension Service, B-1142, March 2004. Available at
    <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/FarmMgt/PUBS/B1142.pdf>

[^48]: Wyoming Agricultural Statistical Service, "Wyoming Agricultural
    Statistics 2003," Value of Farmland and Buildings, Cropland and
    Pasture, Cash Rent for Pasture: Wyoming 1993-2002. Available at
    <http://www.nass.usda.gov/wy/bulletin/bultntoc.htm>

[^49]: Hewlett, J.P., J. Brown and C.E. Olson, "Custom rates for Wyoming
    farm and ranch operations: 2000-2002," University of Wyoming
    Cooperative Extension Service, B-1142, March 2004. Available at
    <http://agecon.uwyo.edu/FarmMgt/PUBS/B1142.pdf>

[^50]: Reece, P.E., J.T Nichols, J.E. Brummer, R.K. Engel, and K.M.
    Eskridge. "Harvest date and fertilizer effects on native and
    interseeded wetland meadows.\" Journal of Range Management.
    47(1994):178-183.

[^51]: Assuming a beef cow is supplemented with 20 pounds of hay per
    day, it would be deficit 1.4 pounds of TDN (20 lbs. \* (0.49 --
    0.42)) and 0.30 pounds of CP (20 lbs. \* (0.075 -- 0.06). To replace
    the lost TDN and CP would require 1.70 pounds of beef cattle
    concentrate (1.4 lbs. deficit TDN / 0.82 percent TDN) and 0.94
    pounds of beef cattle concentrate (0.30 lbs. deficit CP / 0.32
    percent CP), respectively. Therefore, TDN is the limiting factor. At
    a price of \$0.1435 per pound (\$287 pre ton), the cost of 1.70
    pounds of beef cattle concentrate to replace the lost forage quality
    in a 20 pound feeding of hay is \$0.25. The source of the five year
    average annual beef cattle concentrate price is: Wyoming
    Agricultural Statistical Service, "Wyoming Agricultural Statistics
    2003," Average Prices Paid by Farmers and Ranchers: Selected Inputs,
    Mountain Region 1, April 1, 1999-2003. Available at
    <http://www.nass.usda.gov/wy/bulletin/bultntoc.htm>

    Given an average annual hay yield of 1.7 tons per acre in Laramie
    County, approximately \$40 of beef cattle concentrate would be
    required to compensate for the reduced forage quality resulting from
    delayed harvest on one acre (1.7 tons of hay per acre \* 2,000 lbs.
    per ton = 3,400 lbs. hay production / 20 lbs. of hay per day \*
    \$0.25 supplement feed cost per day). The daily feeding of 1.7
    pounds of beef cattle concentrate per cow would also compensate for
    the five to ten percent reduction in total forage yield resulting
    from the delayed harvest. The source of the 10-year average annual
    "Other Hay" crop yield in Laramie County is: U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, "Agricultural Statistics Data Base, Crop County Data."
    From: <http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004

[^52]: Personal communication, Service Biologist, Cheyenne Field Office,
    June 28, 2004.

[^53]: Long, Michael M., Filed Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, to Paul Friedman, Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, May 25, 2001, transmitting the Fish and
    Wildlife Service\'s biological opinion for Medicine Bow Lateral Loop
    Natural Gaseline project.

[^54]: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, "Wetland and Waterbody
    Construction and Mitigation Procedures," January 17, 2003. Available
    at <http://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/wetland.pdf>

[^55]: Personal communication with Paul Friedman, Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, May 26, 2004.

[^56]: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
    "National Environmental Policy Act Pre-Filing Environmental Review
    and Scoping for the Entrega Pipeline Project," Docket No.
    PF04-7-000. Available at
    <http://www.entregapipeline.com/pdfs/ferc/2004/openhouse-mar26.pdf>

[^57]: Personal communication with Kristi Aarsby-Kail, Natural Resource
    Group, Inc., June 29, 2004.

[^58]: This analysis attributes administrative costs of consultation to
    reach 3 of Unit 7 (the closest reach to the proposed route).

[^59]: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, "Cheyenne Plains Pipeline
    Company, LLC and Colorado Interstate Gas Company: Notice of
    Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
    Proposed Cheyenne Plains Pipeline Project," February 20, 2004.

[^60]: Personal communication with Floyd Robertson, El Paso Pipeline
    Company, June 22, 2004.

[^61]: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, "Fact Sheet." From:
    <http://www.cmenergy.com/cheyenne/fact.asp>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004.

[^62]: Personal communication with Jim Cochran, Laramie County
    Conservation District, June 14, 2004.

[^63]: Personal communication with Matthew Bilodeau, Army Corps of
    Engineers, June 14, 2004.

[^64]: U.S. Census Bureau, "State and County Quick Facts." From:
    <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^65]: City-data.com. From:
    <http://www.city-data.com/city/Wellington-Colorado.html>, as viewed
    on June 30, 2004.

[^66]: City-data.com. From:
    <http://www.city-data.com/city/Fort-Collins-Colorado.html>, as
    viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^67]: Personal communication with Meegan Flenniken, Larimer County
    Parks and Open Lands, May 26, 2004.

[^68]: Personal communication with Mark Sears, City of Fort Collins,
    June 14, 2004.

[^69]: Personal communication with Marlin Johnson, Platte County
    Planning Department, May 26, 2004.

[^70]: Laramie County Planning Department, "Laramie County Comprehensive
    Plan, 2001 Final Draft." Available at
    <http://webgate.co.laramie.wy.us/departments/planning/_documents/comprehensive_plan.pdf>

[^71]: Laramie County Planning Department, "Laramie County Comprehensive
    Plan, 2001 Final Draft." Available at
    <http://webgate.co.laramie.wy.us/departments/planning/_documents/comprehensive_plan.pdf>

[^72]: Personal communication with Lee Potter, Federal Highway
    Administration. June 14, 2004.

[^73]: Personal communication with Mark Matsen, Cheyenne Metropolitan
    Planning Organization, June 3, 2004.

[^74]: Laramie County Planning Department, "Laramie County Comprehensive
    Plan, 2001 Final Draft." Available at
    <http://webgate.co.laramie.wy.us/departments/planning/_documents/comprehensive_plan.pdf>

[^75]: Personal communication with Jim Cochran, Laramie County
    Conservation District, June 1, 2004.

[^76]: Personal communication with Martin Matsen, Cheyenne Metropolitan
    Planning Organization, June 14, 2004.

[^77]: Personal communication with Lee Potter, Federal Highway
    Administration, June 3, 2004.

[^78]: Personal communication with Rolland Harris, Colorado Department
    of Transportation on June 7, 2004.

[^79]: Personal communication with Cindy Veys, Nebraska Department of
    Roads, June 6, 2004.

[^80]: Personal communication with Lee Potter, Federal Highway
    Administration, June 3, 2004.

[^81]: Laramie County Planning Department, "Laramie County Comprehensive
    Plan, 2001 Final Draft." Available at
    <http://webgate.co.laramie.wy.us/departments/planning/_documents/comprehensive_plan.pdf>

[^82]: Personal communication with Lee Potter, Federal Highway
    Administration, June 3^,^ 2004.

[^83]: Personal communication with Don Beard from the Public Works
    Department of Laramie County, November 10, 2004. A bridge exists on
    route 149 at the Borders of Section 31 and 32, but that there is no
    planned work along the bridge.

[^84]: Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization, "Transportation
    Improvement Program, Annual and Three Year Element, For Fiscal Years
    2004-2006."

[^85]: Personal communication with Lee Potter, Federal Highway
    Administration, June 14, 2004.

[^86]: Personal communication with Paul Obert, Natural Resource
    Conservation Service, June 7, 2004.

[^87]: Federal Register, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
    Proposed Threatened Status for the Plant Gaura Neomexicana ssp.
    Coloradens," March 24, 1998.

[^88]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource and Conservation
    Service. From: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/>, accessed on June 30,
    2004.

[^89]: Personal communication with Paul Obert, Natural Resource
    Conservation Service, June 7, 2004.

[^90]: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, "Database." From:
    <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^91]: Personal communication with Don Likwartz, Wyoming Oil and Gas
    Conservation Commission, June 17, 2004.

[^92]: Personal communication with Dru Bauerm, Petroleum Association of
    Wyoming, June 6, 2004.

[^93]: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, "2003 Oil and Gas
    Statistics," 2003 County Report with Percentage of State Total.
    From: <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/>, as viewed on June 30, 2004.

[^94]: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, "Map Database."
    From:
    <http://oil-gas.state.co.us/?main_src=/cogis/DrillingPermits.asp>,
    as viewed on June 27, 2004.

[^95]: Personal communication with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
    Commission, June 15, 2004.

[^96]: Twenty-percent of the proposed designation (1,707 acres) is owned
    by the City of Fort Collins (708 acres), the City of Cheyenne (254
    acres), and the State of Wyoming (745). The City of Fort Collins
    leases its land to a local rancher. This analysis assumes the
    designation owned by the City of Cheyenne and the State of Wyoming
    are also leased for ranching, and that the rancher (lessee) bears
    the costs associated with the conservation agreements.

[^97]: This information was gathered in a Dialog search of File 516, Dun
    and Bradstreet, "Dun's Market Identifiers."

[^98]: The expected cost of Gaura conservation activities (approximately
    \$14,000) to El Paso Corporation (parent of Cheyenne Plains Pipeline
    Company) and EnCana (parent of Entegra Gas Pipeline, Inc.) is
    negligible considering recent annual revenues for each parent
    company exceeded \$10 billion. From: EnCana Corporation, 2003 Annual
    Report to Shareholders and El Paso Corporation, Annual Report for
    Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2002 (Form 10-K). Available at
    <http://www.encana.com/investor/financial_info/annual2003/pdf/encana_full.pdf>
    and <http://www.epenergy.com/investor/03_1q/EPC10K_FINAL.pdf>

[^99]: U.S. Small Business Administration, "Small Business Size
    Standards matched to North American Industry Classification System,"
    effective January 28, 2004. From:
    <http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html>, as viewed on June 30,
    2004.

[^100]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
    Statistical Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture," Wyoming State and
    County Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part 50, Chapter 2,
    Table 2. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct
    and Organic: 2002 and 1997. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^101]: Meadow Spring Ranch (Unit 8) in Weld and Larimer counties,
    Colorado, is owned by the City of Fort Collins. The city leases the
    land to a local rancher. There are other parcels within the proposed
    designation owned by the City of Cheyenne and the State of Wyoming.
    We assume that these parcels are also leased to local ranching
    operations.

[^102]: The small business impacts analysis includes Larimer County,
    Colorado, as Unit 8 abuts the Larimer/Weld county line and the
    landowner (the City of Fort Collins) is located in Larimer County.
    County data for Weld and Larimer counties, in Colorado, are then
    combined.

[^103]: Net cash farm income of the operator is "...the operator's total
    revenue (fees for producing under contract, total sales not under
    contract, government payments, and farm-related income) minus total
    expenses paid by the operator. Net cash farm income of the operator
    removes the value of contract commodities produced and acknowledges
    the income the operator(s) received for services performed by the
    contractor." ^?^ U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
    Agricultural Statistical Service, "2002 Census of Agriculture,"
    Wyoming State and County Data, Volume 1 Geographic Area Series, Part
    50, Chapter 2, Appendix A, General Explanation. Available at
    [[http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/WYVolume104.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/wy/index2.htm)

[^104]: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of
    the President, "Memorandum For Heads of Executive Department
    Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies, Guidance For
    Implementing E.O. 13211, M-01-27," July 13, 2001. From:
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-27.html>, as viewed on
    June 30, 2004.

[^105]: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, The Executive Office of
    the President, "Memorandum For Heads of Executive Department
    Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies, Guidance For
    Implementing E.O. 13211, M-01-27," July 13, 2001. From:
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-27.html>, as viewed on
    June 30, 2004.

[^106]: El Paso Corporation, "El Paso Corporation Provides Financial and
    Operational Update," May 28, 2004. From:
    <http://www.epenergy.com/press/newsquery.asp?sId=4279>, as viewed on
    June 30, 2004.

[^107]: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
    "National Environmental Policy Act Pre-Filing Environmental Review
    and Scoping for the Entrega Pipeline Project," Docket No.
    PF04-7-000. Available at
    <http://www.entregapipeline.com/pdfs/ferc/2004/openhouse-mar26.pdf>