17296 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Areas of Regulatory Concern

In calling on agencies to cut obsolete

regulations, the President directs each

agency to consider the following issues

in its review of the regulations:

• Is this regulation obsolete?

• Could its intended goal be achieved

in more efficient, less intrusive ways?

• Are there better private sector

alternatives, such as market

mechanisms, that can better achieve the

public good envisioned by the

regulation?

• Could private business, setting its

own standards and being subject to

public accountability, do the job as

well?

• Could the States or local

governments do the job, making Federal

regulation unnecessary?

RSPA suggests that persons

commenting on the pipeline safety

program consider these issues.

The President’s call for regulatory

reform provides opportunities for

eliminating or improving pipeline safety

regulations. RSPA is undertaking a

page-by-page review of the Pipeline

Safety Regulations and is identifying

certain sections of the regulations that

are candidates for elimination, revision,

clarification or relaxation.

Improvements to Customer Service

RSPA is soliciting comments on the

kind and quality of services its

customers want and their level of

satisfaction with the services currently

provided by the pipeline safety

program. RSPA will use the comments

to establish service standards and

measure results against them; provide

customers with choices in both the

sources of service and the means of

delivery; make information, services,

and complaint systems easily accessible;

and provide the means to address

customer complaints. RSPA’s current

customer services include providing

guidance in understanding and

complying with the Pipeline Safety

Regulations and processing exemptions,

approvals, registrations, grant

applications, and enforcement actions.

Other customer services include

conduct of pipeline safety seminars, and

the development and dissemination of

training and informational materials.

Issued in Washington, DC on March 31,

1995.

Cesar De Leon,

Acting Associate Administrator for Pipeline

Safety.

[FR Doc. 95–8362 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD 22

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Determination of

Critical Habitat for Woundfin, Virgin

River Chub, and Virgin Spinedace and

Notice of Public Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) proposes to designate critical

habitat for the Virgin River chub (Gila

seminuda = G. robusta seminuda), the

Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda

mollispinis mollispinis), and the

woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus).

The Virgin River chub and wouldfin are

listed as endangered; the Virgin

spinedace has been proposed for listing

as threatened (May 18, 1994), but the

listing has not been finalized as yet.

There is considerable overlap in critical

habitat proposed for the three species,

the proposed designation includes 330.8

km (206.8 mi) of the Virgin River and

its tributaries in portions of Utah,

Arizona, and Nevada. The Service

proposes 151.7 km (94.8 mi) of critical

habitat for the woundfin (approximately

13.5 percent of its historical range);

151.7 km (94.8 mi) for the Virgin River

chub (70.8 percent of its historical

range, excluding the chub occupying the

Muddy River); and 201.9 km (126.2 mi)

for the Virgin spinedace (87.3 percent of

its historical range). The majority of the

land to be designated as critical habitat

is under Federal or private ownership.

All three fish species are endemic to

the Virgin River Basin of southwestern

Utah, northwestern Arizona, and

southeastern Nevada. The proposed

critical habitat designation includes

portions of the mainstem Virgin River

and its tributaries, including the 100-

year floodplain. This proposed critical

habitat would result in additional

review requirements under section 7 of

the Act with regard to Federal agency

actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the

Service to consider economic costs and

benefits prior to making a final decision

on the size and scope of critical habitat.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until

June 5, 1995.

A public hearing will be held from 5

p.m. to 9 p.m., with registration

beginning at 4:30 p.m., on Monday, May

8, 1995. Requests for additional public

hearings must be received by May 22,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Requests for additional

public hearings or comments and

materials concerning this proposal

should be sent to the Field Supervisor,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt

Lake City Field Office, 145 East 1300

South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah

84115. The public hearing will be in the

Garden Room at the St. George Hilton

Inn, 1450 South Hilton Drive, St.

George, Utah. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address. Copies of comments and

materials received also will be available

for public inspection at the Washington

County Public Library in St. George,

Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert D. Williams, Assistant Field

Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office,

at the above address, (801) 524–5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The woundfin (Plagopterus

argentissimus) and Virgin River chub

(Gila seminuda =G. robusta seminuda)

are presently listed as endangered

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.). The Virgin spinedace

(Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis)

was proposed for listing on May 18,

1994, as threatened under the Act. In

the subsequent text, all three species of

fish are referred to as ‘‘listed fishes’’

even though the Virgin spinedace has

only been proposed for listing at this

time. These three fishes are all endemic

to the Virgin River Basin. The Virgin

River flows generally along the

Hurricane Fault, which forms the

boundary between the Colorado Plateau

and the Great Basin. These two geologic

provinces are quite dissimilar. The

Colorado Plateau is characterized by

horizontal-lying strata eroded into

canyons, plateaus, and mesas. Long,

isolated mountain ranges separated by

broad alluvial valleys typify the Great

Basin province. The Virgin River

originates in south-central Utah,

running in a southwest direction from

Utah to northwestern Arizona, and

southeastern Nevada for approximately

320 kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi))

before emptying into Lake Mead. Prior

to the completion of Boulder (Hoover)

Dam in 1935, the Muddy River in

southeastern Nevada joined the Virgin

River before the latter emptied into the

Colorado River. These two rivers now

flow separately into the Overton Arm of

Lake Mead.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17297

These Virgin River fishes have

declined in numbers due to the

cumulative effects of environmental

impacts which include dewatering from

numerous diversion projects;

proliferation of nonnative fishes; and

alterations to natural flow, temperature,

and sediment regimes.

Woundfin

Based on early records, the original

range of the woundfin extended from

near the junction of the Salt and Verde

Rivers at Tempe, Arizona, to the mouth

of the Gila River at Yuma, Arizona

(Gilbert and Scofield 1898, Minckley

1973). Woundfin were also found in the

mainstem Colorado River from Yuma

(Jordan and Evermann 1896, Meek 1904,

Follett 1961) upstream to the Virgin

River in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and

into La Verkin Creek, a tributary of the

Virgin River in Utah (Gilbert and

Scofield 1898, Snyder 1915, Miller and

Hubbs 1960, Cross 1975). However,

there is reason to believe that the

woundfin occurred further upstream in

the Verde, Salt, and Gila Rivers in

Arizona.

Except for the mainstem of the Virgin

River, woundfin were extirpated from

most of their historical range. Woundfin

presently range from Pah Tempe

Springs (also called La Verkin Springs)

on the mainstem of the Virgin River and

the lower portion of La Verkin Creek in

Utah, downstream to Lake Mead. A

single specimen was taken from the

middle Muddy (Moapa) River, Clark

County, Nevada, in the late 1960’s and

since that time no additional specimens

have been collected (Deacon and

Bradley 1972).

Adult and juvenile woundfin inhabit

runs and quiet waters adjacent to riffles

with sand and sand/gravel substrates.

Adults are generally found in habitats

with water depths between 0.15 and

0.43 meters (m) (0.5 and 1.4 feet (ft))

with velocities between 0.24 and 0.49

meters per second (m/s) (0.8 and 1.6 feet

per second ft/s)). Juveniles select areas

with slower and deeper water, while fry

are found in backwaters and stream

margins which are often associated with

growths of filamentous algae. Spawning

takes place during the period of

declining spring flows.

Virgin River Chub

The Virgin River chub was described

as a full species (Gila seminuda) in 1875

(Cope and Yarrow 1875) and it was

thought to be restricted to the Virgin

River between Hurricane, Utah, and its

confluence with the Colorado River.

However, Ellis (1914) considered this

chub to be an intermediate between the

roundtail chub (G. robusta) and bonytail

chub (G. elegans), and reduced it to a

subspecies (G. robusta seminuda) of the

roundtail chub.

Until recently, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) and other authorities

(Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Minckley

1973, Smith et al. 1977) have treated the

chub in the Muddy River as a separate,

unnamed subspecies of roundtail chub

(Moapa roundtail chub = G. robusta

ssp.). Since 1982, the Service has

considered this chub to be a Category 2

candidate species (47 FR 58455, 54 FR

556, 56 FR 58804).

In a recent taxonomic study of the

genus Gila, DeMarais et al. (1992)

asserted that full species status (G.

seminuda) was warranted for the Virgin

River chub. The Muddy River form is

included in G. seminuda, although it is

a separate population. Gila seminuda

most likely arose through hybridization

involving G. robusta and G. elegans.

These taxonomic revisions were

recently accepted by the Service,

American Fisheries Society, and the

American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists Fish Names Committee

(Mr. Joseph S. Nelson, American Fish

Society, in litt. 1993). This proposal to

designate critical habitat does not

include the Muddy River form of the

Virgin River chub. However, the Service

will review the status of the Muddy

River population of the Virgin River

chub.

The Virgin River chub was first

collected in the 1870’s from the Virgin

River near Washington, Utah.

Historically, it was collected from the

mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe

Springs, Utah, downstream to the

confluence with the Colorado River in

Nevada (Cope and Yarrow 1875, Cross

1975). Presently, the Virgin River chub

occurs within the mainstem Virgin

River from Pah Tempe Springs

downstream to at least the Mesquite

Diversion.

Adult and juvenile Virgin River chub

select deep runs or pools with slow to

moderate velocities containing boulders

or other instream cover over a sand

substrate. Generally, larger fish occupy

deeper habitats; however, there is no

apparent correlation with velocity. Chub

are generally found in velocities ranging

up to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s).

Virgin Spinedace

The historical distribution of the

Virgin spinedace is not well known.

Holden (1977) speculated that the

species occurred in most of the clear

water tributaries and in several

mainstem reaches of the Virgin River in

southwestern Utah, northwestern

Arizona, and southeastern Nevada.

Museum records and species survey

information support this historic

distribution (Rinne 1971, Cross 1975,

Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and Hardy

1993).

Over the last 50 years, there has been

a decline in the range of the species

with about a 37–40 percent (83 km, 52

mi) habitat loss due to human impacts

(Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and Hardy

1993). Stream reaches that once

contained spinedace (but are now

dewatered) include portions of the East

Fork of Beaver Dam Wash, the Santa

Clara River downstream Gunlock

Reservoir, Mogatsu Creek, Ash Creek

near Toquerville, Leeds Creek, and the

mainstem Virgin River between Quail

Creek Diversion and Pah Tempe

Springs. Current distribution of the

spinedace includes portions of the

mainstem Virgin River and 11 of its

tributaries and subtributaries including

the East Fork Virgin River, Shunes

Creek, North Fork Virgin River, North

Creek, La Verkin Creek, Ash Creek,

Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam Wash,

Coal Pits Wash, Moody Wash, and

Mogatsu Creek.

Virgin spinedace are found in runs or

pools in clear streams. The presence of

cover either in the form of vegetation,

boulders, debris, or undercut banks is

also characteristic. Substrates in

occupied habitats include rubble/

cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Spinedace

are found in streams at depths of 0.1 to

0.9 m (0.3 to 2.9 ft) and with current

velocities between 0.1 and 1.0 m/s (0.3

to 3.2 ft/s).

Importance of the Virgin River

Floodplain

Components of the river system

include the mainstem channel in which

water is maintained most or all of the

year and the upland habitats which are

inundated during spring flows. These

seasonally flooded habitats contribute to

the biological productivity of the river

system by providing nutrients

(allochthonous energy) and terrestrial

food sources to aquatic organisms

(Hesse and Sheets 1993). Additionally,

Hynes (1970) reported that streams with

higher percentages of vegetation

contained higher densities of aquatic

invertebrates. The Virgin River contains

little aquatic vegetation and produces a

minimum of autochthonous

(indigenous) organic matter. Thus, the

fauna of the Virgin River is dependent

on allochthonous energy inputs from

the floodplain that provide much of the

food base.

Studies of the major floodplain rivers

of the world have documented the value

of flooded bottomlands and uplands for

fish production (Welcomme 1979). Due

to their mobility, many species of fishes
17298 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

are able to take advantage of food

sources from flooded lands. Indeed,

many fishes have developed migratory

strategies that allow them to utilize

inundated areas as spawning, nursery,

and foraging areas (Lowe-McConnel

1975, Welcomme 1979). In this context,

a rich food source of terrestrial origin

may enhance fish growth, fecundity,

and/or survival. Use of these inundated

floodplains increases the energy

available for spawning and is necessary

for reproductive success in some species

(Finger and Stewart 1987). In many

cyprinid fishes, including these Virgin

River natives, spawning is associated

with seasonal rains and flooding of

rivers. Flood-related changes in the river

environment not only induce spawning

for many species, but these changes

comprise the ultimate factors limiting

the survival of eggs, larvae, or young

fish (Hontela and Stacey 1990).

Loss of floodplain habitats in the

Missouri River Basin has reduced fish

biomass production as much as 98

percent (Karr and Schlosser 1978).

Inundation of floodplain habitats during

spring flows also provides areas with

warmer water temperatures, low

velocity resting habitat, and cover from

predation. Recent studies in the

Colorado River system show that the life

histories and welfare of native riverine

fishes are linked to the maintenance of

a natural or historic flow regimen (i.e.,

hydrological pattern of high spring and

low autumn-winter flows that vary in

magnitude and duration depending on

annual precipitation patterns and runoff

from snowmelt) (Tyus and Karp 1989,

1990). Minckley and Meffe (1987)

suggest that loss of flooding will result

in extirpation of many of the native fish

species in the Colorado River system.

Previous Federal Actions

The woundfin was listed as

endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR

16047), and critical habitat was

proposed on November 2, 1997 (42 FR

57329). However, on March 6, 1979, the

proposal for critical habitat was

withdrawn (44 FR 12382) due to the

1978 amendments to the Act, which

required proposals to be withdrawn if

not finalized within 2 years. A

Woundfin Recovery Plan was originally

approved in July 1979 and subsequently

revised on March 1, 1984. On July 24,

1985, the Service proposed the

reintroduction of the woundfin into the

Gila River drainage in Arizona and

determined this population to be

‘‘nonessential experimental’’ in

accordance with section 10(j) of the Act

(50 FR 30188).

On August 23, 1978, the Service

proposed the listing as endangered and

the designation of critical habitat for the

Virgin River chub (43 FR 37668). This

proposal was also withdrawn (45 FR

64853; September 30, 1980), due to the

1978 amendments to the Act. The Virgin

River chub was later listed as

endangered on August 24, 1989 (54 FR

35305). Critical habitat was proposed on

June 24, 1988 (51 FR 22849); however,

the final determination was postponed.

When the Virgin River chub was listed,

the Muddy River form was omitted due

to the uncertainty of its taxonomy. The

Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan,

which is under final preparation,

includes the woundfin and Virgin River

chub (but not the Muddy River form).

The Virgin spinedace was proposed

for listing as a threatened species on

May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25875). A proposal

to designate critical habitat for the

spinedace was delayed because the

Service felt that the three fish species

would receive greater protection if

critical habitat was designated

simultaneously.

On March 18, 1994, the U.S. District

Court, Colorado (Court) ordered the

Service to designate critical habitat for

the Virgin River chub, woundfin, and

Virgin spinedace (if listed before

December 31, 1994). The Court ordered

that critical habitat be proposed no later

than April 1, 1995, and be finalized by

December 1, 1995.

Although the listing of the Virgin

spinedace has not been finalized, the

designation of critical habitat is being

proposed for it, in order to allow for

public comment on all three species.

The final rule for critical habitat

designation will also reflect the listed

status of the Virgin spinedace as of that

date.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) The specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection and; (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary of the

Interior (Secretary) designate critical

habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Critical habitat is now

proposed for the woundfin, Virgin River

chub, and Virgin spinedace.

Role of Critical Habitat in Species

Conservation

The designation of critical habitat is

one of several measures available to

assist in the conservation and recovery

of a species. Critical habitat helps focus

conservation activities by identifying

areas that contain essential habitat

features (primary constituent elements)

regardless of whether or not the areas

are currently occupied by the listed

species. Such designations alert Federal

agencies, States, the public, and other

organizations to the areas’ importance to

the conservation and recovery of the

species. Critical habitat also identifies

areas that may require special

management or protection

considerations. Areas designated as

critical habitat receive protection under

section 7 of the Act. This is in regards

to actions carried out, funded, or

authorized by a Federal agency that are

likely to adversely modify or destroy

critical habitat. Section 7 requires that

Federal agencies consult with the

Service on actions that may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

Designation of critical habitat only

affects Federal actions that occur in the

areas and does not automatically

prohibit certain actions or create a

management plan for a listed species.

Such designation does not have a direct

effect on habitat not specified as critical

habitat. Critical habitat designation may

increase protection of designated areas

and assists in the recovery of species.

Areas outside of critical habitat,

containing one or more of the primary

constituent elements, serve to maintain

ecosystem integrity, thereby indirectly

contributing to recovery.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to

Recovery Plan

Recovery plans, developed in

accordance with section 4(f) of the Act,

address the steps needed to recover a

species throughout its range and

provide guidance, that may include

population goals and identification of

areas in need of protection or special

management. In developing a recovery

plan, the relationships between critical

habitat and other current planning

efforts should be evaluated. Recovery

plans should recommend actions for

managing designated critical habitat on

Federal lands, as well as critical habitat

under other landownership.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17299

Primary Constituent Elements

In determining areas for designation

as critical habitat, the Service considers

those physical and biological features

that are essential for the conservation of

the species. Such physical and

biological features (in 50 CFR 424.12)

include, but are not limited to, the

following items:

(1) Space for individual and

population growth, and for normal

behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or

other nutritional or physiological

requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,

rearing of offspring, germination, or

seed dispersal; and generally

(5) Habitats that are protected from

disturbance or are representative of the

historical geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

In addition, the Act stipulates that

areas containing these elements may

require special management

considerations or protection.

In determining critical habitat for the

Virgin River fishes, the Service focused

on the primary physical and biological

elements essential to the conservation of

each species. The Service is required to

list these elements together with a

description of the designated critical

habitat.

The primary constituent elements

determined necessary for the survival

and recovery of these Virgin River fishes

include, but are not limited to:

Water—A quantity of water of

sufficient quality (i.e., temperature,

dissolved oxygen, contaminants,

nutrients, turbidity, etc.) that is

delivered to a specific location in

accordance with a hydrologic regime

that is identified for the particular life

stage for each species.

Physical Habitat—Areas of the Virgin

River Basin that are inhabited or

potentially habitable by fish for use in

spawning, nursing, feeding, and rearing,

or corridors between such areas. In

addition to river channels, these areas

also include side channels, secondary

channels, backwaters, springs, and other

areas which provide spawning, nursery,

feeding, or rearing habitats, or access to

these habitats.

Biological Environment—Food

supply, predation, and competition are

important elements of the biological

environment and are considered

components of this constituent element.

Food supply is a function of nutrient

supply, productivity, and availability to

each life stage of the species. Predation

and competition, although considered

normal components of this

environment, may be out of balance due

to nonnative fish species in many areas.

Habitat requirements for the listed

fishes vary. In designating an area as

critical habitat for more than one of the

species, the Service assessed the area for

all applicable constituent elements.

Specific information on primary

constituent elements for each of these

fish species is given in the following

section.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

Woundfin—The proposed designation

of critical habitat for the woundfin is the

mainstem Virgin River, extending from

the confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks

to above Lake Mead. The Virgin River

was divided into five distinct reaches

(due to its current functions

hydrologically) and these reaches total

151.7 km (94.8 mi) as measures along

the center line of each reach (Table 1).

This represents approximately 13.5

percent of the woundfin’s historical

habitat. Due to the lack of historical data

on the distribution of the woundfin in

Arizona, this number is only an

estimate. These proposed reaches flow

through both public and private lands

(Table 2).

Virgin River Chub—The proposed

designation of critical habitat for the

Virgin River chub is the mainstem

Virgin River, extending from the

confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks to

above Lake Mead. Due to the

hydrological current functions of the

Virgin River, it was divided into five

distinct reaches (Table 1) and these

reaches total 151.7 km (94.8 mi). This

represents approximately 70.8 percent

of the historical habitat within the

Virgin River Basin, excluding the range

historically occupied by the Muddy

River chub population. These reaches

flow through both public and private

land (Table 2).

Virgin Spinedace—The Service

proposes 16 reaches within the Virgin

River Basin as critical habitat for the

Virgin spinedace (Table 1) and these

reaches total 201.9 km (126.2 mi). This

represents approximately 87.7 percent

of the historical habitat for this species

(230.2 km or 143.9 mi) (Valdez et al.

1991). Critical habitat is being proposed

for the mainstem Virgin River, the East

and North Forks of the Virgin River,

Beaver Dam Wash, Shunes Creek,

Moody Wash, Mogatsu Creek, the Santa

Clara River, Ash Creek, La Verkin Creek,

and North Creek. These reaches flow

through both public and private lands

(Table 2).

TABLE 1.—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT IN KILOMETERS (MILES) FOR VIRGIN RIVER LISTED FISHES

State Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace State Totals a

Arizona ............................................................. 50.6 (31.6) 50.6 (31.6) 1.3 (0.8) 51.9 (32.4)

Nevada ............................................................. 41.5 (25.9) 41.5 (25.9 ................................... 41.5 (25.9

Utah .................................................................. 59.6 (37.3) 59.6 (37.3) 200.6 (125.4) 237.4 (148.4)

Total ....................................................... 151.7 (94.8) 151.7 (94.8) 201.9 (126.2) 330.8 (206.8)

aState totals do not equal the cumulative totals of the three species due to considerable overlap of proposed critical habitat among species.

TABLE 2.—SHORELINE OWNERSHIP IN KILOMETERS (MILES) OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR VIRGIN RIVER LISTED

FISHES a

Ownership Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace

Federal b ................................................................................................... 85.2 (53.3) 85.2 (53.3) 76.8 (48.0)

State ......................................................................................................... 7.5 (4.8) 7.5 (4.8) 2.8 (1.8)

Tribal ........................................................................................................ ................................... ................................... 9.7 (6.1)

Private ...................................................................................................... 59.0 (36.8) 59.0 (36.8) 112.6 (70.4)
17300 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2.—SHORELINE OWNERSHIP IN KILOMETERS (MILES) OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR VIRGIN RIVER LISTED

FISHES a—Continued

Ownership Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace

Total ............................................................................................... 151.7 (94.8 151.7 (94.8) 201.9 (126.2)

a Landownership was typically the same on both riverbanks. However, in several reaches (1.5 km or less) the river formed a boundary between

Federal and private lands. Based upon the location of the channel, these reaches were identified as either Federal or private, not both. Therefore, distances may be doubled to represent ownership along both riverbanks. bFederal lands include those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service.

Virgin River Floodplain

The riparian zone within the 100-year

floodplain of the Virgin River reaches is

being proposed as critical habitat, but

only those portions of the 100-year

floodplain that contain constituent

elements are being designated for

critical habitat. Developed lands not

considered critical habitat within the

100-year floodplain boundary include,

but are not limited to, existing paved

roads, bridges, parking lots, dikes,

levees, railroad tracks, railroad trestles,

water diversion canals outside of

natural stream channels, active gravel

pits, cultivated agricultural land, and

residential, commercial, and industrial

developments. These developed areas

do not contain primary constituent

elements and will not contribute to the

species’ recovery.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that

activities Federal agencies authorize,

fund, or carry out do not destroy or

adversely modify designated critical

habitat. This is in addition to the

requirement of section 7(a)(2) that

Federal agencies insure that their

actions do not jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species. A Federal

agency must consult with the Service if

a proposed action of theirs affects a

listed species or its critical habitat.

Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the

Act are codified in 50 CFR part 402.

Once critical habitat is designated,

section 7(a)(4) of the Act and

implementing regulations (50 CFR

402.10) require that Federal agencies

confer with the Service on any action

which will destroy or adversely modify

the designated areas. Conference reports

provide advisory conservation

recommendations to assist a Federal

agency in identifying and resolving

conflicts that may be caused by the

proposed action.

If a Federal agency requests

consultation under section 7 of the Act,

and the Service concurs, a formal

conference report may then be issued.

Formal conference reports on proposed

critical habitat contain an opinion

prepared in accordance with formal

consultation procedures as if the critical

habitat were already designated. Such a

formal conference report is adopted as

the biological opinion pursuant to 50

CFR 402.10(d) when the critical habitat

is designated, provided no significant

information or changes in the action

occur that would alter the content of the

opinion.

Designation of critical habitat focuses

on the primary constituent elements

within the defined reaches and their

contribution to the species recovery,

and includes consideration of the

species’ biological needs and factors

that will contribute to its recovery (i.e.,

distribution, numbers, reproduction,

and viability). In evaluating Federal

actions, the Service will consider the

action’s impact on factors used to

determine critical habitat of the Virgin

River listed fishes. These factors include

the primary constituent elements of

water, physical habitat, and biological

environment. The ability of an area to

provide these constituent elements into

the future and the reaches’ capability to

contribute to the recovery of the species

will also be considered. The potential

level of allowable impacts or habitat

reduction in critical habitat reaches will

be determined on a case-by-case basis

during section 7 consultation.

For species with multiple critical

habitat reaches, each reach has local and

rangewide roles in contributing to the

conservation of the species. The loss of

a single reach may not jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, but

it could significantly reduce the critical

habitat’s contribution to recovery of a

species. In some cases, the destruction

of a reach proposed as critical habitat

could result in the loss of an entire

population, thereby preculding any

recovery and reducing the likelihood of

survival of the species. The proposed

critical habitat reaches in the Virgin

River Fishes Recovery Plan include

areas important for recovery of these

fishes.

Examples of Proposed Actions

Section 4(b)(8) requires for any

proposed or final regulation;

designation of critical habitat, a brief

description and evaluation of those

activities that may adversely modify or

destroy such habitat or those activities

that may be affected by such

designation. Destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat is

defined as a direct or indirect alteration

that appreciably diminishes the value of

critical habitat for the survival and

recovery of a listed species. Some

activities disturb or remove the primary

constituent elements within designated

critical habitat for the Virgin River

fishes. These activities include actions

that reduce the volume and timing of

water flows, destroy or eliminate access

to spawning and nursery habitat,

prevent recruitment, impact food

sources, contaminate the river, or

increase predation and competition by

nonnative fishes. In contrast, other

activities such as recreation (i.e.,

boating, hiking, hunting, etc.), some

types of farming and ranching, may not

adversely modify critical habitat.

Areas designated as critical habitat for

the Virgin River listed fishes support a

number of proposed and existing

commercial and noncommercial

activities. Some activities that will affect

critical habitat include construction and

operation of hydroelectric facilities,

irrigation, flood control, bank

stabilization, oil and gas drilling,

mining, grazing, stocking or

introduction of nonnative fishes,

municipal water supplies, and resort

facilities. Federal activities include the

Sandstone Reservoir, Pah Tempe

Pipeline, Halfway Wash Project, Lake

Powell Pipeline, water wheeling, water

leasing, Washington Fields Pumpback,

and dewatering of springs for municipal

and industrial purposes. Commercial

activities that will not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include

river float trips and guided sport fishing.

Noncommercial activities such as

boating, fishing, and various activities

associated with nature appreciation are

largely associated with private

recreation and most likely will not affect

critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act only

applies to Federal actions (i.e., projects,

permits, loans, etc.) and each Federal

action must be evaluated on a case-bycase basis.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17301

Consideration of Economic and Other

Factors

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act considers

economic and other relevant impacts in

determining whether to exclude any

proposed areas from the final

designation of critical habitat. The

Service may exclude areas from critical

habitat designation when the costs or

impacts outweigh the benefits, provided

that exclusion will not result in

extinction of a species. An economic

analysis was conducted on the costs of

the proposed critical habitat designation

(Brookshire et al. 1995). The study area

for the economic analysis encompassed

portions of the Virgin River Basin in

Utah, Arizona, and Nevada.

The biological requirements for the

recovery of these listed fishes and

regional economic activities were

assessed and form the basis of the

economic analysis. The biological

requirements include adjustments in

water diversions in the Virgin River

Basin and/or mitigation of nonflowrelated activities within the 100-year

floodplain. The effects of recovery

efforts on future water depletions in the

basin also were taken into

consideration. The impacts of these

possible changes on current and

prospective economic activities were

estimated using input-output models for

each county and region in the Virgin

River Basin. Direct and indirect impacts

on employment, wages, and State and

Federal revenues derived from business

and personal income taxes were also

factored into the exclusion process. The

results of these models are found in the

economic analysis document prepared

for determining critical habitat for these

particular fish species (Brookshire et al.

1995). This complete economic analysis

is part of the administrative record

which is available to the public upon

request.

Economic Analysis Methodology

The economic analysis provides

insights into the reallocation of

resources from the perspectives of both

economic efficiency and distribution or

equity. The efficiency criterion

determines whether designating areas as

critical habitat produces any net gains to

society. The equity criterion looks at the

resulting distribution of gains and

losses. The study region for which the

economic analysis was conducted

includes Washington and Iron Counties

in Utah, Clark County in Nevada, and

the portion of Mohave County in

Arizona located north of the Colorado

River. The time frame chosen for the

study encompasses a 45-year period

(1995 through 2040) projected to recover

the listed fishes.

Washington County, Utah, and Clark

County, Nevada are two counties that

will be directly affected by any actions

taken by the Service on behalf of the

listed fishes. Presently, these counties

are among the fastest growing areas in

the United States. From 1980 to 1990,

Washington County’s population grew

by 52 percent, while Clark County’s

grew by 62.5 percent. The Virgin River

also flows through a portion of Mohave

County in Arizona. This area has a very

small population and a modest

economic base. Iron County, Utah, (lies

north of Washington County) is a

rapidly growing area that is

economically closely linked to

Washington County. Although the

Virgin River does not flow through Iron

County, any economic impacts on

Washington County would be felt in

Iron County as well.

The linkage between the biological

requirements for the survival and

recovery of the listed fishes and

economic activities in the region formed

the basis for the economic analysis. As

an index of these biological

requirements, adjustments made in the

operations of the Quail Creek Reservoir

and agricultural diversions on the

Virgin River were included. The effects

of recovery efforts on projected future

water development and delivery

projects were taken into consideration.

The direct effects on the agencies

responsible for water development and

delivery also were taken into

consideration. The direct and indirect

impacts of these possible changes on

current and prospective economic

activities were then estimated for each

county and regional economy.

One cannot predict the outcome of

future section 7 consultations involving

listed fishes in the region. Economic

impacts associated with the critical

habitat designation depends on the time

required for the recovery of the listed

fishes. County and regional economic

impacts are of interest when considering

the effects of critical habitat

designations. County economic impacts

are the direct and indirect impacts of

the critical habitat designations on

specific geographic areas. County

economic impacts were analyzed using

input-output (I–O) models that organize

the basic accounting relationships that

describe the production section of the

economy (Brookshire et al. 1995). The I–

O model is based on the assumption

that all sectors of the economy are

related, and the production of a good or

service can be described by a recipe

whose ingredients are the outputs from

other sectors of the economy. The

primary inputs are labor, capital, and

other raw resources. Through its

multiplier analysis, the I–O model is

capable of generating estimates of the

changes in output for economic sectors,

changes in employment, and changes in

income due to the critical habitat

designation. The models report total

impacts resulting from interactions

among the different sectors of the

economy.

Regional economic efficiency impacts

refer to the overall net impacts on the

regional economy after accounting for

the effects of intercounty transfers. The

goal of a regional efficiency analysis is

to determine whether an action would

have an overall positive or negative

impact on the regional economy.

A separate I–O model was developed

for each county and focused on the

direct and indirect impacts generated by

the critical habitat designation

(Brookshire et al. 1995). In most cases,

impacts on a given county generated

impacts on neighboring counties. Thus,

it was necessary to investigate potential

offsetting impacts. As a result, an I–O

model was constructed that investigated

the impacts for an entire region (all four

counties).

Economic activity for the models was

estimated using Impact Analysis for

Planning (IMPLAN) 1990 data sets that

were updated and projected through the

year 2040, using data from the Bureau

of Economic Analysis of the U.S.

Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN

data set contains 528 economic sectors

that were aggregated to 16 sectors

(Brookshire et al. 1995).

The I–O models used in this study are

essentially demand-side models. The

conventional way to introduce impacts

into such models is through a vector of

changes in final demands. That is, the

impacts reduce the regional demand for

the output of the sector that experiences

a direct impact. However, this method

is not logical for determining effects on

the agricultural sector because these

effects are generated by converting

agricultural sectors to municipal and

industrial (M&I) uses. This conversion

effectively reduces the quantity of

output in the agricultural sectors by

restricting the supply of a key input. For

this reason, a mixed modeling approach

was used, in which the agricultural

impacts are represented as a supply-side

shock used to generate an exogenous

level of output in the agricultural

sectors. The direct impacts in the

remaining sectors are modeled as more

typical changes in final demand.

The study utilized three scenarios to

explore the impacts of preserving the

listed fishes upon the water needs of the

projected human population. Projected
17302 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

economic activity to the year 2040 in

the Virgin River Basin, if no flows and

habitat are protected to preserve the

listed fishes, is compared to projected

economic activity if flows and habitat

are preserved for the fish. The baseline

scenario represents a ‘‘without fish’’

projection of economic growth that is

then compared to two ‘‘with fish’’

projections. All of the scenarios used

the same population projection.

The baseline ‘‘without fish’’ scenario

(WOFBA) is based upon the water

development plans of water districts in

the Virgin River Basin: the Washington

County Water Conservation District

(WCWCD) and the Las Vegas Valley

Water District. The ‘‘without fish’’

scenario determines how much water

will be needed for municipal and

industrial development in order to

satisfy the population projections. This

scenario accepts the Boyle (1994) water

need projections under a limited

conservation assumption. Thus, the

water needs of the expanding

population base are determined by a

gallons-per-day-per-capita value, which

assumes a level of conservation above

the existing consumption observed in

the region.

The ‘‘with fish’’ structural scenario

(WFST) asks the same questions as in

the baseline scenario. The fundamental

differences are—(1) Given the water

needs associated with preserving the

listed fishes, the structural water

development projects must be brought

on line at an earlier time, and (2) winter

flows below Quail Creek Diversion

remain at 2.4 cubic meters per second

(86 cubic feet per second) rather than

1.4 cubic meters per second (50 cubic

feet per second) as in the ‘‘without fish’’

scenario. Generally, the volume of water

available from each new project is not

directly affected by the actions taken on

behalf of the listed fishes. However, the

maintenance of the 86 cfs instream flow

for the listed fishes results in less

available water for municipal use.

Therefore, water projects are required to

come on line sooner to meet the

projected demand. In addition, the

agricultural retirement program must

begin earlier. In this scenario, the percapita consumption of water is the same

as in the baseline.

The ‘‘with fish’’ conservation scenario

(WFCO) addresses the water needs of

the growing population and the listed

fishes through a combination of

conservation and agricultural

retirements. Conservation requires that

per-capita consumption should fall.

This is achieved through water-saving

technologies incorporated into new

homes and industrial facilities.

All of the scenarios utilize the

reallocation of agricultural water to

urban and industrial uses and/or to

habitat preservation for the listed fishes.

Whether habitat is preserved for fish,

water must be reallocated as the human

population continues to grow. The

impacts of critical habitat designation

affect the timing of the reallocation of

resources, and not the quantity of water

that must be reallocated. The ‘‘with

fish’’ agricultural scenario produces

three sets of direct impacts which are

outlined below.

(1) Agriculture—The conversion of

use will occur earlier than under the

baseline scenario, with the result that

agricultural output is projected to

decline under the ‘‘with fish’’ scenario.

The method if incorporating this impact

into the I–O models is to introduce a

reduction in the allocation of water to

the affected agricultural sectors. This

translates directly into a specified

reduction in the dollar value of the

output of the agriculture sector. This

mechanism was used to generate the

decline in agricultural output in the

baseline (WOFBA) projection. Water

was pulled from agriculture to meet the

needs of the growing M&I sectors. The

growth in the nonagricultural sectors of

the economy, reported in the WOFBA

projection, is predicated on the

conversion of water to M&I uses.

(2) Water Delivery Projects—To meet

the baseline growth projection for

Washington County, several water

delivery projects are under

consideration. Supplying instream

water for the fishes will require these

projects to be built earlier than in the

‘‘without fish’’ baseline. This may result

in an increased cost of water delivery.

This cost increase is driven by increased

user cost of the funds devoted to the

projects. The increased cost of each

accelerated project is incorporated as an

increase in the weighted average cost

per acre-foot of water delivered to the

users. Thus, a new delivery project

could increase in the user’s total ‘‘water

bill.’’ A cost increase for a basic input

is incorporated into the I–O models as

an equiproportionate reduction in the

level of expenditure in each sector of

the economy.

(3) Electric Power—WCWCD runs two

small hydroelectric power facilities and

sells the power to the local grid. As a

result of diversions that put water into

the Virgin River to meet fish needs,

power production may decline. For

electricity users in the area, there is no

impact as a result of this change because

the amount of power produced is small

and seasonal and the decline will be

made up through load shifting. For the

WCWCD, however, the change in the

operation of the river would result in

loss of revenue that must be made up

through higher revenues from the sale of

water. In this model, the impact is

treated as a cost increase across all

sectors in proportion to their level of

economic activity. The motivation for

the argument is identical to that

presented in the previous section.

To these three direct impacts, the

‘‘with fish’’ conservation scenario adds

another class of direct impacts.

(1) Conservation Expenditures—

Expenditures for low-water-using

appliances, landscaping changes, and

other water-saving equipment (i.e.,

timed sprinklers) in new structures

only. These expenditures are modeled

as being offset by reductions elsewhere

in the construction sector. For example,

costs due to the installation of lowwater-using appliances are offset

through lower expenses elsewhere in

the construction budget. To ensure that

the analysis errs on the side of

overstating the impacts, all

conservation-related expenditures are

assumed to be made outside the region,

and all offsetting reductions in

expenditures are assumed to be incurred

by local suppliers. Thus, conservationrelated expenditures are introduced into

the I–O models as a negative impact for

the region.

It should be emphasized that the

water delivery projects mentioned in

these scenarios are necessary in any

case to support the water needs of the

region’s growing population. Actions

taken to preserve and restore the listed

fish species in the Virgin River will

affect only the timing of these projects.

They are not the primary reason for why

these projects must be built. The same

is true for the agricultural conversions

that are required to satisfy the region’s

growing municipal and industrial water

needs. Using some Virgin River water to

meet the listed fishes’ requirements may

affect the timing of agricultural

retirements. However, it is not the root

cause for the retirements nor will it

involve condemnation of any

agricultural lands. Agricultural

conversions will continue to be

voluntary market transactions.

Actions taken on behalf of the listed

fishes result in two types of direct

impacts to the affected economies. The

instream flows for the fishes require that

the conversion of agricultural water to

M&I uses take place earlier than without

the fish consideration. It is important to

note that actions taken on behalf of the

fishes affect only the timing of this

conversion.

Setting aside instream flows for the

listed fishes requires the timing of some

planned water delivery projects to be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17303

altered. Actions taken on behalf of the

fishes affect only the timing of water

delivery projects that are required to

support the growing human population.

Results of the Economic Analysis

The Virgin River Basin has an

economy that is service-oriented, thus

reflecting the popularity of the region as

a retirement and recreation area.

Employment, earnings, and tax revenues

are reported for each of the sectors

analyzed in the I–O models, as well as

for the regional economy. The three

scenarios investigated in this study are

based on the assumption of sustained

regional population growth rates during

the 45-year study period, even though a

decline is expected as desirable building

sites become scarce. The growing

population’s water needs will be met by

constructing a series of dams to increase

the region’s water supply for municipal

and industrial uses. This will also

improve water quality in the Virgin

River. In addition, retirement of

agricultural land is expected when

water and agricultural land are used for

other purposes.

The Act requires that the economic

effects of designating critical habitat be

computed separately from the total

economic effects of listing and critical

habitat designation. Table 3 summarizes

the effects of critical habitat designation

under the WFST and WFCO impact

scenarios. These effects are reported for

the entire Virgin River region, including

Washington County and Clark Counties.

TABLE 3.—COUNTY AND REGIONAL-LEVEL PRESENT VALUE AND ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS

(1990 $ MILLIONS) (3 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE)

Output Employment Earnings Tax revenues

WFST vs WOFBA:

Washington:

Present Value ................................................................................................ ¥47.496 ...... ...................... ¥13.617 ...... ¥6.182

Percent Deviation from WOFBA ................................................................... ¥0.0016 ...... ¥0.0019 ...... ¥0.0016 ...... ¥0.0016

Annualized Values ......................................................................................... ¥1.947 ........ ¥26 ............. ¥0.558 ........ ¥0.253

Clark:

Present Value ................................................................................................ ¥10.63 ........ ...................... ¥0.827 ........ ¥0.632

Percent Deviation from WOFBA ................................................................... ¥0.00001 .... ¥0.0001 ...... 0 .................. 0

Annualized Values ......................................................................................... ¥0.428 ........ ¥1 ............... ¥0.034 ........ ¥0.026

Region:

Present Value ................................................................................................ ¥59.818 ...... ...................... ¥14.961 ...... ¥6.283

Percent Deviation from WOFBA ................................................................... ¥0.0001 ...... ¥0.0001 ...... 0 .................. ¥0.00001

Annualized Values ......................................................................................... ¥2.453 ........ ¥30 ............. ¥0.613 ........ ¥0.258

WFCO vs. WOFBA: Output .......... Employment Earnings ...... Tax Revenues

Washington:

Present Value ................................................................................................ ¥13.742 ...... ...................... ¥2.065 ........ ¥0.133

Percent Deviation form WOFBA ................................................................... ¥0.00046 .... ¥0.00011 .... ¥0.00024 .... ¥0.00003

Annualized Values ......................................................................................... ¥0.563 ........ 4 .................. ¥0.085 ........ ¥0.005

Region:

Present Value ................................................................................................ ¥20.938 ...... ...................... ¥1.12 .......... ¥1.476

Percent Deviation from WOFBA ................................................................... 0 .................. 0 .................. 0 .................. 0

Annualized values ......................................................................................... ¥0.858 ........ 4 .................. ¥0.046 ........ ¥0.061

Under the WFST scenario, the present

value of output changes in the

Washington County economy due to

critical habitat designation is ¥$1.95

million annually. This constitutes

0.0016 percent of the present value of

the baseline stream of output (WOFBA).

Employment and earnings effects are

presented in the report and are similar

to that of the output effects.

For Clark County, the output effects of

the critical habitat designation are

¥$0.43 million annually. The baseline

economy of Clark County is much larger

than that of Washington County.

Consequently, the effects of the

designation of critical habitat on the

economy are smaller. The cumulative

output effects represent only 0.00001

percent of the baseline level of

economic activity. Both the earnings

and tax revenue effects are too small to

be reliably reported as deviations from

the baseline level of economic activity.

For the region as a whole, the output

effect of designating critical habitat is

¥$2.45 million annually (0.0001

percent). The other aggregate effects are

of similar relative magnitudes.

Water use conservation can

significantly mitigate the effects of

designating critical habitat for these

listed fishes. This is also true for the

critical habitat effects alone. Under the

WFCO scenario, the present value of the

output changes in Washington County is

¥$13.7 million, 0.00046 percent of the

baseline level of activity. For the region

as a whole, the output effects of

designating critical habitat are ¥$20.9

million, an amount too small to

calculate as a percentage of the baseline.

There are no conservation scenario

impacts for Clark County for reasons

discussed later.

National Efficiency Effects

To obtain true measures of national

efficiency impacts, exact welfare

changes must be computed. These are

calculated as changes in aggregate

household utility. In general, I–O

models are not capable of producing

such values because they lack a fully

modeled household sector. However,

reasonable approximations may be

obtained through aggregate factor

payments. These omit surplus measures

(producer and consumer) and hence

understate the aggregate changes in

national efficiency. They do, however,

provide a reasonable approximation

under certain assumptions.

In many applications of I–O analysis

for use as inputs to a cost-benefit

analysis, aggregate factor payments

(value added) are used to represent the

national efficiency effect of a policy

change or action. This measure is

correct only for cases in which the

value-added change can be attributed

solely to the policy change or action

undertaken. In the case of the listed

fishes, this assumption is reasonable

because all changes in resource

allocation can be attributed to actions

taken on behalf of the fishes by virtue

of the methodology followed in this

study.

Including secondary effects in

computing national efficiency impacts

is valid because these effects are

technological in nature rather than pure
17304 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

transfers. That is, the linkages in the

economy between productive sectors

arise from the basic production

functions in the economy. Thus, a direct

impact occurring in one sector of the

economy will generate ripple effects

throughout the economy. Such effects

are solely attributable to the initial

direct impact.

The I–O model permits computation

of this factor income, and it may be used

to measure the national efficiency

effects of various changes in the

economy, such as those introduced by

actions taken on behalf of the listed

fishes. Aggregate factor payments are

computed for the baseline (WOFBA)

scenario and for the ‘‘with fish’’

scenarios (WFST and WFCO).

The factor payments capture the value

added from the production side of the

local economy. Because some of the

output change is captured through

leakages to the rest of the world

(principally the United States), the total

factor payments changes will be smaller

than the total output changes.

Based on these results, it is not

surprising that the effects of the factor

payments are small for the county-level

and regional analysis. Under the WFST

scenario, the efficiency losses to the

nation are a $32.2 million reduction in

value added. The annualized value of

this reduction is ¥$1.32 million. With

water conservation measures, the

cumulative change (over the 45-year

period) in value added is ¥$10.68

million (¥$0.438 million as an

annualized value). Water conservation

mitigates most of the impacts associated

with the critical habitat designation.

For Washington County, the present

value of the cumulative changes (over

the 45-year period) in value added is

¥$24.62 million for the WFST scenario.

With the inclusion of water

conservation measures, this value falls

to ¥$8.153 million (annualized value

¥$0.764 million).

For Clark County, the present value of

the cumulative changes (over the 45-

year period) is ¥$4.649 million

(annualized value is ¥$0.191 million).

Conclusions of the Economic Analysis

The three described impact scenarios

were analyzed and it is useful to

distinguish them in summarizing the

economic effects of actions taken on

behalf of the listed fishes. The baseline

scenario (WOFBA) represents the way

in which the county-level and regional

economies would grow over the 45-year

study period if no actions were taken to

protect the listed species. The entire

region is projected to experience

population growth at rates well above

the national average. Projected

population growth and economic

development will lead to shifts in

resource use. Consequently, agricultural

water will be converted to M&I uses

resulting in a decline in agricultural

output. At the same time, several

required water delivery projects are

planned to provide water to sustain the

projected growth levels.

The WFST scenario takes the baseline

regional projection and introduces

measures designed to protect and

recover the listed fishes. These

measures result in more rapid

conversion of agricultural water and the

acceleration of some water delivery

projects. Thus, agricultural production

declines more quickly under the WFST

scenario. Water costs also rise as a result

of the earlier development of these

projects, and the effect is a reduced

level of final demand in all sectors.

In summary, all of the economic

effects of the WFST scenario indicate

that preserving and recovering the listed

fishes will have a relatively small

impact on the overall economy. Some

sectors will experience greater declines

than others, but the overall decline in

economic activity is projected to be

small.

Since water usage rates in Washington

County are high compared to other

southwestern cities, a conservation

scenario (WFCO) was analyzed. In this

scenario, consumption levels were

reduced through the use of waterconserving appliances, fixtures, and

landscaping, applied to new

construction only. Conservation is not

without some cost. These costs were

introduced into the models in the form

of crowding-out other expenditures.

Thus, construction costs were projected

to increase. Offsetting this cost increase

are the savings that will result from

delaying the planned construction of

new water delivery facilities. A further

offset is provided because agricultural

water is converted to M&I uses at a

slower pace.

The overall effect of conservation is

an almost complete mitigation of the

economic effects associated with actions

undertaken on behalf of the listed

fishes. In fact, by the latter part of the

study period, there are negative effects

only in the agriculture and construction

sectors. However, latter effects are likely

overstated in the analysis due to the

extreme nature of the complete

crowding-out assumption.

The Service has prepared detailed

documents further explaining the

biology of each fish species (Maddux et

al. 1995) and the economic analysis

process used to determine critical

habitat (Brookshire et al. 1995). These

documents are available to supplement

this notice and for public review. Copies

may be obtained by contacting the field

office (see ADDRESSES section).

Available Conservation Measures

The purpose of the Act, as stated in

section 2(b), is to provide a means to

conserve the ecosystems upon which

endangered and threatened species

depend and to provide a program for the

conservation of listed species. Section

2(c)(1) of the Act declares that

‘‘* * * all Federal departments and

agencies shall seek to conserve

endangered and threatened species and

shall utilize their authorities in

furtherance of the purposes of this Act.’’

The Act mandates the conservation of

listed species through various

mechanisms, such as section 7

(requiring Federal agencies to further

the purposes of the Act by carrying out

conservation programs and insuring that

Federal actions will not likely

jeopardize the continued existence of

the listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat), section 9 (prohibition of

taking of listed species), section 10

(research permits and habitat

conservation plans), section 6

(cooperative State and Federal grants),

land acquisition, and research. The

section 7 requirement that Federal

agencies consult with the Service if

their actions may impact critical habitat

enables the Service to assess Federal

activities that may impair survival and

recovery potential, thus ensuring that

such actions are considered in relation

to the goals and recommendations of the

recovery plan.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service finds that any final action

resulting from this proposal be accurate

and effective as possible. Therefore, the

Service requests comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned government agencies, Indian

Nations, the scientific community,

commercial interests, or any other

interested party concerning this

proposed rule. Comments are

particularly sought concerning:

(1) The location and reasons why any

Federal or non-Federal lands (either

proposed critical habitat or additional

areas) should or should not be

determined to be critical habitat as

provided by section 4 of the Act;

(2) Current and planned activities in

the vicinity of proposed critical habitat

areas and their possible impacts on

proposed critical habitat;

(3) Other physical and biological

features that are essential to the

conservation of the species and in need

of special management or protection;
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17305

(4) Specific information on the scale,

location, and distribution of primary

constituent elements on all ownership

and land designations;

(5) Information concerning health of

the ecosystems on which the woundfin,

Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace

depend;

(6) Information on the economic

benefits and costs that would result

from this proposed designation of

critical habitat;

(7) Data and information relevant to

determining whether the benefits of

excluding a particular area from critical

habitat outweigh the benefits of

specifying the area as critical habitat;

(8) The methods and thresholds the

Service might use in determining

whether the costs of designating an area

outweigh the benefits of designation;

(9) Methods of analysis useful in

evaluating economic and other relevant

impacts;

(10) Information regarding the

suitability or unsuitability of critical

habitat boundaries of the 100-year

floodplain (as defined on Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(FIRMs));

(11) Information about areas of land or

water located within the outer

boundaries of the proposed critical

habitat, but that do not provide primary

constituent elements and thus can be

excluded. Of particular interest are

means to describe these areas of land

within specific limits using reference

points and lines as found on standard

topographical maps.

The final decision on this proposal

will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by the Service, and

such communications may lead to a

final regulation that differs from this

proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for at least one

public hearing on this proposal, if

requested within 45 days from date of

publication of this proposal in the

Federal Register. Requests for a hearing

must be made in writing and addressed

to the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

The Service has arranged for a public

hearing to be held on May 8, 1995, from

5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with registration

beginning at 4:30 p.m., at the St. George

Hilton Inn, 1450 South Hilton Drive, St.

George, Utah.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an

Environmental Assessment, as defined

under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need

not be prepared in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the

Service’s reasons for this determination

was published in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This proposed rule was reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

will not have a significant economic

effect on a substantial number of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on the

information discussed in this rule

concerning public projects and private

activities within the proposed critical

habitat, significant economic impacts

will not result from this action. Also, no

direct costs, enforcement costs,

information collection, or recordkeeping

requirements are imposed on small

entities by this action, and the rule

contains no recordkeeping requirements

as defined under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.). This rule does not require a

federalism assessment under Executive

Order 12612 because it would not have

any significant federalism effects as

described in the order.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

is available upon request from the Field

Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposal are

Henry R. Maddux and Janet A. Mizzi of the

Service’s Salt Lake City Field Office; Selena

J. Werdon of the Service’s Nevada State

Office; and Lesley A. Fitzpatrick of the

Service’s Arizona State Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby

proposes to amend part 17, subchapter

B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.11 [Amended]

2. It is proposed to amend § 17.11(h)

by revising the ‘‘critical habitat’’ entry

for ‘‘Chub, Virgin River’’ and

‘‘Woundfin’’ under Fishes, to read

‘‘17.95(e)’’.

3. It is proposed to amend § 17.95(e)

by adding critical habitat of the Virgin

River chub (Gila robusta seminuda=G.

seminuda) and woundfin (Plagopterus

argentissimus) in the same alphabetical

order as these species occur in 17.11(h).

§ 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Virgin River Chub (Gila seminuda)

Legal descriptions for St. George

(Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield (Arizona)

were obtained from the 1987 Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) maps (Surface

Management Status 30×60 Minute

Quadrangle). Legal descriptions for

Overton (Nevada-Arizona) were

obtained from the 1989 BLM maps

(Surface Management Status 30×60

Minute Quadrangle). Critical habitat

areas proposed for the Virgin River chub

in each State are as follows:

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from its confluence with Ash-La

Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S.,

R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the Washington Fields

Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W.,

Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the Johnson Diversion in

T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to the Arizona-Utah

border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin

River from the Arizona-Utah border in

T.42N., R.13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to the Arizona-Nevada

border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin

River from the Arizona-Nevada border

in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake

Base and Meridian) to the highwater

level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E.,

Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Known constituent elements include

water, physical habitat, and biological

environment as required for each

particular life stage for each species.

Note: Map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
17306 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17307

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)

Legal descriptions for St. George

(Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield (Arizona)

were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps

(Surface Management Status 30×60

Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions

for Overton (Nevada-Arizona) were

obtained from the 1989 BLM maps

(Surface Management Status 30×60

Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat

areas proposed for the woundfin in each

State are as follows:

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from its confluence with Ash-La

Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S.,

R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the Washington Fields

Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W.,

Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the Johnson Diversion in

T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to the Arizona-Utah

border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin

River from the Arizona-Utah border in

T.42N., R. 13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to the Arizona-Nevada

border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin

River from the Arizona-Nevada border

in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake

Base and Meridian) to the highwater

level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E.,

Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Known constituent elements include

water, physical habitat, and biological

environment as required for each

particular life stage for each species.

Note: Map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
17308 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17309

4. The proposed rule published in the

Federal Register of May 18, 1994, pages

25875–25880, adding the Virgin

spinedace to § 17.11(h) is amended by

revising the critical habitat entry for

‘‘Spinedace, Virgin’’ to read ‘‘17.95(e)’’.

5. The proposed rule published in the

Federal Register of May 18, 1994, pages

25875–25880, adding the Virgin

spinedace to § 17.11(h) is further

amended by adding critical habitat of

the Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda

mollispinis mollispinis) to § 17.95(e) in

the same alphabetical order as the

species occurs in 17.11(h).

§ 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

* * * * *

Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda

mollispinis mollispinis)

Legal descriptions for St. George

(Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield (Arizona)

were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps

(Surface Management Status 30 × 60

Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions

for Kanab (Utah-Arizona) were obtained

from the 1983 BLM maps (Surface

Management Status 30 × 60 Minute

Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas

proposed for the Virgin spinedace in

each State are as follows:

Arizona, Mohave County. Beaver Dam

Wash from the confluence with the

Virgin River in T.40N., R.15W., Sec. 4

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) upstream

1.3 km (0.8 mi) in T.40N., R15W., Sec.

5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Kane County. The East Fork of

the Virgin River from the falls in

Parunuweap Canyon in T.42S., R.9W.,

Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

its confluence with the North Fork of

the Virgin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec.

5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Kane County. Shunes Creek

from the Second Creek confluence in

T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 11 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to its confluence with the

East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S.,

R.10W., Sec. 4 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver

Dam Wash from the Narrows in T.39S.,

R.20W., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to 0.4 km (0.25 mi) upstream

of the confluence with East Bunker Peak

Wash in T.40S., R.19W., Sec. 5 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver

Dam Wash from Horse Canyon in

T.41S., R.19W., Sec. 31 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) downstream through

Lytle Ranch downstream to Iverson

Ranch in T.42S., R.20W., Sec. 13 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Moody

Wash from the lower end of Racer

Canyon in T.38S., R.17W. Sec. 33 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian) to just below

the Dixie National Forest Boundary in

T.39S., R.17W., Sec. 26 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Mogatsu

Creek from the falls downstream of

Bingham Ranch in T.39S., R.16W., Sec.

30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its

confluence with the Santa Clara River in

T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 14 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian).

Uath, Washington County. Santa Clara

River from Veyo Hot Springs in T.39S.,

R.16W., Sec. 32 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the upstream end of

Gunlock Reservoir in T.40S., R.17W.,

Sec. 29 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Santa Clara

River from downstream of the dam

forming Gunlock Reservoir in T.41S.,

R.17W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to its confluence with the

Virgin River in T.43S., R.15W., Sec. 6

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Ash Creek

from Toquerville Springs in T.40S.,

R.13W., Sec. 35 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to its confluence with the

Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. La Verkin

Creek from Chute Falls in T.40S.,

R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to its confluence with the

Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. North

Creek from the confluence of the Left

and Right Forks in T.40S., R.11W., Sec.

33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its

confluence with the Virgin River in

T.41S., R.12W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the confluence of Ash-La

Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S.,

R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The North

Fork of the Virgin River from the

Narrows in T.40S., R10W., Sec. 34 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian) to its

confluence with the East Fork of the

Virgin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the confluence of the East

and North Forks in T.42S., R.10W., Sec.

5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Quail Creek Diversion in T.41S.,

R.14W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin

River from the Quail Creek Diversion in

T.41S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to the confluence of AshLa Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W, Sec.

23) (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Known constituent elements include

water, physical habitat, and biological

environment as required for each

particular life stage for each species.

Note: Map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
17310 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Proposed Rules 17311

Dated: March 29, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

[FR Doc. 95–8301 Filed 3–31–95; 2:53 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M