[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17296-17311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8301]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD 22


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Determination of Critical Habitat for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and 
Virgin Spinedace and Notice of Public Hearing

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate 
critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda = G. robusta 
seminuda), the Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis), 
and the woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus). The Virgin River chub and 
wouldfin are listed as endangered; the Virgin spinedace has been 
proposed for listing as threatened (May 18, 1994), but the listing has 
not been finalized as yet. There is considerable overlap in critical 
habitat proposed for the three species, the proposed designation 
includes 330.8 km (206.8 mi) of the Virgin River and its tributaries in 
portions of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The Service proposes 151.7 km 
(94.8 mi) of critical habitat for the woundfin (approximately 13.5 
percent of its historical range); 151.7 km (94.8 mi) for the Virgin 
River chub (70.8 percent of its historical range, excluding the chub 
occupying the Muddy River); and 201.9 km (126.2 mi) for the Virgin 
spinedace (87.3 percent of its historical range). The majority of the 
land to be designated as critical habitat is under Federal or private 
ownership.
    All three fish species are endemic to the Virgin River Basin of 
southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and southeastern Nevada. The 
proposed critical habitat designation includes portions of the mainstem 
Virgin River and its tributaries, including the 100-year floodplain. 
This proposed critical habitat would result in additional review 
requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency 
actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to consider economic 
costs and benefits prior to making a final decision on the size and 
scope of critical habitat.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until June 5, 1995.
    A public hearing will be held from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with 
registration beginning at 4:30 p.m., on Monday, May 8, 1995. Requests 
for additional public hearings must be received by May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Requests for additional public hearings or comments and 
materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Field 
Office, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. The 
public hearing will be in the Garden Room at the St. George Hilton Inn, 
1450 South Hilton Drive, St. George, Utah. Comments and materials 
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours at the above address. Copies of comments 
and materials received also will be available for public inspection at 
the Washington County Public Library in St. George, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert D. Williams, Assistant 
Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office, at the above address, 
(801) 524-5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chub 
(Gila seminuda =G. robusta seminuda) are presently listed as endangered 
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis 
mollispinis) was proposed for listing on May 18, 1994, as threatened 
under the Act. In the subsequent text, all three species of fish are 
referred to as ``listed fishes'' even though the Virgin spinedace has 
only been proposed for listing at this time. These three fishes are all 
endemic to the Virgin River Basin. The Virgin River flows generally 
along the Hurricane Fault, which forms the boundary between the 
Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin. These two geologic provinces are 
quite dissimilar. The Colorado Plateau is characterized by horizontal-
lying strata eroded into canyons, plateaus, and mesas. Long, isolated 
mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys typify the Great 
Basin province. The Virgin River originates in south-central Utah, 
running in a southwest direction from Utah to northwestern Arizona, and 
southeastern Nevada for approximately 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles 
(mi)) before emptying into Lake Mead. Prior to the completion of 
Boulder (Hoover) Dam in 1935, the Muddy River in southeastern Nevada 
joined the Virgin River before the latter emptied into the Colorado 
River. These two rivers now flow separately into the Overton Arm of 
Lake Mead. [[Page 17297]] 
    These Virgin River fishes have declined in numbers due to the 
cumulative effects of environmental impacts which include dewatering 
from numerous diversion projects; proliferation of nonnative fishes; 
and alterations to natural flow, temperature, and sediment regimes.

Woundfin

    Based on early records, the original range of the woundfin extended 
from near the junction of the Salt and Verde Rivers at Tempe, Arizona, 
to the mouth of the Gila River at Yuma, Arizona (Gilbert and Scofield 
1898, Minckley 1973). Woundfin were also found in the mainstem Colorado 
River from Yuma (Jordan and Evermann 1896, Meek 1904, Follett 1961) 
upstream to the Virgin River in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and into La 
Verkin Creek, a tributary of the Virgin River in Utah (Gilbert and 
Scofield 1898, Snyder 1915, Miller and Hubbs 1960, Cross 1975). 
However, there is reason to believe that the woundfin occurred further 
upstream in the Verde, Salt, and Gila Rivers in Arizona.
    Except for the mainstem of the Virgin River, woundfin were 
extirpated from most of their historical range. Woundfin presently 
range from Pah Tempe Springs (also called La Verkin Springs) on the 
mainstem of the Virgin River and the lower portion of La Verkin Creek 
in Utah, downstream to Lake Mead. A single specimen was taken from the 
middle Muddy (Moapa) River, Clark County, Nevada, in the late 1960's 
and since that time no additional specimens have been collected (Deacon 
and Bradley 1972).
    Adult and juvenile woundfin inhabit runs and quiet waters adjacent 
to riffles with sand and sand/gravel substrates. Adults are generally 
found in habitats with water depths between 0.15 and 0.43 meters (m) 
(0.5 and 1.4 feet (ft)) with velocities between 0.24 and 0.49 meters 
per second (m/s) (0.8 and 1.6 feet per second ft/s)). Juveniles select 
areas with slower and deeper water, while fry are found in backwaters 
and stream margins which are often associated with growths of 
filamentous algae. Spawning takes place during the period of declining 
spring flows.

Virgin River Chub

    The Virgin River chub was described as a full species (Gila 
seminuda) in 1875 (Cope and Yarrow 1875) and it was thought to be 
restricted to the Virgin River between Hurricane, Utah, and its 
confluence with the Colorado River. However, Ellis (1914) considered 
this chub to be an intermediate between the roundtail chub (G. robusta) 
and bonytail chub (G. elegans), and reduced it to a subspecies (G. 
robusta seminuda) of the roundtail chub.
    Until recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other 
authorities (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Minckley 1973, Smith et al. 
1977) have treated the chub in the Muddy River as a separate, unnamed 
subspecies of roundtail chub (Moapa roundtail chub = G. robusta ssp.). 
Since 1982, the Service has considered this chub to be a Category 2 
candidate species (47 FR 58455, 54 FR 556, 56 FR 58804).
    In a recent taxonomic study of the genus Gila, DeMarais et al. 
(1992) asserted that full species status (G. seminuda) was warranted 
for the Virgin River chub. The Muddy River form is included in G. 
seminuda, although it is a separate population. Gila seminuda most 
likely arose through hybridization involving G. robusta and G. elegans. 
These taxonomic revisions were recently accepted by the Service, 
American Fisheries Society, and the American Society of Ichthyologists 
and Herpetologists Fish Names Committee (Mr. Joseph S. Nelson, American 
Fish Society, in litt. 1993). This proposal to designate critical 
habitat does not include the Muddy River form of the Virgin River chub. 
However, the Service will review the status of the Muddy River 
population of the Virgin River chub.
    The Virgin River chub was first collected in the 1870's from the 
Virgin River near Washington, Utah. Historically, it was collected from 
the mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs, Utah, downstream to 
the confluence with the Colorado River in Nevada (Cope and Yarrow 1875, 
Cross 1975). Presently, the Virgin River chub occurs within the 
mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs downstream to at least the 
Mesquite Diversion.
    Adult and juvenile Virgin River chub select deep runs or pools with 
slow to moderate velocities containing boulders or other instream cover 
over a sand substrate. Generally, larger fish occupy deeper habitats; 
however, there is no apparent correlation with velocity. Chub are 
generally found in velocities ranging up to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s).

Virgin Spinedace

    The historical distribution of the Virgin spinedace is not well 
known. Holden (1977) speculated that the species occurred in most of 
the clear water tributaries and in several mainstem reaches of the 
Virgin River in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and 
southeastern Nevada. Museum records and species survey information 
support this historic distribution (Rinne 1971, Cross 1975, Valdez et 
al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993).
    Over the last 50 years, there has been a decline in the range of 
the species with about a 37-40 percent (83 km, 52 mi) habitat loss due 
to human impacts (Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993). Stream 
reaches that once contained spinedace (but are now dewatered) include 
portions of the East Fork of Beaver Dam Wash, the Santa Clara River 
downstream Gunlock Reservoir, Mogatsu Creek, Ash Creek near 
Toquerville, Leeds Creek, and the mainstem Virgin River between Quail 
Creek Diversion and Pah Tempe Springs. Current distribution of the 
spinedace includes portions of the mainstem Virgin River and 11 of its 
tributaries and subtributaries including the East Fork Virgin River, 
Shunes Creek, North Fork Virgin River, North Creek, La Verkin Creek, 
Ash Creek, Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam Wash, Coal Pits Wash, Moody 
Wash, and Mogatsu Creek.
    Virgin spinedace are found in runs or pools in clear streams. The 
presence of cover either in the form of vegetation, boulders, debris, 
or undercut banks is also characteristic. Substrates in occupied 
habitats include rubble/cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Spinedace are 
found in streams at depths of 0.1 to 0.9 m (0.3 to 2.9 ft) and with 
current velocities between 0.1 and 1.0 m/s (0.3 to 3.2 ft/s).

Importance of the Virgin River Floodplain

    Components of the river system include the mainstem channel in 
which water is maintained most or all of the year and the upland 
habitats which are inundated during spring flows. These seasonally 
flooded habitats contribute to the biological productivity of the river 
system by providing nutrients (allochthonous energy) and terrestrial 
food sources to aquatic organisms (Hesse and Sheets 1993). 
Additionally, Hynes (1970) reported that streams with higher 
percentages of vegetation contained higher densities of aquatic 
invertebrates. The Virgin River contains little aquatic vegetation and 
produces a minimum of autochthonous (indigenous) organic matter. Thus, 
the fauna of the Virgin River is dependent on allochthonous energy 
inputs from the floodplain that provide much of the food base.
    Studies of the major floodplain rivers of the world have documented 
the value of flooded bottomlands and uplands for fish production 
(Welcomme 1979). Due to their mobility, many species of fishes 
[[Page 17298]] are able to take advantage of food sources from flooded 
lands. Indeed, many fishes have developed migratory strategies that 
allow them to utilize inundated areas as spawning, nursery, and 
foraging areas (Lowe-McConnel 1975, Welcomme 1979). In this context, a 
rich food source of terrestrial origin may enhance fish growth, 
fecundity, and/or survival. Use of these inundated floodplains 
increases the energy available for spawning and is necessary for 
reproductive success in some species (Finger and Stewart 1987). In many 
cyprinid fishes, including these Virgin River natives, spawning is 
associated with seasonal rains and flooding of rivers. Flood-related 
changes in the river environment not only induce spawning for many 
species, but these changes comprise the ultimate factors limiting the 
survival of eggs, larvae, or young fish (Hontela and Stacey 1990).
    Loss of floodplain habitats in the Missouri River Basin has reduced 
fish biomass production as much as 98 percent (Karr and Schlosser 
1978). Inundation of floodplain habitats during spring flows also 
provides areas with warmer water temperatures, low velocity resting 
habitat, and cover from predation. Recent studies in the Colorado River 
system show that the life histories and welfare of native riverine 
fishes are linked to the maintenance of a natural or historic flow 
regimen (i.e., hydrological pattern of high spring and low autumn-
winter flows that vary in magnitude and duration depending on annual 
precipitation patterns and runoff from snowmelt) (Tyus and Karp 1989, 
1990). Minckley and Meffe (1987) suggest that loss of flooding will 
result in extirpation of many of the native fish species in the 
Colorado River system.

Previous Federal Actions

    The woundfin was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 
16047), and critical habitat was proposed on November 2, 1997 (42 FR 
57329). However, on March 6, 1979, the proposal for critical habitat 
was withdrawn (44 FR 12382) due to the 1978 amendments to the Act, 
which required proposals to be withdrawn if not finalized within 2 
years. A Woundfin Recovery Plan was originally approved in July 1979 
and subsequently revised on March 1, 1984. On July 24, 1985, the 
Service proposed the reintroduction of the woundfin into the Gila River 
drainage in Arizona and determined this population to be ``nonessential 
experimental'' in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act (50 FR 
30188).
    On August 23, 1978, the Service proposed the listing as endangered 
and the designation of critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (43 
FR 37668). This proposal was also withdrawn (45 FR 64853; September 30, 
1980), due to the 1978 amendments to the Act. The Virgin River chub was 
later listed as endangered on August 24, 1989 (54 FR 35305). Critical 
habitat was proposed on June 24, 1988 (51 FR 22849); however, the final 
determination was postponed. When the Virgin River chub was listed, the 
Muddy River form was omitted due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy. 
The Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan, which is under final 
preparation, includes the woundfin and Virgin River chub (but not the 
Muddy River form).
    The Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a threatened 
species on May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25875). A proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the spinedace was delayed because the Service felt that the 
three fish species would receive greater protection if critical habitat 
was designated simultaneously.
    On March 18, 1994, the U.S. District Court, Colorado (Court) 
ordered the Service to designate critical habitat for the Virgin River 
chub, woundfin, and Virgin spinedace (if listed before December 31, 
1994). The Court ordered that critical habitat be proposed no later 
than April 1, 1995, and be finalized by December 1, 1995.
    Although the listing of the Virgin spinedace has not been 
finalized, the designation of critical habitat is being proposed for 
it, in order to allow for public comment on all three species. The 
final rule for critical habitat designation will also reflect the 
listed status of the Virgin spinedace as of that date.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing 
under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) designate 
critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered 
or threatened. Critical habitat is now proposed for the woundfin, 
Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace.

Role of Critical Habitat in Species Conservation

    The designation of critical habitat is one of several measures 
available to assist in the conservation and recovery of a species. 
Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying 
areas that contain essential habitat features (primary constituent 
elements) regardless of whether or not the areas are currently occupied 
by the listed species. Such designations alert Federal agencies, 
States, the public, and other organizations to the areas' importance to 
the conservation and recovery of the species. Critical habitat also 
identifies areas that may require special management or protection 
considerations. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection 
under section 7 of the Act. This is in regards to actions carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency that are likely to adversely 
modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that Federal 
agencies consult with the Service on actions that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat.
    Designation of critical habitat only affects Federal actions that 
occur in the areas and does not automatically prohibit certain actions 
or create a management plan for a listed species. Such designation does 
not have a direct effect on habitat not specified as critical habitat. 
Critical habitat designation may increase protection of designated 
areas and assists in the recovery of species. Areas outside of critical 
habitat, containing one or more of the primary constituent elements, 
serve to maintain ecosystem integrity, thereby indirectly contributing 
to recovery.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Plan

    Recovery plans, developed in accordance with section 4(f) of the 
Act, address the steps needed to recover a species throughout its range 
and provide guidance, that may include population goals and 
identification of areas in need of protection or special management. In 
developing a recovery plan, the relationships between critical habitat 
and other current planning efforts should be evaluated. Recovery plans 
should recommend actions for managing designated critical habitat on 
Federal lands, as well as critical habitat under other 
landownership. [[Page 17299]] 

Primary Constituent Elements

    In determining areas for designation as critical habitat, the 
Service considers those physical and biological features that are 
essential for the conservation of the species. Such physical and 
biological features (in 50 CFR 424.12) include, but are not limited to, 
the following items:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, 
germination, or seed dispersal; and generally
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    In addition, the Act stipulates that areas containing these 
elements may require special management considerations or protection.
    In determining critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes, the 
Service focused on the primary physical and biological elements 
essential to the conservation of each species. The Service is required 
to list these elements together with a description of the designated 
critical habitat.
    The primary constituent elements determined necessary for the 
survival and recovery of these Virgin River fishes include, but are not 
limited to:
    Water--A quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e., 
temperature, dissolved oxygen, contaminants, nutrients, turbidity, 
etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in accordance with a 
hydrologic regime that is identified for the particular life stage for 
each species.
    Physical Habitat--Areas of the Virgin River Basin that are 
inhabited or potentially habitable by fish for use in spawning, 
nursing, feeding, and rearing, or corridors between such areas. In 
addition to river channels, these areas also include side channels, 
secondary channels, backwaters, springs, and other areas which provide 
spawning, nursery, feeding, or rearing habitats, or access to these 
habitats.
    Biological Environment--Food supply, predation, and competition are 
important elements of the biological environment and are considered 
components of this constituent element. Food supply is a function of 
nutrient supply, productivity, and availability to each life stage of 
the species. Predation and competition, although considered normal 
components of this environment, may be out of balance due to nonnative 
fish species in many areas.
    Habitat requirements for the listed fishes vary. In designating an 
area as critical habitat for more than one of the species, the Service 
assessed the area for all applicable constituent elements. Specific 
information on primary constituent elements for each of these fish 
species is given in the following section.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    Woundfin--The proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
woundfin is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the confluence of 
Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. The Virgin River was divided 
into five distinct reaches (due to its current functions 
hydrologically) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8 mi) as measures 
along the center line of each reach (Table 1). This represents 
approximately 13.5 percent of the woundfin's historical habitat. Due to 
the lack of historical data on the distribution of the woundfin in 
Arizona, this number is only an estimate. These proposed reaches flow 
through both public and private lands (Table 2).
    Virgin River Chub--The proposed designation of critical habitat for 
the Virgin River chub is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the 
confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. Due to the 
hydrological current functions of the Virgin River, it was divided into 
five distinct reaches (Table 1) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8 
mi). This represents approximately 70.8 percent of the historical 
habitat within the Virgin River Basin, excluding the range historically 
occupied by the Muddy River chub population. These reaches flow through 
both public and private land (Table 2).
    Virgin Spinedace--The Service proposes 16 reaches within the Virgin 
River Basin as critical habitat for the Virgin spinedace (Table 1) and 
these reaches total 201.9 km (126.2 mi). This represents approximately 
87.7 percent of the historical habitat for this species (230.2 km or 
143.9 mi) (Valdez et al. 1991). Critical habitat is being proposed for 
the mainstem Virgin River, the East and North Forks of the Virgin 
River, Beaver Dam Wash, Shunes Creek, Moody Wash, Mogatsu Creek, the 
Santa Clara River, Ash Creek, La Verkin Creek, and North Creek. These 
reaches flow through both public and private lands (Table 2).

            Table 1.--Proposed Critical Habitat in Kilometers (Miles) for Virgin River Listed Fishes            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          State                 Woundfin          Virgin River Chub     Virgin Spinedace        State Totals<SUP>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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>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<SUP>a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Ownership                          Woundfin          Virgin River Chub     Virgin Spinedace  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal<SUP>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)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17300]]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                
      Total...................................           151.7 (94.8          151.7 (94.8)         201.9 (126.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>aLandownership was typically the same on both riverbanks. However, in several reaches (1.5 km or less) the river
  formed a boundary between Federal and private lands. Based upon the location of the channel, these reaches    
  were identified as either Federal or private, not both. Therefore, distances may be doubled to represent      
  ownership along both riverbanks.                                                                              
<SUP>bFederal lands include those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park        
  Service.                                                                                                      

Virgin River Floodplain

    The riparian zone within the 100-year floodplain of the Virgin 
River reaches is being proposed as critical habitat, but only those 
portions of the 100-year floodplain that contain constituent elements 
are being designated for critical habitat. Developed lands not 
considered critical habitat within the 100-year floodplain boundary 
include, but are not limited to, existing paved roads, bridges, parking 
lots, dikes, levees, railroad tracks, railroad trestles, water 
diversion canals outside of natural stream channels, active gravel 
pits, cultivated agricultural land, and residential, commercial, and 
industrial developments. These developed areas do not contain primary 
constituent elements and will not contribute to the species' recovery.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that activities Federal 
agencies authorize, fund, or carry out do not destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. This is in addition to the 
requirement of section 7(a)(2) that Federal agencies insure that their 
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. 
A Federal agency must consult with the Service if a proposed action of 
theirs affects a listed species or its critical habitat. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified in 50 CFR part 402.
    Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(4) of the Act and 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require that Federal agencies 
confer with the Service on any action which will destroy or adversely 
modify the designated areas. Conference reports provide advisory 
conservation recommendations to assist a Federal agency in identifying 
and resolving conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action.
    If a Federal agency requests consultation under section 7 of the 
Act, and the Service concurs, a formal conference report may then be 
issued. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain 
an opinion prepared in accordance with formal consultation procedures 
as if the critical habitat were already designated. Such a formal 
conference report is adopted as the biological opinion pursuant to 50 
CFR 402.10(d) when the critical habitat is designated, provided no 
significant information or changes in the action occur that would alter 
the content of the opinion.
    Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent 
elements within the defined reaches and their contribution to the 
species recovery, and includes consideration of the species' biological 
needs and factors that will contribute to its recovery (i.e., 
distribution, numbers, reproduction, and viability). In evaluating 
Federal actions, the Service will consider the action's impact on 
factors used to determine critical habitat of the Virgin River listed 
fishes. These factors include the primary constituent elements of 
water, physical habitat, and biological environment. The ability of an 
area to provide these constituent elements into the future and the 
reaches' capability to contribute to the recovery of the species will 
also be considered. The potential level of allowable impacts or habitat 
reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a case-by-
case basis during section 7 consultation.
    For species with multiple critical habitat reaches, each reach has 
local and rangewide roles in contributing to the conservation of the 
species. The loss of a single reach may not jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species, but it could significantly reduce the 
critical habitat's contribution to recovery of a species. In some 
cases, the destruction of a reach proposed as critical habitat could 
result in the loss of an entire population, thereby preculding any 
recovery and reducing the likelihood of survival of the species. The 
proposed critical habitat reaches in the Virgin River Fishes Recovery 
Plan include areas important for recovery of these fishes.

Examples of Proposed Actions

    Section 4(b)(8) requires for any proposed or final regulation; 
designation of critical habitat, a brief description and evaluation of 
those activities that may adversely modify or destroy such habitat or 
those activities that may be affected by such designation. Destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as a direct or 
indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 
habitat for the survival and recovery of a listed species. Some 
activities disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within 
designated critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes. These 
activities include actions that reduce the volume and timing of water 
flows, destroy or eliminate access to spawning and nursery habitat, 
prevent recruitment, impact food sources, contaminate the river, or 
increase predation and competition by nonnative fishes. In contrast, 
other activities such as recreation (i.e., boating, hiking, hunting, 
etc.), some types of farming and ranching, may not adversely modify 
critical habitat.
    Areas designated as critical habitat for the Virgin River listed 
fishes support a number of proposed and existing commercial and 
noncommercial activities. Some activities that will affect critical 
habitat include construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities, 
irrigation, flood control, bank stabilization, oil and gas drilling, 
mining, grazing, stocking or introduction of nonnative fishes, 
municipal water supplies, and resort facilities. Federal activities 
include the Sandstone Reservoir, Pah Tempe Pipeline, Halfway Wash 
Project, Lake Powell Pipeline, water wheeling, water leasing, 
Washington Fields Pumpback, and dewatering of springs for municipal and 
industrial purposes. Commercial activities that will not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat include river float trips and guided 
sport fishing. Noncommercial activities such as boating, fishing, and 
various activities associated with nature appreciation are largely 
associated with private recreation and most likely will not affect 
critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act only applies to Federal actions 
(i.e., projects, permits, loans, etc.) and each Federal action must be 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. [[Page 17301]] 

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act considers economic and other relevant 
impacts in determining whether to exclude any proposed areas from the 
final designation of critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas 
from critical habitat designation when the costs or impacts outweigh 
the benefits, provided that exclusion will not result in extinction of 
a species. An economic analysis was conducted on the costs of the 
proposed critical habitat designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). The 
study area for the economic analysis encompassed portions of the Virgin 
River Basin in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada.
    The biological requirements for the recovery of these listed fishes 
and regional economic activities were assessed and form the basis of 
the economic analysis. The biological requirements include adjustments 
in water diversions in the Virgin River Basin and/or mitigation of 
nonflow-related activities within the 100-year floodplain. The effects 
of recovery efforts on future water depletions in the basin also were 
taken into consideration. The impacts of these possible changes on 
current and prospective economic activities were estimated using input-
output models for each county and region in the Virgin River Basin. 
Direct and indirect impacts on employment, wages, and State and Federal 
revenues derived from business and personal income taxes were also 
factored into the exclusion process. The results of these models are 
found in the economic analysis document prepared for determining 
critical habitat for these particular fish species (Brookshire et al. 
1995). This complete economic analysis is part of the administrative 
record which is available to the public upon request.

Economic Analysis Methodology

    The economic analysis provides insights into the reallocation of 
resources from the perspectives of both economic efficiency and 
distribution or equity. The efficiency criterion determines whether 
designating areas as critical habitat produces any net gains to 
society. The equity criterion looks at the resulting distribution of 
gains and losses. The study region for which the economic analysis was 
conducted includes Washington and Iron Counties in Utah, Clark County 
in Nevada, and the portion of Mohave County in Arizona located north of 
the Colorado River. The time frame chosen for the study encompasses a 
45-year period (1995 through 2040) projected to recover the listed 
fishes.
    Washington County, Utah, and Clark County, Nevada are two counties 
that will be directly affected by any actions taken by the Service on 
behalf of the listed fishes. Presently, these counties are among the 
fastest growing areas in the United States. From 1980 to 1990, 
Washington County's population grew by 52 percent, while Clark County's 
grew by 62.5 percent. The Virgin River also flows through a portion of 
Mohave County in Arizona. This area has a very small population and a 
modest economic base. Iron County, Utah, (lies north of Washington 
County) is a rapidly growing area that is economically closely linked 
to Washington County. Although the Virgin River does not flow through 
Iron County, any economic impacts on Washington County would be felt in 
Iron County as well.
    The linkage between the biological requirements for the survival 
and recovery of the listed fishes and economic activities in the region 
formed the basis for the economic analysis. As an index of these 
biological requirements, adjustments made in the operations of the 
Quail Creek Reservoir and agricultural diversions on the Virgin River 
were included. The effects of recovery efforts on projected future 
water development and delivery projects were taken into consideration. 
The direct effects on the agencies responsible for water development 
and delivery also were taken into consideration. The direct and 
indirect impacts of these possible changes on current and prospective 
economic activities were then estimated for each county and regional 
economy.
    One cannot predict the outcome of future section 7 consultations 
involving listed fishes in the region. Economic impacts associated with 
the critical habitat designation depends on the time required for the 
recovery of the listed fishes. County and regional economic impacts are 
of interest when considering the effects of critical habitat 
designations. County economic impacts are the direct and indirect 
impacts of the critical habitat designations on specific geographic 
areas. County economic impacts were analyzed using input-output (I-O) 
models that organize the basic accounting relationships that describe 
the production section of the economy (Brookshire et al. 1995). The I-O 
model is based on the assumption that all sectors of the economy are 
related, and the production of a good or service can be described by a 
recipe whose ingredients are the outputs from other sectors of the 
economy. The primary inputs are labor, capital, and other raw 
resources. Through its multiplier analysis, the I-O model is capable of 
generating estimates of the changes in output for economic sectors, 
changes in employment, and changes in income due to the critical 
habitat designation. The models report total impacts resulting from 
interactions among the different sectors of the economy.
    Regional economic efficiency impacts refer to the overall net 
impacts on the regional economy after accounting for the effects of 
intercounty transfers. The goal of a regional efficiency analysis is to 
determine whether an action would have an overall positive or negative 
impact on the regional economy.
    A separate I-O model was developed for each county and focused on 
the direct and indirect impacts generated by the critical habitat 
designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). In most cases, impacts on a given 
county generated impacts on neighboring counties. Thus, it was 
necessary to investigate potential offsetting impacts. As a result, an 
I-O model was constructed that investigated the impacts for an entire 
region (all four counties).
    Economic activity for the models was estimated using Impact 
Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) 1990 data sets that were updated and 
projected through the year 2040, using data from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN data set 
contains 528 economic sectors that were aggregated to 16 sectors 
(Brookshire et al. 1995).
    The I-O models used in this study are essentially demand-side 
models. The conventional way to introduce impacts into such models is 
through a vector of changes in final demands. That is, the impacts 
reduce the regional demand for the output of the sector that 
experiences a direct impact. However, this method is not logical for 
determining effects on the agricultural sector because these effects 
are generated by converting agricultural sectors to municipal and 
industrial (M&I) uses. This conversion effectively reduces the quantity 
of output in the agricultural sectors by restricting the supply of a 
key input. For this reason, a mixed modeling approach was used, in 
which the agricultural impacts are represented as a supply-side shock 
used to generate an exogenous level of output in the agricultural 
sectors. The direct impacts in the remaining sectors are modeled as 
more typical changes in final demand.
    The study utilized three scenarios to explore the impacts of 
preserving the listed fishes upon the water needs of the projected 
human population. Projected [[Page 17302]] economic activity to the 
year 2040 in the Virgin River Basin, if no flows and habitat are 
protected to preserve the listed fishes, is compared to projected 
economic activity if flows and habitat are preserved for the fish. The 
baseline scenario represents a ``without fish'' projection of economic 
growth that is then compared to two ``with fish'' projections. All of 
the scenarios used the same population projection.
    The baseline ``without fish'' scenario (WOFBA) is based upon the 
water development plans of water districts in the Virgin River Basin: 
the Washington County Water Conservation District (WCWCD) and the Las 
Vegas Valley Water District. The ``without fish'' scenario determines 
how much water will be needed for municipal and industrial development 
in order to satisfy the population projections. This scenario accepts 
the Boyle (1994) water need projections under a limited conservation 
assumption. Thus, the water needs of the expanding population base are 
determined by a gallons-per-day-per-capita value, which assumes a level 
of conservation above the existing consumption observed in the region.
    The ``with fish'' structural scenario (WFST) asks the same 
questions as in the baseline scenario. The fundamental differences 
are--(1) Given the water needs associated with preserving the listed 
fishes, the structural water development projects must be brought on 
line at an earlier time, and (2) winter flows below Quail Creek 
Diversion remain at 2.4 cubic meters per second (86 cubic feet per 
second) rather than 1.4 cubic meters per second (50 cubic feet per 
second) as in the ``without fish'' scenario. Generally, the volume of 
water available from each new project is not directly affected by the 
actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes. However, the maintenance 
of the 86 cfs instream flow for the listed fishes results in less 
available water for municipal use. Therefore, water projects are 
required to come on line sooner to meet the projected demand. In 
addition, the agricultural retirement program must begin earlier. In 
this scenario, the per-capita consumption of water is the same as in 
the baseline.
    The ``with fish'' conservation scenario (WFCO) addresses the water 
needs of the growing population and the listed fishes through a 
combination of conservation and agricultural retirements. Conservation 
requires that per-capita consumption should fall. This is achieved 
through water-saving technologies incorporated into new homes and 
industrial facilities.
    All of the scenarios utilize the reallocation of agricultural water 
to urban and industrial uses and/or to habitat preservation for the 
listed fishes. Whether habitat is preserved for fish, water must be 
reallocated as the human population continues to grow. The impacts of 
critical habitat designation affect the timing of the reallocation of 
resources, and not the quantity of water that must be reallocated. The 
``with fish'' agricultural scenario produces three sets of direct 
impacts which are outlined below.
    (1) Agriculture--The conversion of use will occur earlier than 
under the baseline scenario, with the result that agricultural output 
is projected to decline under the ``with fish'' scenario. The method if 
incorporating this impact into the I-O models is to introduce a 
reduction in the allocation of water to the affected agricultural 
sectors. This translates directly into a specified reduction in the 
dollar value of the output of the agriculture sector. This mechanism 
was used to generate the decline in agricultural output in the baseline 
(WOFBA) projection. Water was pulled from agriculture to meet the needs 
of the growing M&I sectors. The growth in the nonagricultural sectors 
of the economy, reported in the WOFBA projection, is predicated on the 
conversion of water to M&I uses.
    (2) Water Delivery Projects--To meet the baseline growth projection 
for Washington County, several water delivery projects are under 
consideration. Supplying instream water for the fishes will require 
these projects to be built earlier than in the ``without fish'' 
baseline. This may result in an increased cost of water delivery. This 
cost increase is driven by increased user cost of the funds devoted to 
the projects. The increased cost of each accelerated project is 
incorporated as an increase in the weighted average cost per acre-foot 
of water delivered to the users. Thus, a new delivery project could 
increase in the user's total ``water bill.'' A cost increase for a 
basic input is incorporated into the I-O models as an equiproportionate 
reduction in the level of expenditure in each sector of the economy.
    (3) Electric Power--WCWCD runs two small hydroelectric power 
facilities and sells the power to the local grid. As a result of 
diversions that put water into the Virgin River to meet fish needs, 
power production may decline. For electricity users in the area, there 
is no impact as a result of this change because the amount of power 
produced is small and seasonal and the decline will be made up through 
load shifting. For the WCWCD, however, the change in the operation of 
the river would result in loss of revenue that must be made up through 
higher revenues from the sale of water. In this model, the impact is 
treated as a cost increase across all sectors in proportion to their 
level of economic activity. The motivation for the argument is 
identical to that presented in the previous section.
    To these three direct impacts, the ``with fish'' conservation 
scenario adds another class of direct impacts.
    (1) Conservation Expenditures--Expenditures for low-water-using 
appliances, landscaping changes, and other water-saving equipment 
(i.e., timed sprinklers) in new structures only. These expenditures are 
modeled as being offset by reductions elsewhere in the construction 
sector. For example, costs due to the installation of low-water-using 
appliances are offset through lower expenses elsewhere in the 
construction budget. To ensure that the analysis errs on the side of 
overstating the impacts, all conservation-related expenditures are 
assumed to be made outside the region, and all offsetting reductions in 
expenditures are assumed to be incurred by local suppliers. Thus, 
conservation-related expenditures are introduced into the I-O models as 
a negative impact for the region.
    It should be emphasized that the water delivery projects mentioned 
in these scenarios are necessary in any case to support the water needs 
of the region's growing population. Actions taken to preserve and 
restore the listed fish species in the Virgin River will affect only 
the timing of these projects. They are not the primary reason for why 
these projects must be built. The same is true for the agricultural 
conversions that are required to satisfy the region's growing municipal 
and industrial water needs. Using some Virgin River water to meet the 
listed fishes' requirements may affect the timing of agricultural 
retirements. However, it is not the root cause for the retirements nor 
will it involve condemnation of any agricultural lands. Agricultural 
conversions will continue to be voluntary market transactions.
    Actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes result in two types of 
direct impacts to the affected economies. The instream flows for the 
fishes require that the conversion of agricultural water to M&I uses 
take place earlier than without the fish consideration. It is important 
to note that actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect only the 
timing of this conversion.
    Setting aside instream flows for the listed fishes requires the 
timing of some planned water delivery projects to be 
[[Page 17303]] altered. Actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect 
only the timing of water delivery projects that are required to support 
the growing human population.

Results of the Economic Analysis

    The Virgin River Basin has an economy that is service-oriented, 
thus reflecting the popularity of the region as a retirement and 
recreation area. Employment, earnings, and tax revenues are reported 
for each of the sectors analyzed in the I-O models, as well as for the 
regional economy. The three scenarios investigated in this study are 
based on the assumption of sustained regional population growth rates 
during the 45-year study period, even though a decline is expected as 
desirable building sites become scarce. The growing population's water 
needs will be met by constructing a series of dams to increase the 
region's water supply for municipal and industrial uses. This will also 
improve water quality in the Virgin River. In addition, retirement of 
agricultural land is expected when water and agricultural land are used 
for other purposes.
    The Act requires that the economic effects of designating critical 
habitat be computed separately from the total economic effects of 
listing and critical habitat designation. Table 3 summarizes the 
effects of critical habitat designation under the WFST and WFCO impact 
scenarios. These effects are reported for the entire Virgin River 
region, including Washington County and Clark Counties.

  Table 3.--County and Regional-Level Present Value and Annualized Incremental Critical Habitat Impacts (1990 $ 
                                       Millions) (3 Percent Discount Rate)                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Output          Employment         Earnings         Tax revenues   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WFST vs WOFBA:                                                                                                  
  Washington:                                                                                                   
    Present Value.....................  -47.496.........  ................  -13.617.........  -6.182            
    Percent Deviation from WOFBA......  -0.0016.........  -0.0019.........  -0.0016.........  -0.0016           
    Annualized Values.................  -1.947..........  -26.............  -0.558..........  -0.253            
  Clark:                                                                                                        
    Present Value.....................  -10.63..........  ................  -0.827..........  -0.632            
    Percent Deviation from WOFBA......  -0.00001........  -0.0001.........  0...............  0                 
    Annualized Values.................  -0.428..........  -1..............  -0.034..........  -0.026            
  Region:                                                                                                       
    Present Value.....................  -59.818.........  ................  -14.961.........  -6.283            
    Percent Deviation from WOFBA......  -0.0001.........  -0.0001.........  0...............  -0.00001          
    Annualized Values.................  -2.453..........  -30.............  -0.613..........  -0.258            
WFCO vs. WOFBA:                         Output..........  Employment......  Earnings........  Tax Revenues      
  Washington:                                                                                                   
    Present Value.....................  -13.742.........  ................  -2.065..........  -0.133            
    Percent Deviation form WOFBA......  -0.00046........  -0.00011........  -0.00024........  -0.00003          
    Annualized Values.................  -0.563..........  4...............  -0.085..........  -0.005            
  Region:                                                                                                       
    Present Value.....................  -20.938.........  ................  -1.12...........  -1.476            
    Percent Deviation from WOFBA......  0...............  0...............  0...............  0                 
    Annualized values.................  -0.858..........  4...............  -0.046..........  -0.061            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the WFST scenario, the present value of output changes in the 
Washington County economy due to critical habitat designation is -$1.95 
million annually. This constitutes 0.0016 percent of the present value 
of the baseline stream of output (WOFBA). Employment and earnings 
effects are presented in the report and are similar to that of the 
output effects.
    For Clark County, the output effects of the critical habitat 
designation are -$0.43 million annually. The baseline economy of Clark 
County is much larger than that of Washington County. Consequently, the 
effects of the designation of critical habitat on the economy are 
smaller. The cumulative output effects represent only 0.00001 percent 
of the baseline level of economic activity. Both the earnings and tax 
revenue effects are too small to be reliably reported as deviations 
from the baseline level of economic activity.
    For the region as a whole, the output effect of designating 
critical habitat is -$2.45 million annually (0.0001 percent). The other 
aggregate effects are of similar relative magnitudes.
    Water use conservation can significantly mitigate the effects of 
designating critical habitat for these listed fishes. This is also true 
for the critical habitat effects alone. Under the WFCO scenario, the 
present value of the output changes in Washington County is -$13.7 
million, 0.00046 percent of the baseline level of activity. For the 
region as a whole, the output effects of designating critical habitat 
are -$20.9 million, an amount too small to calculate as a percentage of 
the baseline. There are no conservation scenario impacts for Clark 
County for reasons discussed later.

National Efficiency Effects

    To obtain true measures of national efficiency impacts, exact 
welfare changes must be computed. These are calculated as changes in 
aggregate household utility. In general, I-O models are not capable of 
producing such values because they lack a fully modeled household 
sector. However, reasonable approximations may be obtained through 
aggregate factor payments. These omit surplus measures (producer and 
consumer) and hence understate the aggregate changes in national 
efficiency. They do, however, provide a reasonable approximation under 
certain assumptions.
    In many applications of I-O analysis for use as inputs to a cost-
benefit analysis, aggregate factor payments (value added) are used to 
represent the national efficiency effect of a policy change or action. 
This measure is correct only for cases in which the value-added change 
can be attributed solely to the policy change or action undertaken. In 
the case of the listed fishes, this assumption is reasonable because 
all changes in resource allocation can be attributed to actions taken 
on behalf of the fishes by virtue of the methodology followed in this 
study.
    Including secondary effects in computing national efficiency 
impacts is valid because these effects are technological in nature 
rather than pure [[Page 17304]] transfers. That is, the linkages in the 
economy between productive sectors arise from the basic production 
functions in the economy. Thus, a direct impact occurring in one sector 
of the economy will generate ripple effects throughout the economy. 
Such effects are solely attributable to the initial direct impact.
    The I-O model permits computation of this factor income, and it may 
be used to measure the national efficiency effects of various changes 
in the economy, such as those introduced by actions taken on behalf of 
the listed fishes. Aggregate factor payments are computed for the 
baseline (WOFBA) scenario and for the ``with fish'' scenarios (WFST and 
WFCO).
    The factor payments capture the value added from the production 
side of the local economy. Because some of the output change is 
captured through leakages to the rest of the world (principally the 
United States), the total factor payments changes will be smaller than 
the total output changes.
    Based on these results, it is not surprising that the effects of 
the factor payments are small for the county-level and regional 
analysis. Under the WFST scenario, the efficiency losses to the nation 
are a $32.2 million reduction in value added. The annualized value of 
this reduction is -$1.32 million. With water conservation measures, the 
cumulative change (over the 45-year period) in value added is -$10.68 
million (-$0.438 million as an annualized value). Water conservation 
mitigates most of the impacts associated with the critical habitat 
designation.
    For Washington County, the present value of the cumulative changes 
(over the 45-year period) in value added is -$24.62 million for the 
WFST scenario. With the inclusion of water conservation measures, this 
value falls to -$8.153 million (annualized value -$0.764 million).
    For Clark County, the present value of the cumulative changes (over 
the 45-year period) is -$4.649 million (annualized value is -$0.191 
million).

Conclusions of the Economic Analysis

    The three described impact scenarios were analyzed and it is useful 
to distinguish them in summarizing the economic effects of actions 
taken on behalf of the listed fishes. The baseline scenario (WOFBA) 
represents the way in which the county-level and regional economies 
would grow over the 45-year study period if no actions were taken to 
protect the listed species. The entire region is projected to 
experience population growth at rates well above the national average. 
Projected population growth and economic development will lead to 
shifts in resource use. Consequently, agricultural water will be 
converted to M&I uses resulting in a decline in agricultural output. At 
the same time, several required water delivery projects are planned to 
provide water to sustain the projected growth levels.
    The WFST scenario takes the baseline regional projection and 
introduces measures designed to protect and recover the listed fishes. 
These measures result in more rapid conversion of agricultural water 
and the acceleration of some water delivery projects. Thus, 
agricultural production declines more quickly under the WFST scenario. 
Water costs also rise as a result of the earlier development of these 
projects, and the effect is a reduced level of final demand in all 
sectors.
    In summary, all of the economic effects of the WFST scenario 
indicate that preserving and recovering the listed fishes will have a 
relatively small impact on the overall economy. Some sectors will 
experience greater declines than others, but the overall decline in 
economic activity is projected to be small.
    Since water usage rates in Washington County are high compared to 
other southwestern cities, a conservation scenario (WFCO) was analyzed. 
In this scenario, consumption levels were reduced through the use of 
water-conserving appliances, fixtures, and landscaping, applied to new 
construction only. Conservation is not without some cost. These costs 
were introduced into the models in the form of crowding-out other 
expenditures. Thus, construction costs were projected to increase. 
Offsetting this cost increase are the savings that will result from 
delaying the planned construction of new water delivery facilities. A 
further offset is provided because agricultural water is converted to 
M&I uses at a slower pace.
    The overall effect of conservation is an almost complete mitigation 
of the economic effects associated with actions undertaken on behalf of 
the listed fishes. In fact, by the latter part of the study period, 
there are negative effects only in the agriculture and construction 
sectors. However, latter effects are likely overstated in the analysis 
due to the extreme nature of the complete crowding-out assumption.
    The Service has prepared detailed documents further explaining the 
biology of each fish species (Maddux et al. 1995) and the economic 
analysis process used to determine critical habitat (Brookshire et al. 
1995). These documents are available to supplement this notice and for 
public review. Copies may be obtained by contacting the field office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Available Conservation Measures

    The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a 
means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 
species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of listed 
species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that ``* * * all Federal 
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and 
threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 
of the purposes of this Act.''
    The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through various 
mechanisms, such as section 7 (requiring Federal agencies to further 
the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs and 
insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the continued 
existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat), section 9 (prohibition of taking of 
listed species), section 10 (research permits and habitat conservation 
plans), section 6 (cooperative State and Federal grants), land 
acquisition, and research. The section 7 requirement that Federal 
agencies consult with the Service if their actions may impact critical 
habitat enables the Service to assess Federal activities that may 
impair survival and recovery potential, thus ensuring that such actions 
are considered in relation to the goals and recommendations of the 
recovery plan.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service finds that any final action resulting from this 
proposal be accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, the Service 
requests comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned 
government agencies, Indian Nations, the scientific community, 
commercial interests, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. Comments are particularly sought concerning:
    (1) The location and reasons why any Federal or non-Federal lands 
(either proposed critical habitat or additional areas) should or should 
not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of 
the Act;
    (2) Current and planned activities in the vicinity of proposed 
critical habitat areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical 
habitat;
    (3) Other physical and biological features that are essential to 
the conservation of the species and in need of special management or 
protection; [[Page 17305]] 
    (4) Specific information on the scale, location, and distribution 
of primary constituent elements on all ownership and land designations;
    (5) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the 
woundfin, Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace depend;
    (6) Information on the economic benefits and costs that would 
result from this proposed designation of critical habitat;
    (7) Data and information relevant to determining whether the 
benefits of excluding a particular area from critical habitat outweigh 
the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat;
    (8) The methods and thresholds the Service might use in determining 
whether the costs of designating an area outweigh the benefits of 
designation;
    (9) Methods of analysis useful in evaluating economic and other 
relevant impacts;
    (10) Information regarding the suitability or unsuitability of 
critical habitat boundaries of the 100-year floodplain (as defined on 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
(FIRMs));
    (11) Information about areas of land or water located within the 
outer boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, but that do not 
provide primary constituent elements and thus can be excluded. Of 
particular interest are means to describe these areas of land within 
specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard 
topographical maps.
    The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
the comments and any additional information received by the Service, 
and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs 
from this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal, 
if requested within 45 days from date of publication of this proposal 
in the Federal Register. Requests for a hearing must be made in writing 
and addressed to the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section). The Service has arranged for a public hearing to be 
held on May 8, 1995, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with registration beginning 
at 4:30 p.m., at the St. George Hilton Inn, 1450 South Hilton Drive, 
St. George, Utah.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as 
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted 
pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 
rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule 
concerning public projects and private activities within the proposed 
critical habitat, significant economic impacts will not result from 
this action. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information 
collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities 
by this action, and the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as 
defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). This rule does not require a federalism assessment under 
Executive Order 12612 because it would not have any significant 
federalism effects as described in the order.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited is available upon request 
from the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposal are Henry R. Maddux and 
Janet A. Mizzi of the Service's Salt Lake City Field Office; Selena 
J. Werdon of the Service's Nevada State Office; and Lesley A. 
Fitzpatrick of the Service's Arizona State Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the ``critical 
habitat'' entry for ``Chub, Virgin River'' and ``Woundfin'' under 
Fishes, to read ``17.95(e)''.
    3. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat 
of the Virgin River chub (Gila robusta seminuda=G. seminuda) and 
woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) in the same alphabetical order as 
these species occur in 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

Virgin River Chub (Gila seminuda)

    Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield 
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle). Legal 
descriptions for Overton (Nevada-Arizona) were obtained from the 1989 
BLM maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle). 
Critical habitat areas proposed for the Virgin River chub in each State 
are as follows:
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from its confluence with 
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington 
Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt 
Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson 
Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 
the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Utah 
border in T.42N., R.13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the 
Arizona-Nevada border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Nevada 
border in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the 
highwater level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base 
and Meridian).
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

    Note: Map follows.

                                                 BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17306]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.000


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C [[Page 17307]] 
Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus)

    Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield 
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps (Surface Management 
Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions for Overton 
(Nevada-Arizona) were obtained from the 1989 BLM maps (Surface 
Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas 
proposed for the woundfin in each State are as follows:
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from its confluence with 
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington 
Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt 
Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson 
Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 
the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Utah 
border in T.42N., R. 13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the 
Arizona-Nevada border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Nevada 
border in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the 
highwater level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base 
and Meridian).
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

    Note: Map follows.
                                                 BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17308]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.001



BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 17309]]

    4. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18, 
1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h) 
is amended by revising the critical habitat entry for ``Spinedace, 
Virgin'' to read ``17.95(e)''.
    5. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18, 
1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h) 
is further amended by adding critical habitat of the Virgin spinedace 
(Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) to Sec. 17.95(e) in the same 
alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *
Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis)
    Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield 
(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps (Surface Management 
Status 30  x  60 Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions for Kanab 
(Utah-Arizona) were obtained from the 1983 BLM maps (Surface Management 
Status 30  x  60 Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas proposed 
for the Virgin spinedace in each State are as follows:
    Arizona, Mohave County. Beaver Dam Wash from the confluence with 
the Virgin River in T.40N., R.15W., Sec. 4 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) upstream 1.3 km (0.8 mi) in T.40N., R15W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake 
Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Kane County. The East Fork of the Virgin River from the falls 
in Parunuweap Canyon in T.42S., R.9W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to its confluence with the North Fork of the Virgin River in 
T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Kane County. Shunes Creek from the Second Creek confluence in 
T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 11 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence 
with the East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 4 (Salt 
Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from the Narrows in 
T.39S., R.20W., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 0.4 km (0.25 
mi) upstream of the confluence with East Bunker Peak Wash in T.40S., 
R.19W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from Horse Canyon in 
T.41S., R.19W., Sec. 31 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) downstream 
through Lytle Ranch downstream to Iverson Ranch in T.42S., R.20W., Sec. 
13 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Moody Wash from the lower end of Racer 
Canyon in T.38S., R.17W. Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to just 
below the Dixie National Forest Boundary in T.39S., R.17W., Sec. 26 
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Mogatsu Creek from the falls downstream of 
Bingham Ranch in T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) 
to its confluence with the Santa Clara River in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 14 
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Uath, Washington County. Santa Clara River from Veyo Hot Springs in 
T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 32 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the upstream 
end of Gunlock Reservoir in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 29 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Santa Clara River from downstream of the 
dam forming Gunlock Reservoir in T.41S., R.17W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base 
and Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.43S., 
R.15W., Sec. 6 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. Ash Creek from Toquerville Springs in 
T.40S., R.13W., Sec. 35 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence 
with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. La Verkin Creek from Chute Falls in 
T.40S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence 
with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. North Creek from the confluence of the 
Left and Right Forks in T.40S., R.11W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.12W., 
Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of 
Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 
(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The North Fork of the Virgin River from 
the Narrows in T.40S., R10W., Sec. 34 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 
its confluence with the East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S., 
R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of 
the East and North Forks in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and 
Meridian) to the Quail Creek Diversion in T.41S., R.14W., Sec. 36 (Salt 
Lake Base and Meridian).
    Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Quail Creek 
Diversion in T.41S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 
the confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W, Sec. 23) (Salt 
Lake Base and Meridian).
    Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and 
biological environment as required for each particular life stage for 
each species.

    Note: Map follows.

                                                 BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
[[Page 17310]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C [[Page 17311]] 
    Dated: March 29, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-8301 Filed 3-31-95; 2:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M