February 2003

Prepared for:

Division of Economics
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203

Prepared by:

Industrial Economics, Incorporated
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1     Description of Species and Habitat
1.2     Proposed Critical Habitat
1.3     Framework for Analysis
1.4     Methodological Approach
1.5     Information Source

2        RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION
2.1     Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas
2.2     Baseline Elements

3        SECTION 7 IMPACTS
3.1     Categories of Economic Impacts Associated with Section 7 Implementation
3.2     Activities Potentially Affected by Section 7
3.3     Project Modifications Arising from Section 7 Consultation
3.4     Secondary Impacts on the Regional Economy
3.5     Summary of Section 7 Impacts

4        ESTIMATED SECTION 7 COSTS
4.1     Estimated Costs of Section 7 Consultation
4.2     Estimated Costs of Project Modifications
4.3     Total Section 7 Costs
4.4     Key Assumptions
4.5     Potential Impacts on Small Entitie

5        POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT
5.1     Assigning Benefits on a Unit-By-Unit Basis and to the Critical Habitat Designation
5.2     Categories of Benefits

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
A        Relevant Baseline Regulations
B        Activities Leading to Section 7 Consultation on the Gulf Sturgeon
C        Potential Impacts on Small Entities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts that may result from the proposed critical habitat designation for the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Division of Economics and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

2. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) requires the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) (the Services) to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Services may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.

Framework for the Analysis

3. The focus of this economic analysis is on section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Federal agencies are required to consult with the Services whenever they propose an action that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat. Consultation under section 7 applies to activities that are carried out, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency, the designation of critical habitat will afford additional protections for species with respect to private activities that have a federal nexus.

4. This analysis first identifies land use activities within or in the vicinity of those areas being proposed for critical habitat that are likely to be affected by section 7 of the Act. The resulting impacts that section 7 can have on such activities constitute the upper-bound estimate of the proposed critical habitat economic analysis. By defining the upper-bound estimate to include critical habitat impacts, occurring alone and co-extensively with jeopardy considerations, the analysis recognizes the difficulty in differentiating between the two in evaluating only the critical habitat effects associated with the proposed rulemaking. This step is adopted in order to ensure that any critical habitat impacts that may occur co-extensively with the listing of the species (i.e., jeopardy) are not overlooked in the analysis.

5. Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to the critical habitat designation. To do this, the analysis adopts a “with and without critical habitat approach.” This approach is used to determine those effects found in the upper-bound estimate that may be attributed solely to the proposed designation of critical habitat. In many cases, impacts associated with the jeopardy standard remain unaffected by the designation of critical habitat and thus would not normally be considered an effect of a critical habitat rulemaking. The subset of section 7 impacts likely to be affected solely by the designation of critical habitat represents the lower-bound estimate of this analysis.

6. Costs associated with section 7 consultations represent the direct costs of the proposed rule. This analysis also qualitatively discusses potential secondary economic impacts on local industries and enterprises resulting from the physical changes to habitat areas that may be associated with project modifications (e.g., regional economic impacts).

Key Findings

7. The present value expected direct costs of implementation of section 7 for activities that may affect the sturgeon or its habitat over the next ten years range from $23.2 million to $34.8 million (using a seven percent real social discount rate). The present value of expected costs attributable solely to the critical habitat designation over the same period range from $616,000 to $762,000. While a range of activities may be affected by the proposed designation, the majority of total section 7 costs are expected to stem from consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for proposed O&M navigation projects (e.g., dredging and disposal) and other civil works projects. Forecast costs impacts are associated with expected administrative requirements and project modifications that are expected to be recommended by the Services during the consultation process.

8. The proposed sturgeon habitat consists of 1,580 river miles and 2,333 square miles of estuarine and marine areas from Louisiana to Florida. The region is dominated by water-based commercial and recreational activities, and local and regional economic growth in the region is inextricably linked to these activities. A network of ports, harbors, and riverways facilitates waterborne commerce, commercial fishing, sport fishing and other water-based recreational activities, and hydropower generation. The importance of water-related activity to this region suggests that, although these industries are unlikely to be directly affected through the implementation of section 7, certain secondary effects could result from the designation. Concerns have been raised, in particular, about impacts to (1) the navigation industry and associated ports; (2) industries dependent on the Jim Woodruff Dam and associated upstream reservoirs for recreation, tourism, water supply, and hydropower; (3) the commercial fishing industry; and (4) various counties in Mississippi.

9. This analysis concludes that secondary impacts to the activities described in the previous paragraph are unlikely to occur. First, all available evidence indicates that future USACE projects will be able to proceed without changes to timing and scope; therefore, secondary effects to waterborne commerce are highly unlikely to occur. Based on available information, to the extent that flow regime changes are implemented at Jim Woodruff Dam to protect sturgeon, secondary economic effects on hydropower, users of upstream water resources, and the regional economy are likely to be modest. No evidence from past consultation records or conversations with the Services suggests that commercial fishing will be affected by section 7 implementation. Because no limitations to commercial fishing activities are expected, secondary effects to the industry are unlikely. Finally, concerns that counties’ ability to attract industry will be compromised by, for example, limitations on expansion of community wastewater facilities, contradict regulatory history. Review of the consultation history provides no evidence of that section 7 consultation will hamper growth. For example, water quality standards already provided for under the Clean Water Act are protective of sturgeon habitat, and therefore limitations due to these standards should not be attributed to the designation of sturgeon habitat.

10. Most of the economic impacts of the proposed designation (approximately 65 percent of total section 7 costs) will be manifested primarily as increased administrative and operating costs for Federal agencies. Estimation of whether complying with the administrative requirements imposed by the designation will require additional funding for these agencies, or how Federal budgets will be adjusted to meet these needs, is difficult to predict based on existing information.

Section 7 Costs

11. Federal agencies that may consult with the Services include USACE, Department of Defense (DOD), Minerals and Management Service (MMS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Coast Guard, and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). State and private entities receiving Federal funding or applying for Federal permits will also incur costs related to section 7 implementation for the sturgeon. The state and private activities most likely to result in section 7 consultations are: bridge replacement; construction in waterways requiring a section 404 or section 10 permit from ACOE; and construction of interstate oil and gas pipelines requiring a FERC license. Other activities on private land with no Federal nexus, such as most private development, forestry, and farming practices, will not be subject to any additional consultations or project modifications. Results of the economic analysis are summarized below in terms of type of activity likely to be affected:

• Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Navigation Projects. USACE and the Coast Guard undertake dredging and sediment disposal activities to maintain and improve waterways to support navigation. These agencies are expected to engage in 60 section 7 consultations for O&M navigation activities, resulting in a total upper-bound cost of $22.7 million (in 2002 dollars).
  
  
• USACE Operations Projects (e.g., Beach Nourishment, Flood Bank Control/Bank Stabilization, Clearing and Snagging, Dam and Reservoir Operations). USACE undertakes beach nourishment as part of its mission to protect beach areas from hurricane and coastal storm damage, and maintains waterways and protects shorelines through flood bank control, bank stabilization, and clearing and snagging activities. USACE also manages reservoirs and dams that serve a variety of purposes, including navigation, flood control, hydropower generation, water supply, and recreation. These activities are expected to result in 102 consultations, for a total cost of $2.0 million.
  
  
• Regulated Modifications of Surface Water Bodies. Private parties may request permits from the USACE for a variety of activities that occur in waterways or involve modifying navigable waterways, such as construction in waterways (e.g., docks, piers), private dredging projects, shoreline stabilization, aquaculture, mining, construction and maintenance of oil and gas pipelines, and state or local water supply projects. These activities are likely to result in 798 consultations (which involve private parties) for a total cost of $12.6 million. The majority of these consultations are likely to be informal.
  
  
• Oil and Gas Leases in Federal Waters. MMS typically conducts consultations on risk of oil spills when offering leases for oil and gas sites in the Gulf of Mexico to private companies, resulting in 18 consultations (which involve private parties), for a total cost of $439,000.
  
  
• Review of State Water Quality Standards, Listings of Impaired Water Bodies, and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The USEPA consults with the Service when it reviews state water quality standards, lists impaired water bodies, and when TMDLs for waterbodies are exceeded as a result of point and non-point source pollution. These activities are expected to result in 363 consultations (which may involve state agencies and/or private parties) for a total cost of $4.7 million. The majority of these consultations are likely to be informal.
  
  
• Road and Bridge Construction, Removal, and Maintenance. The FHWA consults with the Services when it provides funding to state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for road and bridge construction projects. In addition, the Coast Guard may consult with the Services on bridge replacement activities. These activities are expected to result in 22 consultations (which likely involve state Departments of Transportation) for a total cost of $4.3 million.
  
  
• Relicensing of Hydroelectric Projects, Permitting of Interestate Oil and Gas Pipelines. FERC consults with the Services on relicensing of private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects and the interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas by pipeline. These activities are expected to result in 21 consultations (which involve third parties) for a total cost of $828,000 thousand. All of these consultations are likely to be informal.
  
  
• Fisheries Management. NOAA Fisheries develops Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs), which contain conservation and management measures designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stock, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of each fishery. The development of these plans is likely to result in 13 internal consultations within the Services, for a total cost of $207,000.
  
  
• Emergency Response Projects. FEMA consults with the Services regarding emergency response projects, such as construction of drainage ditches and berms for beach nourishment and debris removal. These activities are likely to result in two consultations, for a total cost of $25,000. These consultations are likely to be informal.
  
  
• Department of Defense Facilities. DOD consults with the Services for activities on facilities located adjacent to proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon, including Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, John C. Stennis Space Center, Pensacola Naval Air Station, and Naval Station Pascagoula. The analysis anticipates that DOD will undertake approximately 77 consultations, for a total cost of $1.7 million.
  
  
• Aids to Navigation. The Coast Guard maintains channel lights, buoys, and permanent pilings. The Coast Guard does not expect to consult with the Services on these activities.
  
  
• Forest Land Management. The Forest Service does not anticipate consulting with the Services for the sturgeon or its habitat for activities on Federal land managed by the Forest Service bordering the proposed critical habitat. No costs are anticipated in association with activities on these lands.
  
  
• National Wildlife Refuges, National Seashore, and Estuarine Research Facility. Significant impacts are not anticipated in association with Federal agencies’ operation and management of national wildlife refuges, a national seashore, and an estuarine research facility located within or adjacent to proposed critical habitat.

Section 7 Benefits

12. The listing of the sturgeon and the designation of critical habitat may engender certain societal benefits. Survival and recovery of the species may lead to benefits such as enhanced existence values, as well as the development of commercial and recreational sturgeon fisheries. Protecting sturgeon habitat may produce benefits such as preservation of habitat suitable for recreational uses, improved water quality, and habitat improvement for other species.

13. Insufficient information exists to quantify the benefits of sturgeon habitat protection.

Summary

14. Exhibit ES-1 provides an overview of the present value of total section 7 costs associated with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon over a ten year period. To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) specifies the use of a rate of seven percent, reflecting the social opportunity cost of capital (measured by the before-tax rate of return for private investment.) In addition, OMB recommends sensitivity analysis using other discount rates. One commonly applied rate is three percent, reflecting a social rate of time preference (estimated using average rates on long-term Treasury bonds). This analysis presents results using both of these rates.

Exhibit ES-1 SECTION 7 -- COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LISTING AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE GULF STURGEON
	Total Co-Extensive Costs	Costs Attributed Solely to Critical Habitat Designation
Nominal value of total section 7 costs	$33,096,000 to $49,526,000	$877,000 to $1,084,000
Present Value (7% discount rate)	$23,245,000 to $34,785,000	$616,000 to $762,000
Annualized over ten years	$3,310,000 to $4,953,000	$88,00 to $108,000
Present Value (3% discount rate)	$28,232,000 to $42,246,000	$748,000 to $925,000
Annualized over ten years	$3,310,000 to $4,953,000	$88,00 to $108,000
Note: Present value and annualized cost estimates are based on an assumption that consultation and project modification costs will be distributed evenly over a ten year period.

15. Exhibit ES-2 provides a more detailed summary of the consultation and technical assistance costs likely to be associated with the proposed critical habitat units over a ten year period (table presentation is in 2002 dollars).

16. Exhibit ES-3 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction and relative scale of bias introduced by the assumption.

 

Exhibit ES-3 CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Key Assumption	Effect on Cost Estimate
Consultation rates will not change over time.	+/-
The presence of other species (i.e., Kemp’s Ridley turtle, Inflated heelsplitter mussel, etc.) has no influence on consultation/project modification costs.	+
Action agencies will consult with FWS and NOAA Fisheries according to the jurisdictional responsibilities outlined in the proposed designation. They will not need to consult with both Services on a single project.	-
High-end estimates of future numbers of consultations are used.	+
Historical administrative consultation costs and project modification cost estimates are good predictors of future consultation behavior.	+/-
Total cost estimates assume that USACE will not engage in up to three programmatic consultations on O&M navigation projects, although doing so could streamline the consultation process.	+
Dredging windows will not be recommended as project modifications in formal consultations, unless they coincide with USACE’s previously planned dredging schedule.	-
Regional economic impacts on waterborne commerce, commercial fishing, and Mississippi counties are unlikely.	-
To the extent that flow regime changes are implemented at Jim Woodruff Dam to protect sturgeon, secondary economic effects will be limited.	-
New information on sturgeon behavior and migratory patterns may become available.	+/-
The consultation process between the Services and USACE is in flux.	+/-
Modification cost scenario is based on upper-bound modification cost estimates for O&M navigation, bridge construction, interstate pipeline, and research and monitoring projects.	+
Modification costs for other activities are unlikely or cannot be predicted at this time (e.g., regulated modifications of surface water bodies, operations of Jim Woodruff Dam).	-
Designation of critical habitat will not alter the consultation process for FWS except to add an increment of administrative effort to each consultation.	-
Increases in section 7 costs associated solely with the critical habitat provision of section 7 will be administrative in nature. Project modifications are attributable co-extensively to the listing and designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon.	-
Consultation and project modification costs will be distributed evenly over a ten year period.	+/-
- : This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs.

17. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) (the Services) are in the process of proposing designation of critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi). The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze potential economic impacts that could result from the designation.

18. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (the Act) requires that the Services base the designation of critical habitat upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Services may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas as critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.

19. Under the listing of a species, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Services in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Services to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

20. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit instructed the Services to reconsider their previous determination that designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon is not prudent (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 5^th Circuit, 2001). The Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon, published June 6, 2002, reflects the Services’ interpretation of recent judicial opinions on critical habitat designation and the standards for making a prudency determination.

1.1     Description of Species and Habitat

21. The Gulf sturgeon (sturgeon) is an anadromous fish (ascending rivers from the sea for breeding), inhabiting coastal rivers from Louisiana to Florida during the warmer months and overwintering in estuaries, bays, and the Gulf of Mexico. It is a nearly cylindrical fish embedded with bony plates or scutes, with an extended snout and a suction-type mouth located beneath the head with four barbels in front of the mouth.

22. Adult sturgeon range between four and eight feet in length, with adult females larger than males. Sturgeon feeding habits in freshwater vary depending on the fish’s life history stage (young-of-year, juvenile, sub-adult, adult). Young-of-year sturgeon remain in freshwater through early February, feeding on aquatic invertebrates and detritus. Juvenile feeding is widely distributed, exploiting scarce food resources throughout the river, including aquatic insects, worms, and bivalve molluscs. It is believed that sub-adult and adult sturgeon do not feed in freshwater but rather fast and lose up to 30 percent of their total body weight and then compensate for the loss during winter feeding in the sea.

23. Sturgeon are long-lived, with some reaching 42 years in age. Females reach sexual maturity between the ages of 8 and 17, and males between 7 and 21 years. Gulf sturgeon eggs are demersal (they are heavy and sink to the bottom), adhesive, and vary in color from gray to brown to black. Mature females produce an average of 400,000 eggs. Breeding habitat consists of riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds, marl, soapstone, or hard clay.

24. Historically, the sturgeon occurred from the Mississippi River to Tampa Bay. Its present range extends from Lake Pontchartrain and the Pearl River system in Louisiana and Mississippi east to the Suwannee River in Florida. Incidental sightings are still reported from the mouth of the Mississippi River and Tampa Bay.

25. The sturgeon supported a commercial fishery in the early twentieth century, providing eggs for caviar, flesh for smoked fish, and swim bladders for isinglass, a gelatin used in food products and glues. Sturgeon numbers declined due to overfishing throughout most of the twentieth century; the decline was exacerbated by habitat loss associated with the construction of water control structures, such as dams and sills, and habitat degradation due to poor water quality. In several rivers throughout its range, dams have restricted sturgeon access to historic migration routes and spawning areas.

26. In identifying areas as critical habitat for the sturgeon, the Services considered those physical and biological features which are essential to the conservation of the species. Such requirements include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of the species. Based on the best available information, the primary constituent elements for the sturgeon are:

• Abundant food items, such as detritus, aquatic insects, worms, and/or molluscs, within riverine habitats for larval and juvenile life stages; and abundant prey items, such as amphipods, lancelets, polychaetes, gastropods, ghost shrimp, isopods, molluscs and/or crustaceans, within estuarine and marine habitats for sub-adult and adult life stages;
  
  
• Riverine spawning sites with substrates suitable for egg deposition and development, such as limestone outcrops and cut limestone banks, bedrock, large gravel or cobble beds, marl, soapstone, or hard clay;
  
  
• A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, seasonality, and rate-of-change of freshwater discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages in the riverine environment, including migration, breeding site selection, courtship, egg fertilization, resting, and staging, and for maintaining spawning sites in suitable condition for egg attachment, egg sheltering, resting, and larval staging;
  
  
• Water quality, including temperature, salinity, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
  
  
• Sediment quality, including texture and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages; and
  
  
• Safe and unobstructed migratory pathways necessary for passage within and between riverine, estuarine, and marine habitats (e.g., an unobstructed river or a dammed river that still allows for passage).

1.2     Proposed Critical Habitat

27. The areas proposed for designation as critical habitat for the sturgeon provide one or more of the primary constituent elements described above. All of the proposed areas require special management considerations to ensure their contribution to the conservation of the sturgeon. The critical habitat area consists of 1,580 river miles and 2,333 square miles of estuarine and marine habitat within 14 units. The lateral extent of proposed riverine critical habitat is up to the ordinary high-water line on each river bank, and up to the mean high-water line for estuarine and marine habitat. All of the proposed critical habitat areas are currently seasonally occupied by the sturgeon. Descriptions of each critical habitat unit are provided below:

• Unit 1: Pearl River System in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes in Louisiana, and Walthall, Hancock, Pearl River, Marion, Lawrence, Simpson, Copiah, Hinds, Rankin, and Pike Counties in Mississippi. Unit 1 includes the Pearl River main stem from the spillway of the Ross Barnett Dam, downstream to where the main stem river drainage discharges at its mouth joining Lake Borgne, Little Lake, or The Rigolets. It includes the main stems of the East Pearl River, West Pearl River, West Middle River, Holmes Bayou, Wilson Slough, downstream to where these main stem river drainages discharge at the mouths of Lake Borgne, Little Lake, or the Rigolets. Unit 1 also includes the Bogue Chitto River main stem, a tributary of the Pearl River, from its confluence with Lazy Creek just upstream of its crossing with Mississippi State Highway 570, downstream to its confluence with the West Pearl River.
  
  
• Unit 2: Pascagoula River System in Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, Jackson, Clarke, Jones, and Wayne Counties, Mississippi. Unit 2 includes all of the Pascagoula River main stem and its distributaries, portions of the Bowie, Leaf, and Chickasawhay tributaries, and all of the Big Black Creek tributary. It includes the Bowie River main stem beginning at its confluence with Bowie Creek and Okatoma Creek, downstream to its confluence with the Leaf River. The Leaf River main stem beginning from Mississippi Sate Highway 588 downstream to its confluence with the Chickasawhay River is included. The main stem of the Chickasawhay River from the mouth of Oaky Creek downstream to its confluence with the Leaf River is included. Unit 2 also includes Big Black Creek main stem from its confluence with Black and Red Creeks, to its confluence with the Pascagoula River. All of the main stem of the Pascagoula River from its confluence with the Leaf and Chickasawhay Rivers to the discharge of the East and West Pascagoula Rivers into Pascagoula Bay is included.
  
  
• Unit 3: Escambia River System in Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties, Florida, and Escambia, Conecuh and Covington Counties, Alabama. Unit 3 includes the Conecuh River main stem beginning just downstream of the spillway of Point A Dam, downstream to the Florida State line, where its name changes to the Escambia River. It includes the entire main stem of the Escambia River downstream to its discharge into Escambia Bay and Macky Bay. All of the distributaries of the Escambia River including White River, Little White River, Simpson River, and Dead River are included. The Sepulga River main stem from Alabama County Road 42 downstream to its confluence with the Conecuh River is also included.
  
  
• Unit 4: Yellow River System in Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, and Covington County, Alabama. Unit 4 includes the Yellow River main stem from Alabama State Highway 55, downstream to its discharge at Blackwater Bay. All Yellow River distributaries (including Weaver River and Skim Lake) discharging into Blackwater Bay are included. The Shoal River main stem, a Yellow River tributary, from Florida Highway 85, to its confluence with the Yellow River, is included. The Blackwater River from its confluence with Big Coldwater Creek, downstream to its discharge into Blackwater Bay is included. Wright Basin and Cooper Basin on the Blackwater River are included.
  
  
• Unit 5: Choctawhatchee River System in Holmes, Washington, and Walton Counties, Florida, and Dale, Coffee, Geneva, and Houston Counties, Alabama. Unit 5 includes the Choctawhatchee River main stem from its confluence with West Fork Choctawhatchee River and East Fork Choctawhatchee River, downstream to its discharge at Choctawhatchee Bay. The distributaries discharging into Choctawhatchee Bay known as Mitchell River, Indian River, Cypress River, and Bells Leg are included. Boynton Cutoff, which joins the Choctawhatchee River main stem, and Holmes Creek are included. The section of Holmes Creek from Boynton Cutoff to the mouth of Holmes Creek is included. The Pea River main stem, a Choctawhatchee River tributary, is included from the Elba Dam to its confluence with the Choctawhatchee River.
  
• Unit 6: Apalachicola River System in Franklin, Gulf, Liberty, Calhoun, Jackson, and Gadsen Counties, Florida. Unit 6 includes the Apalachicola River mainstem, beginning from the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, downstream to its discharge at East Bay or Apalachicola Bay. All Apalachicola River distributaries, including East River, Little St. Marks River, St. Marks River, to their discharge into East Bay and/or Apalachicola Bay are included. The entire main stem of the Brothers River, a tributary of the Apalachicola River, is included.
  
  
• Unit 7: Suwannee River System in Hamilton, Suwannee, Madison, Lafayette, Gilchrist, Levy, Dixie and Columbia counties, Florida. Unit 7 includes the Suwannee River main stem, beginning from its confluence with Long Branch Creek, downstream to the mouth of the Suwannee River. It includes all Suwannee River distributaries, including the East Pass, West Pass, Wadley Pass, and Alligator Pass, to their discharge into Suwannee Sound or the Gulf of Mexico. The Withlacoochee River main stem from Florida State Road 6 to its confluence with the Suwannee River is included.
  
  
• Unit 8: Lake Pontchartrain, Lake St. Catherine, the Rigolets, Little Lake, Lake Borgne, and Mississippi Sound in Jefferson, Orleans, St. Tammany, and St. Bernard Parishes in Louisiana, Hancock, Jackson, and Harrison Counties in Mississippi, and Mobile County in Alabama. Unit 8 encompasses Lake Pontchartrain east of the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, all of Little Lake, the Rigolets, Lake St. Catherine, Lake Borgne, including Heron Bay, and the Mississippi Sound. The Mississippi Sound includes adjacent open bays including Pascagoula Bay, Point aux Chenes Bay, Grand Bay, Sandy Bay, and barrier island passes, including Ship Island Pass, Dog Keys Pass, Horn Island Pass, and Petit Bois Pass. The northern boundary of Mississippi Sound is the shorelines of the mainland between Heron Bay Point, Mississippi and Point aux Pins, Alabama. Proposed critical habitat excludes St. Louis Bay, north of the railroad bridge across its mouth; Biloxi Bay, north of the US Highway 90 bridge; and the Back Bay of Biloxi. The southern boundary follows along the broken shoreline of Lake Borgne created by low swampy islands from Malheureux Point to Isle au Pitre. From the northeast point of Isle au Pitre, the boundary continues in a straight north-northeast line to one nautical mile off the western most extremity of Cat Island at 30^o13' N, 89^o10' W. The southern boundary continues one nautical mile offshore of the barrier islands and offshore of the 72 COLREGS lines at barrier island passes (defined at 33 CFR 80.815 (c), (d) and (e)) to the eastern boundary. The eastern boundary is the line of longitude 88^o18.8' W from its intersection with the shore (Point aux Pins) to its intersection with the southern boundary.
  
  
• Unit 9: Pensacola Bay System in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. Unit 9 includes Pensacola Bay and its adjacent main bays and coves. These include Big Lagoon, Escambia Bay, East Bay, Blackwater Bay, Bayou Grande, Macky Bay, Saultsmar Cove, Bass Hole Cove, and Catfish Basin. All other bays, bayous, creeks, and rivers are excluded at their mouths. The western boundary is the Florida State Highway 292 Bridge crossing Big Lagoon to Perdido Key. The southern boundary is the 72 COLREGS line between Perdido Key and Santa Ross Island (defined at 33 CFR 80.810 (g)). The eastern boundary is the Florida State Highway 399 Bridge at Gulf Breeze, FL.
  
  
• Unit 10: Santa Rosa Sound in Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. Unit 10 includes Santa Rosa Sound, bounded on the west by the Florida State Highway 399 bridge at Gulf Breeze, FL. The eastern boundary is the U.S. Highway 98 bridge in Fort Walton Beach, FL. The northern and southern boundaries are formed by the shorelines to the mean high water (MHW) or by the entrance to rivers, bayous, and creeks.
  
  
• Unit 11: Florida Nearshore Gulf of Mexico Unit in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf Counties in Florida. Unit 11 includes a portion of the Gulf of Mexico as defined by the following boundaries. The western boundary is the line of longitude 87°20.0' W (approximately one nautical mile west of Pensacola Pass) from its intersection with the shore to its intersection with the southern boundary. The northern boundary is the MHW of the mainland shoreline and the 72 COLREGS lines at passes as defined at 30 CFR 80.810 (a-g). The southern boundary is one nautical mile offshore of the northern boundary. The eastern boundary is line of longitude 85°17.0' W from its intersection with the shore (near Money Bayou between Cape San Blas and Indian Peninsula) to its intersection with the southern boundary.
  
  
• Unit 12: Choctawhatchee Bay in Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Florida. Unit 12 includes the main body of Choctawhatchee Bay, Hogtown Bayou, Jolly Bay, Bunker Cove, and Grassy Cove. All other bayous, creeks and rivers are excluded at their mouths/entrances. The western boundary is the US Highway 98 bridge at Fort Walton Beach, FL. The southern boundary is the 72 COLREGS line across East (Destin) Pass as defined at 33 CFR 80.810 (f).
  
  
• Unit 13: Apalachicola Bay in Gulf and Franklin County, Florida. Unit 13 includes the main body of Apalachicola Bay and its adjacent sounds, bays, and the nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. These consist of St. Vincent Sound, including Indian Lagoon; Apalachicola Bay including Horseshoe Cove and All Tides Cove; East Bay including Little Bay and Big Bay; and St George Sound, including Rattlesnake Cove and East Cove. Barrier Island passes (Indian Pass, West Pass, and East Pass) are also included. The southern boundary of this proposed critical habitat unit includes water extending into the Gulf of Mexico one nautical mile from the MHW line of the barrier islands and from 72 COLREGS lines between the barrier islands (defined at 33 CFR 80.805 (e-h)). The western boundary is the line of longitude 85°17.0' W from its intersection with the shore (near Money Bayou between Cape San Blas and Indian Peninsula) to its intersection with the southern boundary. The eastern boundary is formed by a straight line drawn from the shoreline of Lanark Village at 29°53.1'N, 84°35.0' W to a point that is one nautical miles offshore from the northeastern extremity of Dog Island at 29°49.6' N, 84°33.2' W.
  
  
• Unit 14: Suwannee Sound in Dixie and Levy Counties, Florida. Unit 14 includes Suwannee Sound and a portion of adjacent Gulf of Mexico waters extending nine nautical miles out to the state territorial water boundary. Its northern boundary is formed by a straight line from the northern tip of Big Pine Island (at approximately 29°23' N, 83°12' W) to the Federal-State boundary at 29°17' N, 83°21' W. The southern boundary is formed by a straight line from the southern tip of Richards Island (at approximately 29°11' N, 83°04' W) to the Federal-State boundary at 29°04' N, 83°15' W.

1.3     Framework for Analysis

28. The focus of this economic analysis is on section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Federal agencies are required to consult with the Services whenever they propose an action that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat. Consultation under section 7 applies to activities that are carried out, permitted, or funded by Federal agencies. The designation of critical habitat has the potential to afford additional protections for species with respect to private activities where there is a federal nexus.

29. This analysis first identifies land use activities within or in the vicinity of those areas being proposed for critical habitat that are likely to be affected by section 7 of the Act. To do this, the analysis evaluates a “without section 7” scenario and compares it to a “with section 7” scenario. The “without section 7” scenario constitutes the baseline of this analysis. It represents the level of protection that would be afforded the species under the Act if section 7 protective measures were absent. This level of protection would include other Federal, state, and local laws. The “with section 7” scenario identifies land use activities likely to involve a Federal nexus that may affect the species or its designated critical habitat, which accordingly have the potential to be subject to future consultations under section 7 of the Act.

30. Economic activities identified as likely to be affected under section 7 and the resulting impacts that section 7 can have on such activities constitute the upper bound estimate of the proposed critical habitat economic analysis. By defining the upper bound estimate to include critical habitat impacts occurring alone and co-extensively with jeopardy considerations, the analysis recognizes the difficulty in differentiating between the two in evaluating only the critical habitat effects associated with the proposed rulemaking. This step is adopted in order to ensure that any critical habitat impacts that may occur co-extensively with the listing of the species (i.e., jeopardy) are not overlooked in the analysis.

31. Upon identifying section 7 impacts, the analysis proceeds to consider the subset of impacts that can be attributed exclusively to the critical habitat designation. To do this, the analysis adopts a “with and without critical habitat” approach. This approach is used to determine those effects found in the upper-bound estimate that may be attributed solely to the proposed designation of critical habitat. Specifically, the “with and without critical habitat” approach considers section 7 impacts that will likely be associated with the implementation of the jeopardy provisions of section 7 and those that will likely be associated with the implementation of the adverse modification provision of section 7. In many cases, impacts associated with the jeopardy standard remain unaffected by the designation of critical habitat and thus would not normally be considered an effect of a critical habitat rulemaking. The subset of section 7 impacts likely to be affected solely by the designation of critical habitat represents the lower-bound estimate of this analysis.

32. The critical habitat designation for the sturgeon encompasses state-owned lands beneath tidally influenced and navigable waters up to the high water mark. The states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida were granted ownership of these lands upon statehood in 1811, 1817, 1819, and 1845, respectively. The majority of riparian lands bordering riverine critical habitat units are in private ownership. Areas adjacent to the proposed critical habitat designation also include lands under state, local, and Federal ownership, with Federal lands being managed by the Forest Service, the Air Force, the Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. For private lands subject to critical habitat designation, section 7 consultations and modifications to land uses and activities may be required when a Federal nexus, or connection, exists. A Federal nexus arises if the activity or land use of concern involves Federal permits, Federal funding, or another form of Federal involvement. Section 7 consultations are not required for activities on non-Federal lands that do not involve a Federal nexus.

33. In addition to activities occurring within the areas proposed for critical habitat designation, this report will examine adjacent activities sponsored or permitted by Federal agencies that may affect the sturgeon and/or adversely modify the proposed critical habitat area.

34. This report estimates impacts of listing and critical habitat designation on activities that are reasonably foreseeable, including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten-year time horizon.


1.4     Methodological Approach

35. This report relies on a sequential methodology and focuses on distilling the salient and relevant aspects of potential economic impacts of designation. The methodology consists of:

• Determining the current and projected economic activity within and around the proposed critical habitat area;
  
  
• Considering how current and future activities that currently take place or will likely take place on Federal and private land could adversely affect proposed critical habitat;
  
  
• Identifying whether such activities taking place on privately owned property within the proposed critical habitat boundaries are likely to involve a Federal nexus;
  
  
• Evaluating the likelihood that identified Federal actions and non-Federal actions having a Federal nexus will require consultations under section 7 of the Act and, in turn, that such consultations will result in modifications to projects;
  
  
• Estimating per-unit costs of expected section 7 consultations, project modifications and other economic impacts (e.g., secondary impacts to the regional economy) associated with activities in or adjacent to areas proposed as critical habitat;
  
  
• Estimating the upper bound of total costs associated with the area proposed for the designation (including costs that may be attributed co-extensively with the listing of the species) and the lower bound of costs (i.e., costs attributable solely to critical habitat);
  
  
• Determining the benefits that may be associated with the designation of critical habitat; and
  
  
• Assessing the extent to which critical habitat designation will create costs for small businesses and/or affect property values as a result of modifications or delays to projects.

1.5     Information Sources

36. The primary sources of information for this report were communications with FWS (Panama City, FL; Jacksonville, FL; Daphne, AL; Jackson, MS; and Lafayette, LA Offices) and NOAA Fisheries biologists (St. Petersburg, FL Southeast Regional Office), and personnel from affected agencies, including: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (New Orleans, LA; Vicksburg, MS; Mobile, AL; and Jacksonville, FL Districts), Minerals Management Service, Environmental Protection Agency, State Departments of Transportation in Florida and Alabama, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, John C. Stennis Space Center, Pensacola Naval Air Station, Coast Guard, and Forest Service. Publicly available data (e.g., information available on the Internet) were also used to augment the analysis (See References sction p. 95 for a full list of information sources).

RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION

SECTION 2

37.    This section discusses the socioeconomic characteristics of areas proposed as critical habitat for the Gulf sturgeon. In addition, this section provides relevant information about regulations and requirements that exist in the baseline (i.e., the “without section 7” scenario) and potentially link to sturgeon conservation.

 

2.1    Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas

38.    This section summarizes key economic and demographic information for the counties containing proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon, including (1) population characteristics, (2) general economic activity, and (3) water-related economic activity. County level data are presented to provide context for the discussion of potential economic impacts, and to illuminate trends that may influence these impacts. Although county level data may not precisely reflect the socioeconomic characteristics of the areas immediately surrounding the proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon (because the units are located in rivers and other water bodies that cross county barriers), it provides a useful context for the broader analysis.

    2.1.1  Population Characteristics

39.    This critical habitat designation spans a diverse array of urban and rural areas. Exhibit 2-1 lists the population size, per capita income, and population density for all the counties that have critical habitat designated within their boundaries and for the states as a whole. The percent of the state population living within a county containing critical habitat ranges from less than 0.05 percent (Lafayette and Liberty Counties in Florida) to nearly 11 percent (Orleans County in Louisiana). Of the 53 counties, 41 have a lower per capita income and 37 have fewer persons per square mile than their respective state averages. Although these measures vary considerably across states, the data suggest that overall the counties are less densely populated, and have a lower than average income per capita than is found on average in their respective states.

    2.1.2  Economic Activity

41.    The proposed critical habitat designation for sturgeon involves four states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi) located in the Southeast economic region, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In order to establish an economic baseline, total “valued added” by private industry located within these states is reported in Exhibit 2-2. Among the Bureau of Economic Analysis regions, the Southeast region represented 21.3 percent, the largest share of total private industry value added in the nation during 2000. Since 1986, inflation-adjusted value added in the Southeast region has grown at an annual rate of 3.9 percent, which is slightly faster than the national rate. Three western regions, Rocky Mountains, Southwest, and Far West, grew faster than the Southeast. Of the four states potentially affected by the proposed critical habitat designation for the sturgeon, Florida accounts for the largest share of value added in the region (22.2 percent) and the largest inflation-adjusted growth rate (4.1 percent). Accounting for a 14.9 percent combined share of regional valued added, annual growth in private industry Gross State Product trailed the regional and national rates in each of the three other states potentially affected by the critical habitat designation. Of the three, Louisiana had the slowest rate of growth with 1.3 percent annually.

42.    In addition to state-level Gross State Product, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis provides time-series employment data at the state and county level. Exhibit 2.3 summarizes growth in total private full-time and part-time employment from 1990 to 2000 in those states and counties facing potential economic effects from designation of critical habitat for sturgeon. As illustrated in Exhibit 2-3, annual job growth in the four states ranged from 2.0 percent in Alabama to 3.1 percent in Florida over the 1990 to 2000 decade. Comparable annual combined job growth in those counties overlapping potential critical habitat area exhibits a broader range, from 1.4 percent in Louisiana to 3.3 percent in Florida. Whereas Florida has the highest statewide job total of the four states, Louisiana has the largest number of jobs located in counties that include portions of proposed critical habitat. Furthermore, combined employment growth in these Louisiana counties was less than the respective statewide average from 1990 to 2000.

43.    Exhibit 2-4 provides economic statistics for the 53 counties that include portions of the proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon. The “Number of Establishments” columns show the total number of physical locations at which business activities are conducted with one or more paid employee in the year 2000 for each state. As the exhibit shows, at least 689,000 business establishments operate in the 53 counties containing habitat designation. These figures provide a measure of the average density of commercial and industrial establishments in the region. Specific potential impacts to activities within these industries as a result of section 7 implementation for the sturgeon are discussed in Section 3.

Exhibit 2-4 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AROUND PROPOSED GULF STURGEON CRITICAL HABITAT BY INDUSTRY
	Number of Establishments
Economic Activity	Alabama	Florida	Louisiana	Mississippi
Agricultural Services, Forestry, and Fishing	1,152	1,170	816	877
Mining	254	248	1,525	319
Utilities	489	638	557	616
Construction	9,725	39,211	8,376	5,036
Manufacturing	5,261	15,345	3,463	2,843
Transportation & Warehousing	3,105	10,605	3,708	2,271
Wholesale Trade	6,132	30,671	6,192	3,116
Retail Trade	19,723	67,396	17,755	12,794
Finance and Insurance	5,767	26,431	7,227	4,246
Real Estate	3,731	22,325	4,105	2,179
Services	41,662	201,269	44,681	23,733
TOTAL	99,817	428,438	101,016	59,788
Source: 2000 County Business Patterns, U.S. Census Bureau, http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpsect.pl

    2.1.3  Water-Based Economic Activity

44.    The Gulf region is also dominated by water-based commercial and recreational activity. A network of ports, harbors, and riverways in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi facilitate waterborne commerce, which contributes significantly to local and regional growth on the Gulf Coast. Other key water-based industries in the Gulf region include commercial fishing, recreation (e.g., sport fishing, boating, tourism), and hydropower. The following sections provide detailed economic data on these industries that are based in and around waterways proposed for critical habitat designation.

        2.1.3.1  Waterborne Commerce

45.    Barges and vessels carrying thousands of tons of domestic and international cargo pass through the major ports, harbors, and rivers in areas within and adjacent to the proposed designation. These harbors and riverways connect to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) a major water transit system extending from Florida to Texas. This section describes the volume and value of vessel and barge traffic in the major ports within the proposed designation. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes traffic in the major ports within the proposed designation from 1994 to 2000. Exhibit 2-6 summarizes traffic volume in the major ports based on number of vessel transits and vessel type. Finally, Exhibit 2-7 summarizes international cargo value by port from 1998-2001 in millions of U.S. dollars. Data are gathered from the U.S. Foreign Waterborne Transportation Statistics, Maritime Administration (U.S. Department of Transportation) and USACE and Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 2000, Part 2, Waterways and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles.

• Pascagoula Harbor, Mississippi. In 2000, Pascagoula Harbor ranked 26^th in the US for cargo volume with 28.7 million short tons shipped. Nearly 15,000 vessels carried cargo such as forest/paper products, frozen foods, bulk and bagged grains, machinery, vehicles, fertilizer, petroleum products, general cargo, chemicals, bulk fish, and rubber and crude oil. Combined international imports and exports were valued at $2.8 billion in 2001. Latin American trade through the Gulf of Mexico is projected to triple by the year 2020 and large increases are expected in the next two decades for all waterborne trade as well.
  
  
• Gulfport Harbor, Mississippi. In 2000, Gulfport ranked 32^nd among U.S. ports for cargo shipment. Over 2,600 vessels moved 2.2 million tons of cargo in 2000, a 16 percent increase over tonnage handled in the previous year. In 2001, the total value of international cargo shipped to and from Gulfport was valued at $3 billion. Commodities frequently handled by the port include tropical fruit, frozen poultry, ilmenite ore, limestone, and forest products.
  
  
• Biloxi Harbor, Mississippi. 3,448 vessels transported nearly 2.5 million short tons of cargo to and from Biloxi Harbor in 2000. Commodities typically passing through Biloxi include coal, gasoline, limestone, aluminum, vehicles and parts, and manufactured products.
  
  
• Pensacola Harbor, Florida. Pensacola Harbor is northwest Florida's leading deep-water port. In 2000, the total tonnage shipped to and from Pensacola Harbor was 1,617 thousand short tons. The dollar value of Pensacola’s total international cargo in 2001 was valued at $175 million. Cargo products include bagged agricultural products, forest products, asphalt, sulphur, lime, steel products, and frozen and refrigerated foods. Total vessel traffic amounted to 2,526 trips in 2000.
  
  
• Panama City Harbor, Florida. In 2000, the total tonnage shipped to and from Panama City Harbor was 2,573 thousand short tons. The dollar value of Panama City Harbor’s total international cargo in 2001 was $259 million. The 3,198 vessels that traveled through the harbor carried breakbulk, general commodities, domestic aggregate, and export bulk cargo. Exports include linerboard, woodpulp, machinery, and miscellaneous general cargo while imports typically include steel plate, steel coils, lumber, liquid bulk.
  
  
• Escambia and Conecuh Rivers, Alabama and Florida. In 2000, approximately 2.8 million short tons of commodities were shipped from Escambia Bay. Commodities frequently shipped to and from Escambia Bay include coal, petroleum, and chemicals. The Escambia and Conecuh Rivers experienced traffic amounting to 4,285 vessels in 2000.
  
  
• Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. In 2000, 276,000 short tons of cargo were transported on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers. Commodities shipped include petroleum, chemicals, limestone, sand, gravel, and machinery. In 2000, approximately 1,037 vessels traveled inbound and outbound on the these riverways.

        2.1.3.2  Commercial Fishing  

46.    In 2001, the total market value of commercial fishing landings in Alabama, western Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi was approximately $586 million, or nearly 73 percent of the value of all Gulf Coast commercial landings. Exhibit 2-8 summarizes 2001 Gulf commercial landing statistics by state, while Exhibit 2-9 summarizes landing statistics for the major ports within the proposed designation.

         Alabama

47.    In 2001, total commercial landings for all fish species in Alabama totaled 25.6 million pounds and were valued at $44 million.

         West Florida

48.    In 2001, commercial fish landed on West Florida accounted for nearly one-fifth of total commercial fishing value in the Gulf State region. Annual commercial landings on West Florida totaled over 80 million pounds and were valued at $145.8 million. Panama City Harbor accounted for 4.1 million pounds of fish landings valued at $5.2 million in 1999, based on the most recent data available for the port.

         Louisiana

49.    Of the four state or substate areas highlighted in Exhibit 2-5, Louisiana accounts for the largest commercial fish landing value. Louisiana’s total commercial fish catch of 1.2 billion pounds was valued at $345 million in 2001. This value represents more than two-fifths of total commercial fish landed in the Gulf State region.

         Mississippi

50.     Of the four state or substate areas detailed in Exhibit 2-5, Mississippi has the third largest commercial fishing industry, with an annual commercial catch value exceeding $50 million. Biloxi/Gulfport and Pascagoula/Moss Point are among the nation’s leading seafood ports, with Pascagoula ranking 7^th for total pounds landed (196.0 million) and Biloxi/Gulfport ranking 27^th in the value of seafood landed ($29.1 million).

        2.1.3.3  Sport Fishing and Other Water-Based Recreational Activity

51.    Marine, bay, and upstream recreational activities such as sport fishing, boating, and beach activity contribute significantly to the economic and social well-being of the Gulf coastal community. Florida and Alabama consistently rank among the top in the nation for the highest rate of participation in any coastal recreational activity and the highest beach visitation rate.

52.    The Gulf coast is also home to a predominant sportfishing industry. In 2001, over 3 million anglers took over 22.8 million trips and caught a total of 163 million fish on the Gulf Coast (excluding Texas). About 72 percent of the trips were made in West Florida, followed by 16 percent in Mississippi. Alabama harvested nearly 5.9 million pounds; Mississippi, 2.8 million pounds; Louisiana, 32 million pounds; and Florida, over 65.9 million pounds. Marine and freshwater recreational fishing in the Gulf Coast also support various industries that provide goods and services to anglers. In 2001, recreational fishing in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana generated over $5.7 billion in revenue, providing more economic benefit than commercial fishing in the region.

        2.1.3.4  Hydropower Generation

53.    The Gulf region derives a very small portion of its overall power supply from hydropower. Electricity supply and capacity data are collected and reported by the North American Reliability Council (NERC). Of its ten regional councils, the Southern Electrical Reliability Council (SERC) is most contiguous with areas potentially affected by critical habitat for the sturgeon. Geographic area covered by the Southern section of SERC includes most of Alabama and Georgia, southeastern Mississippi, and the Florida panhandle. Another section of SERC, Entergy, covers southwestern Mississippi, the Gulf coast of Louisiana, and portions of other states. Peninsular Florida is not covered SERC, but by the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC). Peak summer demand reached 43,736 megawatts for the Southern region and 25,747 megawatts for the Entergy region in 2001.

54.    Only one dam located within the proposed critical habitat designation supplies hydropower. Located near the Florida-Georgia border in Chatahoochee, Florida, the Jim Woodruff Dam is one of 23 hydropower sites operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that generate power. The electric power and energy generated at Jim Woodruff Dam is marketed by the Federal Southeastern Power Administration for the wholesale energy market. Of a total installed capacity of 3,092 megawatts, the Jim Woodruff Dam represented 30 megawatts, or less than one percent of Southeastern Power Administration market capacity during fiscal year 1999. In terms of actual volume marketed, the facility provided 205 gigawatt hours during fiscal year 1999, or 3.6 percent of the Southeastern Power Administration total. Based on data from 1995, USACE estimated total electricity capacity in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) Basin to be 6,657 megawatts. Of this total, 652 megawatts represent hydropower capacity. Compared to 2001 Southern region peak summer demand, hydropower units located in the ACF Basin contribute a small percentage of total regional electricity demand.

55.    In 2001, Florida had summer peak demand of 38,285 megawatts out of a total summer peak capacity of 42,609 megawatts. Coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear sources fuel most of the state's energy needs. Electricity derived from hydropower from the Jim Woodruff Dam can account for only a small fraction of Florida's statewide capacity.

2.2    Baseline Elements

56.    The baseline constitutes the “without section 7” scenario for this analysis. The baseline for the sturgeon includes Federal and state laws, including the prohibition against take of the species contained within section 9 of the Act, as well as voluntary environmental programs that provide protection to the sturgeon in the absence of the protection afforded by the listing and any anticipated additional protection afforded by the proposed critical habitat designation.

    2.2.1  Recovery Plan  

    2.2.2  Overlap with Other Listed Species  

58.    Generally, if a consultation is triggered for any listed species, the consultation process will also take into account all other listed species known or thought to occupy areas on or near the project lands. As such, listing or critical habitat-related protections for other threatened or endangered species may benefit the sturgeon as well (i.e., provide baseline protection). However, due to the difficulty in apportioning the costs of consultations between various species as well as awareness that a consultation for the sturgeon would need to be conducted absent consultations for or involving other species, this analysis does not attempt to apportion the consultations and related costs reported by Action agencies between the sturgeon and other listed species. The Services have conducted consultations on the sturgeon in combination with numerous species, as indicated in Exhibit 2-10.

    2.2.3  Federal and State Statutes and Regulations

59.    This section provides relevant information about the regulatory elements that exist in the baseline, or the “without section 7” scenario. Where proposed activities directly affect proposed critical habitat areas, these state and local regulations may provide a level of protection to the species even in the absence of section 7. Furthermore, these regulations may influence development and/or affect the section 7 consultation process.

60.    The baseline regulatory elements potentially relevant to this analysis are described in Appendix A. As the Appendix shows, a considerable number of Federal, state, and other regulatory initiatives could provide the sturgeon with some measure of protection absent section 7 consultation.

61. The previous two sections introduced the geographic areas in which the Services are proposing to designate critical habitat for the sturgeon, the socioeconomic profile of these areas, and general trends associated with population, economic and urban growth. These sections also outlined the baseline level of protection afforded the sturgeon and its habitat, including existing Federal and state laws and policies. This section will identify the current land and water uses in or near the proposed critical habitat areas that may be affected by section 7 implementation for the sturgeon. Importantly, this discussion includes the effects of section 7 implementation for all activities associated with the proposed critical habitat area, recognizing the difficulty in some instances of distinguishing activities that would trigger jeopardy consultations without also triggering destruction or adverse modification consultations for this designation. As such, this section does not distinguish which impacts may be attributable co-extensively to the listing of the sturgeon, versus those impacts attributable solely to the critical habitat designation. Therefore, the discussion in this section reflects an “upper bound” of impacts caused by the designation.

62.     This section begins with a summary of the categories of economic impact associated with section 7 implementation for the sturgeon. It then provides a general description of the activities and potential Federal nexuses affecting the 1,580 river miles and 2,333 square miles of estuarine and marine habitat proposed as critical habitat for the sturgeon. The section then discusses likely modifications to proposed projects and regional economic impacts associated with implementing section 7 of the Act for the sturgeon. This information is augmented by projections of specific projects likely to require section 7 consultation in each critical habitat unit over the next ten years (see Appendix B).

3.1     Categories of Economic Impacts Associated with Section 7 Implementation

63. The following section provides an overview of the categories of economic impacts that are likely to arise due to the implementation of section 7 in the geographic area proposed as critical habitat for the sturgeon.

    3.1.1  Technical Assistance

64. Frequently, the Services respond to requests for technical assistance from other Federal agencies, state agencies, local municipalities, and private landowners and developers with questions regarding whether specific activities may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. Technical assistance costs represent the estimated economic costs of informational conversations between these entities and the Services regarding such potential effects. Most likely, such conversations will occur between municipal or private property owners and the Services regarding lands designated as critical habitat or lands adjacent to critical habitat. The Services’ technical assistance activities are voluntary and occur in instances where a Federal nexus does not exist. Costs to the Services of providing technical assistance to private parties are expected to be small relative to other economic impacts to the Services, Action agencies, and third parties; therefore, this analysis does not quantify the instances and costs of technical assistance efforts.

    3.1.2   Section 7 Consultations

65. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies (Action agencies) to consult with the Services whenever activities that they undertake, authorize, permit, or fund may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat. In some cases, consultations will involve the Services and another Federal agency only, such as USACE. Often, they will also include a third party involved in projects on non-Federal lands with a Federal nexus, such as private landowners conducting activities that require a Federal permit or public or private entities receiving Federal funding. In addition, Action agencies may engage in programmatic consultations to develop strategies to consider impacts to the sturgeon and its habitat at the program level, rather than at the individual project level. For example, EPA conducts programmatic consultations with FWS to consider endangered and threatened species when reviewing state water quality standards.

66. During a consultation, the Services, the Action agency, and, if applicable, the private entity applying for Federal funding or permitting communicate in an effort to minimize potential adverse effects to the species and/or to the proposed critical habitat. Communication between these parties may occur via written letters, phone calls, in-person meetings, or any combination of these. The duration and complexity of these interactions depends on a number of variables, including the type of consultation, the species, the activity of concern, the potential effects to the species and designated critical habitat associated with the proposed activity, and the parties involved.

67. Section 7 consultations with the Services may be either informal or formal. Informal consultation, which consists of informal discussions between the Services, the Action agency, and the applicant concerning an action that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat, is designed to identify and remove potential impacts at an early stage in the planning process. By contrast, a formal consultation is required if the Action agency determines that the proposed action may affect a listed species or designated critical habitat in ways that cannot be resolved through informal consultation. Regardless of the type of consultation or proposed project, section 7 consultations can require substantial administrative effort on the part of all participants. The costs of these efforts are an important component of the impacts assessment.

68. Under certain circumstances, the designation of critical habitat can result in section 7 consultations with the Services beyond those required by the listing. These include: new consultations, which can occur when activities involving a Federal nexus are proposed in or near critical habitat not thought to be currently occupied by the species; more intensive consultations, in which actions that would previously have been resolved during informal consultation must proceed to formal consultation in order to consider habitat impacts; and reinitiations of consultations, which result when consultations that previously occurred under the listing are reinitiated due to new information or circumstances generated by the designation of critical habitat.

    3.1.3  Project Modifications

69. The section 7 consultation process may involve some modifications to a proposed project. Projects may be modified in response to voluntary conservation measures suggested by the Services during the informal consultation process in order to avoid or minimize impact to a species and/or its habitat, thereby removing the need for formal consultation. Alternatively, formal consultations may involve modifications that are agreed upon by the Action agency and the applicant and included in the project description as avoidance and minimization measures. Alternatively, the modifications may be included in the Services’ biological opinion on the proposed action as reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and/or discretionary conservation recommendations to assist the Action agency in meeting its obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.

70. In some cases, the Services may determine that the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and/or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. In these cases the Services will include reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed project. The reasonable and prudent alternatives are typically developed by the Services in cooperation with the Action agency and, when applicable, the applicant. Alternatively, the Action agency can develop its own reasonable and prudent alternatives, or seek an exemption for the project. All of these project modifications have the potential to represent some direct cost to the Action agency and/or the applicant. In certain instances, these modifications can lead to broader secondary impacts on industry and/or the regional economy.

    3.1.4  Regional Economic Impacts

71. The consultation process and related project modifications could directly affect the operations of Federal agencies and private entities (e.g., dredging by the USACE, maintenance of oil and gas pipelines by private entities ), with secondary impacts on the suppliers of goods and services to these industries, as well as purchasers of products from these industries. For example, changes in dredging activities by the USACE could affect both suppliers of dredging equipment and commercial traffic utilizing the dredged waterways. Thus, project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises or activities that allow for commercial activity can have a subsequent detrimental effect on other sectors of the local economy, especially when the affected industry or activity is central to the local economy. Industries within a geographic area are interdependent in the sense that they purchase output from other industries and sectors, while also supplying inputs to other businesses. Thus, direct economic effects on a particular enterprise can affect regional output and employment in multiple industries.

3.2     Activities Potentially Affected by Section 7

    3.2.1  Activities Likely to Require Section 7 Consultation

74.     Since the listing of the sturgeon as threatened in 1991, FWS has conducted 320 informal and 14 formal consultations, and NOAA Fisheries has conducted 70 informal and 4 formal consultations involving this species through 2001. This section summarizes activities likely to lead to section 7 consultation over the next ten years, organized in terms of the Action agency that provides the Federal nexus. Information in this section is based on the record of past consultations, as well as conversations with Action agencies and the Services about future activities. Appendix B provides detailed information on specific projects pertaining to the activities described below.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

75.     USACE is responsible for carrying out and permitting the majority of activities with the potential to affect riverine, estuarine, and marine areas. USACE civil works districts undertake projects to maintain navigation channels and water infrastructure, conduct environmental restoration, and maintain flood control. USACE regulatory districts grant permits for private activities in navigable waterways under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Activities in four district offices of USACE are potentially affected by the critical habitat proposal: New Orleans, Louisiana; Vicksburg, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and Jacksonville, Florida.

76.     USACE has engaged in numerous past consultations with the Services, and future impacts to USACE-operated and regulated projects are anticipated in all proposed critical habitat units. Specific projects expected to lead to consultation with the Services are listed in detail in Appendix B.

                     Dredging

77. USACE is responsible for maintaining and improving waterways to support navigation. USACE uses dredges to maintain navigation channels at specified depths and widths to allow for barge transport of shipped goods and other boat traffic. Furthermore, USACE must occasionally engage in emergency dredging to repair the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes. USACE also conducts contract dredging projects for other Federal agencies, such as the Coast Guard and military facilities (e.g., Eglin Air Force Base and the Pensacola Naval Air Station in Florida).

78. Several types of dredges are used to remove accumulated sediment from channels. Mechanical dredges, such as backhoe and dipper dredges, scoop up material with cranes and place it onto barges for removal. More commonly, USACE uses hydraulic dredges, such as hopper and pipeline dredges, to pump material out of the channel as slurry. Hopper dredges pump slurry into a ship with a large holding compartment, while pipeline dredges pump sediment though a pipe directly into a disposal area. USACE also uses dragline and clamshell dredges to remove accumulated sediment from the mouths of sloughs. Availability of hydraulic dredges is a major concern to USACE, as only 10-20 hopper dredges and approximately 20 pipeline dredges are available for projects along the Gulf Coast. Dredge availability is a key determinant for scheduling of large-scale dredging projects.

79. USACE plans the location and timing of dredging projects to ensure that channel reliability is always maintained. Frequency of dredging varies widely, from almost constant maintenance dredging to once every ten or twenty years, depending on the level of use of the waterway for shipping and the natural rate of sediment deposition. The major navigation channels must be kept at set depths and widths to allow shippers to enter ports. Failure to maintain the navigation channels accordingly greatly affects shippers who may be forced to use smaller vessels, light load (i.e., remove shipped goods to reduce weight and therefore the depth of the vessel), use alternative modes of transport, such as rail or truck transport, or travel on to another port. All of these alternatives increase the cost of transporting goods. In extreme cases, commercial facilities may close and economic activities may transfer to other locations.

80. The major risks of dredging projects to sturgeon habitat are elevated turbidity causing increased siltation on feeding or spawning areas, along with blockage of migratory passage through channels and inlets. Numerous formal and informal consultations on dredging activities are anticipated in the proposed critical habitat units over the next ten years, primarily in the context of consultations on operations and maintenance (O&M) navigation project activities (see Appendix B).

                     Dredged Material Disposal

81. Material dredged from navigation channels must then be placed in a suitable disposal site. The most common disposal methods are: ocean placement, downdrift disposal on coastal beaches, confined disposal facilities either in openwater or upland, flow-lane or within-banks placement, and open water disposal. Placement of dredged material into openwater or aquatic confined disposal sites located in rivers, estuaries or nearshore Gulf waters poses a risk from disposal of dredged material on spawning and feeding habitat. Upland disposal and downdrift placement of sandy dredged material on beaches and other restoration projects pose less risk to sturgeon habitat. Numerous consultations on O&M navigation project activities are predicted (see Appendix B), and will likely consider impacts of both dredging and disposal activities.

                     Beach Nourishment

82. Part of the USACE’s mission is to protect beach areas from hurricane and coastal storm damage to coastal communities and promote recreation. Typically, USACE authorized storm damage reduction projects include the placement of sandy material on a beach either through overland haul of sand to the beach or by dredging suitable sands from offshore sand deposits. NOAA Fisheries believes that some or all of these consultations on beach nourishment could rise to formal consultation due to the designation of critical habitat; therefore, this analysis predicts formal consultations on most beach nourishment projects for which NOAA Fisheries is the lead agency (see Appendix B).

                     Wetland Habitat Creation

83. Dredged material may be used for wetland habitat creation, as well as other ecosystem restoration projects. These projects are undertaken with the goal of maintaining or re-establishing natural functioning and self-regulating wetland systems. USACE predicts many informal consultations on wetland habitat creation activities over the next ten years (see Appendix B). USACE also expects approximately ten informal consultations and one formal consultation within the next ten years on slough restoration activities on the Apalachicola River.

                     Flood Control/Bank Stabilization

84. USACE responsibilities include flood control and damage reduction efforts that range from small, local protection projects, such as construction of levees and non-structural flood control measures, to major dams. Erosion control and bank stabilization activities are typically associated with dredging and marsh creation. Shoreline protection efforts may involve construction of jetties, seawalls, and other hard structures, as well as beach nourishment. USACE may consult on certain flood control efforts in several units (see Appendix B).

                     Clearing and Snagging

85. USACE conducts clearing and snagging activities on an as-needed basis, using barges to remove fallen trees and other debris from river channels. USACE expects to engage in one formal consultation regarding debris removal on the Choctawhatchee River in Unit 5 (see Appendix B).

                     Dams and Reservoirs

86. USACE manages certain reservoirs and dams, such as the Jim Woodruff Dam on the Apalachicola River, to serve a variety of authorized purposes, including navigation, flood control, hydropower generation, water supply, and recreation. Furthermore, USACE develops engineering safety criteria for safe dams and inspects dams owned or operated by other Federal, state, and local agencies and private interests.

87. USACE is responsible for operations, maintenance, and repair of its dams and related structures. USACE is most likely to consult regarding activities at Jim Woodruff Dam in Unit 6, as well as several reservoirs located upstream of Unit 6 in Georgia and Alabama, within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river basin. Typical O&M and repair activities with the potential to lead to consultation include: powerhouse, lock or dam rehabilitation; changes in reservoir release patterns to accommodate hydropower generation schedules; special navigation releases from the dams to facilitate barge traffic; special reservoir operations to facilitate reservoir fishery spawning and other fish management activities; spot dredging to eliminate adverse cross-currents below dams or lock approaches; upstream levee work; possible modifications to accommodate fish passage; and public use area maintenance activities. Potential future water control activities include: changing the river flow regime to implement water allocation formulas being negotiated by the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia; and updating/revising water control plans.

                     Programmatic Consultations on Multiple O&M Navigation Projects

88. The USACE, Mobile District is in the process of preparing a regional biological assessment for sturgeon on multiple O&M navigation projects (approximately 30), in cooperation with the FWS field offices located in Panama City, Florida; Daphne, Alabama; and Jackson, Mississippi and the NOAA Fisheries office in St. Petersburg, Florida. This regional biological assessment will include specific site impact information intended to streamline the section 7 consultation process. The Mobile District and FWS have not determined the specifics of the programmatic consultation process. For example, it may be organized as two consultations, one on riverine activities and one on marine and estuarine activities. Alternatively, the programmatic consultation process could lead to three separate consultations, encompassing the Mobile District's O&M navigation projects in each affected state (Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi).

89. The preparation of a regional biological assessment with specific site impact information by USACE, Mobile District, combined with follow-up programmatic consultations, could streamline the consultation process and inform the selection of project-appropriate modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. USACE may consider the scheduling of its dredging projects and, if feasible, alter the order, scope, and/or the timing of dredging projects in order to avoid conflicts with sturgeon migratory patterns and cumulative habitat impacts. When projects cannot be rescheduled to occur at times when sturgeon are not present, programmatic consultations could help identify a set of reasonable and prudent measures that would allow the dredging projects to go forward while minimizing harm to the sturgeon and its habitat.

90. This analysis considers both a with- and without-programmatic consultation scenario. Appendix B identifies projects that are likely to be included in programmatic consultations, if up to three programmatic consultations are developed. In the without-programmatic scenario, formal consultations are predicted for individual O&M navigation projects in many critical habitat units. In contrast, the with-programmatic scenario predicts that up to three programmatic consultations will occur. Then, USACE will engage in informal consultations with FWS on individual O&M navigation projects. Therefore, the development of up to three programmatic consultations has the potential to significantly reduce both the administrative costs and the number of formal consultations that would be required on navigation projects, as well as the uncertainty regarding the outcome of any individual consultation.

91. NOAA Fisheries is in the final stages of formal programmatic consultation regarding hopper dredging in the Gulf of Mexico. This programmatic consultation encompasses five USACE Districts, four of which are affected by proposed critical habitat.

                     Regulated Modifications of Surface Water Bodies

92. Apart from its civil works activities, USACE also issues permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for private activities that occur in water bodies or involve modifying navigable waterways for construction and maintenance of structures. USACE typically consults with the Services when issuing individual standard permits for such projects, but the presence of critical habitat may also cause USACE to elevate nationwide and regional permits and consider them as individual permits. Alternatively, USACE may update its State and Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES), which govern how USACE considers effects on endangered and threatened species when granting section 404 and 10 permits. Updating the SLOPES could streamline the permit process for private activities located in or near sturgeon critical habitat by providing a programmatic approach to consider the sturgeon in nationwide and regional permits, removing the need to elevate each permit and consider it individually. This analysis estimates future consultations based on the past record of permit applications received in each unit and the past proportion of total permits that were individual permits, standard permits, and letters of permission (LOPs). Based on the past permit history across units, approximately 20 percent of total permits are likely to lead to section 7 consultation.

93. USACE section 404 and section 10 permits constitute the primary Federal nexus for consultation regarding private development. Coastal and riverside development is an issue of concern along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama, as well as the Florida panhandle. The past consultation history indicates that while development activities are likely to result in numerous informal consultations, few consultations are likely to become formal or require project modifications (see Appendix B). The typical small-scale development project might involve construction of a dock or other structure; the Services believe such construction is unlikely to adversely affect the sturgeon or its habitat.

94. Private activities regulated under section 404 and section 10 include:

• Docks, boat launches, fishing piers, and related construction. Numerous private landowners seek permits to construct docks, boat launches, and other structures in and adjacent to rivers and bays. Most of these projects are very small-scale and are regulated under Nationwide and Regional permits, which do not require individual section 7 consultation. However, large-scale marine construction projects may require individual permits.
  
  
• Private dredging projects. USACE issues permits to private parties seeking to undertake small dredging projects to maintain local access to navigation channels, as well as large-scale access channels and basins at industrial port facilities.
  
  
• Shoreline stabilization and beach nourishment. Private parties may request permits to undertake small localized shoreline stabilization, beach nourishment, and restoration projects. Larger-scale industrial sites and local governments may also require USACE permits for bulkheading and shoreline stabilization projects.
  
  
• Oil and gas. USACE regulates oil and gas pipelines and installations in the Gulf of Mexico out to the three mile limit (in state waters), as well as oil and gas structures that cross rivers. Oil and gas pipelines are established by digging trenches, often using dredges, and burying the pipes or jetting them underground. In addition, old oil and gas installations, such as old tanks, may be used to create offshore artificial reefs. The vast majority of oil and gas activity occurs in coastal and nearshore areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Oil and gas development is rare in Florida.
  
  
• Aquaculture. Private business owners may engage in aquaculture and cultivate oyster beds, which require a USACE permit. For example, USACE, Mobile District has received several permit applications for extensive aquaculture fields in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi Sound.
  
  
• Mining. Historically, gravel mining is a regulated activity with the potential to harm sturgeon habitat, as in-stream mining may occur in spawning areas and affect water quality. However, in-stream gravel mining is no longer occurring in any proposed critical habitat units.
  
  
• Near-stream gravel mining persists in the Pearl, Bogue Chitto, and Pascagoula watersheds. In addition, phosphate mining has historically been prevalent near the Suwannee River and its tributaries. This activity is typically subject to a USACE permit, along with a strict State Water Quality Certification from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Given that mining projects would not be located directly in the Suwannee River and would be subject to state and EPA water quality protections, such as preserved wetland buffer zones, FWS does not expect phosphate mining to harm the sturgeon or its habitat.
  
  
• State or local water supply projects. USACE issues section 404 permits for state, county, and municipal water supply and dam projects. The Okaloosa County Commission in Florida is considering constructing a dam on the Yellow River in Unit 4, which would require a permit. This dam would serve the primary purposes of water supply and recreation on the resulting man-made lake. Dam construction has the potential to affect several of the primary constituent elements for the sturgeon, including natural flow regimes, access to spawning sites, water quality, and safe and unobstructed migratory passage.
  
  
• This analysis predicts that the proposed Yellow River dam project will lead to one formal consultation in Unit 4 to consider impacts to the sturgeon and its habitat.

Minerals Management Service

95. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) regulates private oil and gas activities in Federal waters, beyond the state-Federal boundary three miles from shore. Although the proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon does not include Federal waters, risk of oil spills that could spread into adjacent state waters provides the basis for MMS to engage in section 7 consultation with the Service regarding potential impacts to the sturgeon and its habitat. In the areas proposed as critical habitat, private oil and gas exploration and transport activities regulated by MMS have the potential to affect Unit 8, offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

96. MMS typically conducts formal consultations with NOAA Fisheries on risk of oil spills when offering leases for oil and gas sites in the Gulf of Mexico to private companies. Measures to protect the sturgeon are usually included as nondiscretionary requirements that private companies must follow when they buy an oil and gas lease block. Lease sales require oil spill contingency plans, regardless of the Act, but NOAA Fisheries may request that the plans address ways to mitigate any harmful impacts to sturgeon or its habitat that may result from oil spills. NOAA Fisheries expects MMS to reinitiate previous consultations on lease sales and conduct new formal consultations. MMS may also consult on other miscellaneous mining-related projects that require Environmental Impacts Statements (EISs) or environmental assessments (EAs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), such as explosives removal and construction of new waste disposal facilities.

Environmental Protection Agency

97. EPA engages in section 7 consultation with the Services regarding water quality standards, to ensure that they are protective of endangered and threatened species. EPA expects to consult with the Services once every three years on changes resulting from the triennial review and modification of state delegated water quality standards for Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi under section 303 (c) of the Clean Water Act; these consultations will consider, in part, the impacts on the sturgeon. EPA also consults every two years on listings of impaired water bodies under section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, considering both direct effects in impaired water bodies and downstream effects on water bodies from upstream impaired water bodies. Finally, EPA predicts additional consultations related to total maximum daily load (TMDL) levels under section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act. Consultations on TMDLs arise when the combination of point and non-point source pollutants causes a noncompliance in a body of water, which is then listed in the state's section 303d list of impaired waters. If the noncompliance has the potential to affect the sturgeon, then EPA is likely to informally consult with the Services when determining how much load will be allowed to bring the water body back into compliance.

98. EPA predicts varying numbers of consultations in each critical habitat unit depending on the existing number of water bodies listed as impaired water bodies and the likelihood of TMDL exceedances (see Appendix B). EPA is also in the process of a national programmatic consultation on water quality criteria, which provide the basis for state delegated water quality programs. This programmatic consultation will consider all 551 listed species that are aquatic or aquatically dependent, including the sturgeon, and EPA will revise criteria if they are not protective of endangered and threatened species.  

Federal Highway Administration

99. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides partial funding, typically an 80 percent reimbursement, to state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) for road and bridge construction projects. Bridge construction, maintenance, and removal projects in rivers and bays proposed for critical habitat are likely to require section 7 consultation. Bridge projects crossing navigable waterways also require navigation and/or wetlands fill permits from USACE and location and clearance permits from the Coast Guard. For the purposes of this analysis, section 7 consultations and project modifications associated with bridge projects are attributed to the FHWA nexus.

100.   State DOTs predict several bridge construction and replacement projects crossing rivers and estuarine areas in the proposed critical habitat units. These projects are identified in Appendix B. The primary risk to the sturgeon and its habitat from bridge replacement activities are the use of underwater explosives to remove old bridge structures; the potential for heightened turbidity from equipment used in underwater construction, such as pile jetting, causing sediment to settle on sturgeon feeding and spawning areas; and the potential for blocking migratory movements by in-water construction and demolition activities.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

101.   The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) consults with the Services on relicensing of private, municipal, and state hydroelectric projects and the interstate transmission of electricity, oil, and natural gas by pipeline. FERC issues licenses of varying duration to hydroelectric projects, and typically engages in section 7 consultation only when the projects are up for relicensing. Only one hydroelectric project, located on the Conecuh River in Unit 3, is expected to undergo relicensing during the ten-year time frame considered in this analysis.

102.   FERC also regulates the transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity in interstate commerce, and consults with the Services regarding the construction of new pipelines and transmission lines. FERC may also consult regarding issuance of blanket approval certificates for minor structures related to the pipeline transport of oil and gas. FERC expects that approximately 20 informal consultations on oil and gas pipelines and related construction under blanket approval certificates may occur over the next ten years, but is unable to predict consultations in particular critical habitat units. Moreover, many pipeline projects may cross numerous water bodies and therefore may affect multiple units.

National Marine Fisheries Services - Fisheries Management

103.   NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries develops Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) to manage fish stocks under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. FMPs contain conservation and management measures designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of each fishery.

104.   In the past, NOAA Fisheries has conducted informal internal consultations on red snapper and reef fish FMPs. NOAA Fisheries predicts that ten informal consultations and two formal consultations on various Gulf of Mexico fisheries will occur over ten years. In addition, NOAA Fisheries expects to reinitiate formal consultation on the shrimp FMP for the Gulf of Mexico in order to consider the sturgeon critical habitat designation.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

105.   The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) consults with the Services regarding emergency response projects, such as construction of drainage ditches and berms for beach nourishment and debris removal. For example, one past consultation with NOAA Fisheries addressed emergency trawling of Mississippi Sound. However, FEMA primarily plays a funding role in emergency response and conducts small interim projects, with major cleanup efforts carried out by other agencies such as USACE. Therefore, FEMA does not anticipate large impacts due to the designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon, and this analysis predicts only two informal consultations over the next ten years in all units. Additional consultations with FEMA and/or its contractors could occur in the event of natural disaster.

Department of Defense

106.   Several Department of Defense (DOD) facilities are located adjacent to proposed critical habitat for sturgeon. Certain military operations have the potential to affect sturgeon and may lead to section 7 consultation. Projects vary according to the mission of the DOD facility.

                     Eglin Air Force Base

107.   Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) encompasses 724 square miles of land ranges and facilities and over 86,500 square miles of water ranges in the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent bays, sounds, and streams. The Air Armament Center tests and evaluates non-nuclear munitions, electronic combat systems and navigation/guidance systems. The Eglin land and water ranges are also used extensively for critical military training by numerous Air Force, Army, Navy, and National Guard unit Three airfields are currently active: Eglin Main, Duke Field and Hurlburt Field Main testing. The major airfield, administrative and living facilities are located in Main Eglin. The Eglin land reservation consists of 27 ranges and 10 auxiliary fields. Eglin borders five of the proposed critical habitat units: Units 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12.

108.   Eglin's mission planners project increased use of Eglin's littoral zone along Santa Rosa Island during the next ten years, as well as the Yellow River, Choctawhatchee Bay, East Bay River and Santa Rosa Sound. Testing and training activities are primarily conducted on the surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Santa Rosa Sound and are not expected to affect water quality parameters or the sturgeon's benthic habitat. However, infrequent underwater detonations of explosives in support of these and other missions could impact sturgeon (e.g., due to overpressure from explosions) and its benthic habitat.

109.   The Navy may use Eglin’s littoral zone for various tests, including line charges, underwater mine detection, and sonar testing. Navy littoral warfare exercises include small watercraft operations, beaching of tracked and air cushion vehicles on Santa Rosa Island, and transit to insert personnel and equipment into the Eglin Reservation at or near Wynnhaven Beach. The Navy’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal School also conducts low level live detonations within Eglin water ranges as part of its curriculum. These testing and training activities are likely to lead to one or two formal consultations per year. Activity levels on Santa Rosa Island may increase as more military mission activities are transferred to Eglin AFB. In addition, the Navy may use the Eglin Cape San Blas area, on the eastern edge of Unit 11, increasingly for exercises and testing in the future.

110.   The Army Rangers infrequently use small amounts of explosives to remove log dams within the Yellow River in Eglin that obstruct watercraft navigation. Rangers and Special Operations use inflatable and rigid hull watercraft in shallow waters including beaching and insertion/extraction of ground troops; low altitude helicopter operations over water bodies; and blank and live fire and smoke/flares. Past explosives use on the Yellow River has occurred in the winter months when sturgeon are not normally in the river system. The Eglin Natural Resources Branch may informally consult with the Services during the winter months as well, depending on the nature and location of certain projects (i.e., explosions in spawning habitat).

111.   Other activities that may lead to consultation are road maintenance on stream crossings along tributaries of the Yellow River, and dredging of East Pass at Destin by USACE (attributed to USACE in Appendix B). The Services also expect to consult on revisions to Eglin’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) once in ten years.

                     Tyndall Air Force Base

112.   Tyndall Air Force Base (Tyndall) is an active Air Force installation in Bay County, Florida, just southeast of Panama City in Unit 11. The base covers 28,800 acres on an 18-mile long peninsula. While Tyndall was originally activated as a flexible gunnery school for the Army Air Corps in 1941, it is currently being used by the U.S. Air Force Air Education and Training Command for training of air defense crews, and testing of new weapons systems and air defense tactics.

113.   Tyndall’s Natural Resources Division does not believe that any of its activities in the next ten years will impact the proposed critical habitat. Consequently, consultation on the revision of its INRMP will be concluded informally. Likewise, the Weapons Evaluation Group (WEG) at Tyndall does not believe that its activities will affect the sturgeon or its habitat. WEG launches full-scale and sub-scale drones on a regular basis, and occasionally the launches fail. Usually the drone will fall to the land, but it is possible that a drone could fall offshore into the Gulf of Mexico, within an area designated as critical habitat. It is highly unlikely that Tyndall would initiate consultation over this possibility.

114.   The Navy conducts limited operations onshore at Tyndall, such as the testing of mines and mine avoidance. The Navy has not initiated consultation on this activity in the past, but increased awareness of critical habitat could lead the Navy to initiate new consultations.

                     John C. Stennis Space Center

115.   John C. Stennis Space Center, located within Unit 1 in south Mississippi, is responsible for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) rocket propulsion testing in Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, and New Mexico, as well as test services for government and commercial customers.

116.   According to personnel at the Stennis Space Center, the testing of rockets has solely terrestrial and no aquatic impacts. Because the Space Center primarily tests rockets, the emissions from the rocket launches are limited to the rocket launch site. The Space Center uses Pearl River as a navigational channel, and has a contract with USACE to dredge the river. USACE may dredge the river once in the next ten years (attributed to USACE in Appendix B). Other than the dredging, Stennis Space Center does not anticipate that any other activities in the next ten years will affect the sturgeon or its habitat.

                     Pensacola Naval Air Station

117.   Pensacola Naval Air Station (Pensacola NAS) plays a major role in the United States’ naval aviation and naval flight training. It is an 8,400-acre installation located in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida in Units 9 and 11. Pensacola NAS currently maintains several training centers, and provides living accommodations for military and civilian personnel.

118.   The Natural Resources Division at Pensacola NAS anticipates informal consultations over the following activities in the next ten years: exotic species control for plants, beach renourishment (bringing in sand to establish sand dunes), and the establishment of shoreline vegetation (planting sea oats and other plants). In addition, USACE will dredge the surrounding waters every three years under contract to the NAS (attributed to USACE in Appendix B). Pensacola NAS will also likely consult over the revision of Pensacola NAS’ INRMP in 2010.

119.   A small potential exists for informal consultations regarding riverine training activities by small boat units, and ship-to-shore operations with small boats and landing crafts. Such informal consultations would involve minimal impact and are not quantified in this analysis.

                     Naval Station Pascagoula

120.   Naval Station (NAVSTA) Pascagoula occupies 187 acres of Singing River Island, which is located in Mississippi Sound at the mouth of the Pascagoula River. Singing River Island is man-made, having been created when dredged materials from the Pascagoula Federal channel and nearby Ingalls Shipbuilding were deposited in the area. NAVSTA Pascagoula is an active naval station and currently supports approximately 2,000 active duty military, including those assigned to ships and tenant commands on the station.

121.   Although NAVSTA Pascagoula has consulted informally with FWS on other endangered species, no consultations are predicted related to sturgeon. USACE will likely dredge surrounding water to preserve vessel access to the station; resulting consultations are attributed to USACE in Appendix B.

Coast Guard

122.   The Coast Guard is a military, multi-mission, maritime service tasked with six main responsibilities: (1) maritime safety; (2) maritime law enforcement; (3) protection of natural resources; (4) maritime mobility; (5) national defense; and (6) homeland security. Within these six main responsibilities, the Coast Guard carries out the following missions that occur in the Gulf of Mexico: maritime search and rescue; bridge administration; aids to navigation; recreational boating safety; vessel traffic management; at-sea enforcement of living marine resource laws and treaty obligations; at-sea drug and illegal migrant interdiction; and port security and safety.

123.   Activities that may potentially be impacted by the need to consult under section 7 include aids to navigation, bridge administration, dredging, and marine events (e.g., races). Typical aid to navigation activities involve the maintenance and replacement of channel lights, buoys, and permanent pilings. The Coast Guard does not predict consultations on these activities. Buoy or piling replacements or new placement activities may be affected if they occur in critical habitat areas. Specifically, the Coast Guard anticipates some added cost to this activity if time windows are requested by the Services.

124.   Impacts associated with dredging and bridge replacement activities are attributed to USACE and FHWA, as discussed above.

Forest Service

125.   Lands owned by the Forest Service border the Conecuh and Yellow Rivers in units 3 and 4, and the Apalachicola River in unit 6, and encompass three National Forests: Apalachicola National Forest in Florida, Conecuh National Forest in Alabama, and DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi. All three forests are managed for multiple uses, including wildlife, water quality, wilderness, recreation, and timber harvest. Conecuh National Forest also has resource extraction activities, including oil and gas, coal, sand and gravel, and building stone mining. DeSoto National Forest has a tree nursery and provides a training area for the Mississippi National Guard.

126.   The Forest Service has not initiated consultations with the Services under the listing of the sturgeon and does not anticipate the need to initiate consultations over the next ten years under either the listing or designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon. Although the Forest Service designates buffer zones along the riverbanks bordering National Forest land, these buffer zones are adopted as best management practices in the forests, not solely to protect listed species and their habitat. The width of the buffer required varies by the forest, soil type, and species of concern.

    3.2.2  Minimally Impacted Activities

127.   One national seashore and nine national wildlife refuges (NWR), along with one estuarine research facility, are located in or adjacent to proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon. These are:

• Gulf Islands National Seashore (Units 8, 9, 10, and 11);
  
  
• MS Sandhill Crane NWR (Unit 2);
  
  
• Lower Suwannee NWR (Unit 7);
  
  
• Bogue Chitto NWR (Unit 8);
  
  
• Big Branch Marsh NWR (Unit 8);
  
  
• Bayou Sauvage NWR (Unit 8);
  
  
• Bon Secour NWR (Unit 8);
  
  
• Grand Bay NWR (Unit 8);
  
  
• St. Vincent NWR (Unit 11);
  
  
• Cedar Keys NWR (Unit 14); and
  
  
• Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (Units 3 and 6).

128.   Although some construction and maintenance projects in these parks and refuges may lead to informal section 7 consultation with the Service regarding the sturgeon, this analysis does not attempt to quantify the impacts. These Federal agencies function generally to promote conservation and protect lands, and are not likely to experience major economic impacts due to section 7 implementation for the sturgeon.

Exhibit 3-1 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FUTURE SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS ON THE GULF STURGEON BY ACTIVITY (TEN YEARS)
Federal Nexus/Activity	Potentially affected activities	Informal Consultations	Formal Consultations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- O&M Navigation Projects	Dredging and sediment disposal.	23	37a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Other Operations Projects	Beach nourishment, flood control/bank stabilization, clearing and snagging, reservoir operations.	53	49
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Regulated Projects	Construction in water bodies (e.g., docks and piers), private dredging projects, shoreline stabilization, aquaculture, and permitting of oil and gas pipelines.	787	11
Coast Guard	Aids to navigation, bridge administration, dredging.	Included with USACE/FHWA consultations	Included with USACE/FHWA consultations
Department of Defense	Eglin and Tyndall Air Force Bases, Stennis Space Center, Pensacola Naval Air Station.	51	26
Environmental Protection Agency	Triennial review of state water quality standards, listings of impaired water bodies, and TMDLs.	359	4
Federal Emergency Management Agency	Emergency response projects.	2	0
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission	Relicensing of hydroelectric projects, permitting of interstate oil and gas pipelines.	21	0
Federal Highway Administration/Department of Transportation	Funding of road and bridge construction, removal, and maintenance.	5	17
Fish and Wildlife Service	Management of National Wildlife Refuges.	Minimally impacted	Minimally impacted
Forest Service	Forest land ownership and management.	None	None
Minerals Management Service	Oil and gas leases in Federal waters	3	15
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Service	Fisheries management.	10	3
Total		1,314	162
a Total does not include potential programmatic consultations on O&M navigation project activities. Total number of  consultations is likely to be lower if the programmatic consultations are implemented.

    3.2.3  Summary of Impacted Activities 

129.   Detailed information on consultations likely to arise for activities in each unit is provided in Appendix B. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the predicted number of formal and informal consultations by activity. USACE activities are expected to lead to the largest number of section 7 consultations.

130.   Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the predicted number of formal and informal consultations by unit. Activities in Units 8, 9, and 11 are predicted to lead to the largest number of section 7 formal consultations.

3.3     Project Modifications Arising from Section 7 Consultation

131.   This section summarizes project modifications associated with activities likely to require section 7 consultation. Project modifications are agreed upon by the Services, the Action agency, and, if applicable, the applicant as a result of the informal or formal consultation process. This analysis attributes the cost of project modifications to section 7 implementation, even in cases where parties implement conservation measures as a result of the Services’ recommendations during the informal consultation process rather than as reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) required in a formal consultation. Moreover, project modifications described below would likely have been adopted to implement terms and conditions in the incidental take statement and/or under the jeopardy provision of section 7, even in the absence of critical habitat protection for the sturgeon. No additional future modifications are expected to be adopted solely to prevent adverse modification of critical habitat.

132.   This section describes typical project modifications by Action agency. Appendix B identifies the potential modifications that may result from section 7 consultation on specific projects in each proposed critical habitat unit, according to information provided by the Services regarding the modifications they are likely to request for future projects. Per effort costs associated with modifications described below are summarized in Section 4.4. 

    3.3.1  Modifications to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Projects

133.   USACE may implement or recommend to permit applicants a variety of project modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. O&M navigation project activities (i.e., dredging and disposal) are most likely to require modification. In addition, USACE is likely to fund additional studies to expand knowledge about sturgeon behavior and migratory patterns as a condition of formal consultations.  

         Modifications to O&M Navigation Projects

134.   USACE O&M navigation projects (i.e., dredging and disposal) are likely to be modified as a result of potential impacts to sturgeon and, in certain cases, its critical habitat. The adoption of various modifications may depend, in part, on the development of a regional biological assessment with site-specific project impact information by USACE, Mobile District, as well as follow-up programmatic consultations with the Services. Potential project modifications specific to navigation project activities include:

• Minimize extent of dredging activity. In past consultations, FWS has requested that proposed dredging projects be limited to proposed depths only. Less likely, USACE could avoid dredging in deeper portions of the channel for riverine dredging projects, limit dredging of navigation channels to the minimum dimensions necessary, avoid performing advanced maintenance activities, or use silt curtains to enclose dredging sites when dredging in shallow water.
  
  

• For hydraulic dredging, USACE may raise the cutter head above the bottom during pipeline clearing and keep it as close to the surface as practicable while water is being pumped from the pipeline.
  
  

• Minimize extent of disposal activity. In potential estuarine feeding areas, USACE may limit the depth of dredged material placed in disposal areas in order to allow benthic organisms to recolonize more quickly. FWS suggests that one way to reduce the amount of dredged material requiring disposal is to generate less sediment by reducing overdepth dredging (i.e., “advanced maintenance” dredging beyond the depth required for navigation).
  
  
• Adapt disposal areas. For example, in certain situations, USACE may use confined rather than open water disposal areas, alter the location of disposal areas, or avoid disposal in deep areas of river channels to limit impacts to the benthos (see Appendix B).
  
  
• Sequence dredging. For example, if a dredging project includes both a river mouth and a channel into a bay, USACE may arrange the project to dredge the estuary first and dredge the river second so that areas more sensitive to turbidity and hypoxia are dredged during a cooler time frame.
  
  
• Dredging windows. USACE has expressed concern about the effect of dredging windows on their operations. In past informal consultations, dredging windows have been recommended to avoid riverine dredging during spawning months (spring) to avoid precluding passage and creating turbidity that could harm sturgeon eggs, or avoid estuarine dredging during feeding months (winter) to avoid precluding passage through inlets and harming feeding areas. Dredging windows are recommended by the Services during informal consultations, since avoiding work during times when sturgeon are known to be in the direct vicinity of the project is the most effective way to avoid harm to the species.
  
  
• If USACE cannot avoid dredging within the time frames suggested in an informal consultation, USACE will likely need to initiate a formal consultation to develop modifications to the project that are protective of the sturgeon while allowing the project to move forward on the preferred schedule. Modifications to the project other than dredging windows would be required at that stage to reduce harm to the sturgeon from the unavoidable dredging activity.

         Potential Modifications to Dam Projects

135.   The construction, maintenance, and operation of dams and reservoirs can affect the sturgeon and its habitat. Certain modifications to these activities may be reasonable and prudent to protect sturgeon, and USACE is currently preparing a biological assessment of the effects of its ACF reservoir project operations on the sturgeon. Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, the furthest downstream ACF reservoir project, marks the upstream limit of Unit 6. The operations of the ACF projects may be modified following adoption of an interstate water allocation formula, currently under negotiation by the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The USACE may also investigate the possibility of fish passage at Jim Woodruff and of scheduling dam maintenance and construction to avoid spring spawning months.

136.   Protecting the sturgeon and its habitat is one of many responsibilities that USACE must consider in operating the ACF projects, which are variously authorized for the purposes of flood control, navigation, hydropower, water supply, recreation, water quality, and fish and wildlife. Under normal flow conditions, current flow regimes provide adequate flow in sturgeon spawning areas on the Apalachicola during spring spawning months. However, some concern exists that future modifications to flow regimes at Jim Woodruff Dam may be attributable to the sturgeon and its habitat. Section 3.4 discusses flow at Jim Woodruff Dam in greater detail and outlines the parameters governing whether sturgeon spawning areas are sufficiently submerged during spring spawning months in drought years.

137.   Additional modifications may apply to new dam construction, such as the proposed dam on the Yellow River in Unit 4, to ensure that the dam is designed and constructed in a manner that provides for migratory passage, minimizes harm to spawning habitat, and maintains existing water quality.  

         Potential Modifications to Other Projects

138.   The Services have recommended or required additional modifications to certain past projects that may also apply to some USACE-operated or USACE-permitted projects, other than dredging, disposal, and dams. These modifications, which may include screening intake structures for water withdrawal, limiting tow times for trawl nets (e.g., during hurricane debris cleanup), and restricting the use of underwater explosives during construction, are primarily related to avoiding or minimizing take of the species, rather than reducing destruction or adverse modification of habitat.

    3.3.2  Modifications to FHWA Bridge Projects

139.   Bridge construction and replacement activities are likely to involve modifications to avoid and minimize harm to the sturgeon and its habitat. Detonating explosives to remove old bridge structures is the activity most likely to require measures to protect sturgeon. The Services may recommend the use of airbubble curtains to limit the extent of blast pressures, combined with scare charges to warn sturgeon from entering or remaining in the work area. In addition, time windows are often suggested to avoid conducting major construction and removal activities (e.g., pile jetting, explosives detonation) while sturgeon are using the same area, to address take issues and avoid jeopardizing the fish. Silt curtains are sometimes used to control turbidity related to pile jetting, dredging, and other underwater construction. Alternatively, the Services may suggest that bridge builders monitor turbidity levels and delay construction until suspended sediment levels decrease.

4.1     Estimated Costs of Section 7 Consultation

169.   Estimates of the cost of an individual consultation were developed from a review and analysis of historical section 7 files from a number of FWS Ecological Services offices around the country, augmented by specific level of effort information provided by USACE, Mobile District. These files addressed consultations conducted for both listings and critical habitat designations. Cost figures are based on an average level of effort for consultations of low, medium, or high complexity, multiplied by the appropriate labor rates for staff from the Services and other Federal agencies.

170.   Estimates take into consideration the level of effort of the Services, the Action agency, and the applicant during both formal and informal consultations, as well as the varying complexity of consultations. Informal consultations are assumed to involve a low to medium level of complexity. Formal consultations are assumed to involve a medium to high level of complexity. Costs associated with these consultations include the administrative costs associated with conducting the consultation, such as the cost of time spent in meetings, preparing letters, and in some cases, developing a biological assessment and biological opinion.

171.   Per effort costs associated with formal consultations and informal consultations are presented in Exhibit 4-1. The low and the high scenarios represent a range of costs for each type of interaction. For example, when FWS engages in informal consultation regarding a particular activity, the cost of FWS’s effort is expected to be approximately $1,000 to $3,100. The cost of the Action agency’s effort is expected to be $2,000 to $9,600, and the cost of a third party’s effort (if applicable) is expected to be approximately $1,200 to $2,900. The Action agency or the third party may bear the costs of biological assessment, depending on the specifics of the consultation.

172.   Exhibit 4-2 reports estimates of total consultation costs associated with activities with the potential to affect the sturgeon and/or its proposed critical habitat. Exhibit 4-3 reports consultation costs by critical habitat unit. These estimates were generated by multiplying the number of expected consultations (shown in Appendix B) by the per effort cost of these actions.