Draft Economic Anaylsis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Gulf Sturgeon |
|
July 2002 |
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
1.1 Description
of Species and Habitat
1.2 Proposed
Critical Habitat
1.3 Framework
for Analysis
1.4 Methodological
Approach
1.5 Information
Sources
2 RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION
2.1 Socioeconomic
Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas
2.2 Baseline
Elements
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 Regional
Economic Impacts
3.5 Summary
of Section 7 Impacts
4.1 Estimated
Costs of Section 7 Consultation
4.2 Estimated
Costs of Project Modifications
4.3 Total
Section 7 Costs
4.4 Economic
Impacts Associated Solely with the Designation of Critical Habitat
4.5 Potential
Impacts on Small Entities (Businesses, Governments, Non-profits)
4.6 Description
of Affected Small Entities
5 POTENTIAL
BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT
5.1 Categories
of Benefits
5.2 Placing
Monetary Values on the Benefits of Section 7 Implementation
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has added this preface to all economic analyses of critical habitat designations:
"The standard best practice in economic analysis is applying an approach that measures costs, benefits, and other impacts arising from a regulatory action against a baseline scenario of the world without the regulation. Guidelines on economic analysis, developed in accordance with the recommendations set forth in Executive Order 12866 ("Regulatory Planning and Review"), for both the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Interior, note the appropriateness of the approach:
'The baseline is the state of the world that would exist without the proposed action. All costs and benefits that are included in the analysis should be incremental with respect to this baseline.'
"When viewed in this way the economic impacts of critical habitat designation involve evaluating the 'without critical habitat' baseline versus the 'with critical habitat' scenario. Impacts of a designation equal the difference, or the increment, between these two scenarios. Measured differences between the baseline and the scenario in which critical habitat is designated may include (but are not limited to) changes in land use, environmental quality, property values, or time and effort expended on consultations and other activities by federal landowners, federal action agencies, and in some instances, State and local governments and/or private third parties. Incremental changes may be either positive (benefits) or negative (costs).
"In New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S.F.W.S., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001), however, the 10th Circuit recently held that the baseline approach to economic analysis of critical habitat designations that was used by the Service for the southwestern willow flycatcher designation was 'not in accord with the language or intent of the ESA.' In particular, the court was concerned that the Service had failed to analyze any economic impact that would result from the designation, because it took the position in the economic analysis that there was no economic impact from critical habitat that was incremental to, rather than merely co-extensive with, the economic impact of listing the species. The Service had therefore assigned all of the possible impacts of designation to the listing of the species, without acknowledging any uncertainty in this conclusion or considering such potential impacts as transaction costs, reinitiations, or indirect costs. The court rejected the baseline approach incorporated in that designation, concluding that, by obviating the need to perform any analysis of economic impacts, such an approach rendered the economic analysis requirement meaningless: 'The statutory language is plain in requiring some kind of consideration of economic impact in the CHD phase.'
"In this analysis, the Service addresses the 10th Circuit's concern that we give meaning to the ESA's requirement of considering the economic impacts of designation by acknowledging the uncertainty of assigning certain post-designation economic impacts (particularly section 7 consultations) as having resulted from either the listing or the designation. The Service believes that for many species the designation of critical habitat has a relatively small economic impact, particularly in areas where consultations have been ongoing with respect to the species. This is because the majority of the consultations and associated project modifications, if any, already consider habitat impacts and as a result, the process is not likely to change due to the designation of critical habitat. Nevertheless, we recognize that the nationwide history of consultations on critical habitat is not broad, and, in any particular case, there may be considerable uncertainty whether an impact is due to the critical habitat designation or the listing alone. We also understand that the public wants to know more about the kinds of costs consultations impose and frequently believe that designation could require additional project modifications.
"Therefore, this analysis incorporates two baselines. One addresses the impacts of critical habitat designation that may be 'attributable co-extensively' to the listing of the species. Because of the potential uncertainty about the benefits and economic costs resulting from critical habitat designations, we believe it is reasonable to estimate the upper bounds of the cost of project modifications based on the benefits and economic costs of project modifications that would be required due to consultation under the jeopardy standard. It is important to note that the inclusion of impacts attributable co-extensively to the listing does not convert the economic analysis into a tool to be considered in the context of a listing decision. As the court reaffirmed in the southwestern willow flycatcher decision, 'the ESA clearly bars economic considerations from having a seat at the table when the listing determination is being made.'
"The other baseline, the lower boundary baseline, will be a more traditional rulemaking baseline. It will attempt to provide the Service's best analysis of which of the effects of future consultations actually result from the regulatory action under review - i.e. the critical habitat designation. These costs will in most cases be the costs of additional consultations, reinitiated consultations, and additional project modifications that would not have been required under the jeopardy standard alone as well as costs resulting from uncertainty and perceptional impacts on markets."
DATED: March 20, 2002
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.
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. Aside from the protection that is provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that are carried out, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency, the designation of critical habitat will not afford any additional protections for species with respect to strictly private activities.
Proposed Critical Habitat
4. The Services plan to propose critical habitat designation for the Gulf sturgeon (sturgeon) on the following:
5. 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 critical habitat is up to the ordinary high water line on each river bank for riverine habitat and the mean high water line for marine habitat. All of the proposed critical habitat areas are currently seasonally occupied by the sturgeon.
Framework and Economic Impacts Considered
6. 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 without section 7 protective measures, such as through section 9 of the Act and other Federal, State, and local laws. The “with section 7” scenario identifies 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.
7. 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 both jeopardy and critical habitat impacts, 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.
8. 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.
9. Three primary categories of potential costs are considered in the analysis. These are:
Section 7 Costs
10. The majority of future section 7 consultations associated with the proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon are likely to address dredging and disposal, other civil works activities carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (e.g., water supply, beach nourishment, wetland/habitat creation, flood control), private construction projects in wetlands and navigable waterways, oil and gas exploration and pipeline construction, bridge replacement, water quality standards, mission and natural resource management activities at Department of Defense (DOD) sites, emergency management, and dam operation and maintenance. This analysis estimates that, over ten years, approximately 139 formal consultations and 1,314 informal consultations will occur on projects with the potential to affect the proposed critical habitat, plus one additional programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities in ACOE’s Mobile, Alabama District. Many of these consultations are likely to result in Service recommendations for project modifications.
11. Results of the economic analysis are summarized below in terms of landownership category:
12. The consultation history since the listing of the sturgeon in September 1991 indicates that the Services would continue to consult on the same range of activities in the absence of critical habitat designation. However, a subset of impacts may be solely attributable to the critical habitat designation. A portion of the total section 7 consultation costs are associated with the administrative effort required to address critical habitat issues during the formal and informal consultation process. In addition, NOAA Fisheries believes it will have to reinitiate certain past consultations to more systematically address habitat impacts. Some activities that required informal consultations with NOAA Fisheries in the past may also require formal consultation under the designation due to increased concerns about habitat impacts.
Section 7 Benefits
13. Certain categories of benefit may derive from the listing of the sturgeon and the designation of critical habitat. Survival and recovery of the species may lead to benefits such as enhanced existence value and, in the long term, development of commercial and sport fisheries. Protecting sturgeon habitat may produce benefits such as improved ecosystem health, recreational opportunities, flood control, and property values. Insufficient information exists to quantify the secondary benefits of habitat protection. However, several willingness-to-pay studies reported in the economics literature attempt to estimate the non-use value the public holds for preservation of various species of fish. Non-use values represent the public’s willingness-to-pay to preserve a species or enhance a species’ population above and beyond any direct use. While these studies do not predict the willingness to pay individuals would have for the protections afforded to the sturgeon through section 7 of the Act, they support the notion that preservation of the sturgeon may generate substantial benefits to the public. However, because future consultations and project modifications are primarily associated with the listing of the species, associated benefits are also expected to arise primarily from the listing.
Summary
14. Exhibit ES-1 provides a summary of expected total consultation and project modification costs associated with section 7 implementation for the sturgeon over a ten year period, and identifies the subset of impacts attributable to the designation of critical habitat.
Exhibit ES-1 ESTIMATED
TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION |
||
Unit |
Total Section 7 Costs |
Costs Attributable to Critical Habitat |
Unit 1 |
$508,000 to $2,068,000 |
$23,000 to $28,000 |
Unit 2 |
$224,000 to $923,000 |
$13,000 to $15,000 |
Unit 3 |
$175,000 to $622,000 |
$10,000 to $11,000 |
Unit 4 |
$216,000 to $934,000 |
$12,000 to $15,000 |
Unit 5 |
$112,000 to $348,000 |
$7,000 |
Unit 6 |
$265,000 to $893,000 |
$16,000 to $18,000 |
Unit 7 |
$214,000 to $864,000 |
$10,000 to $12,000 |
Unit 8 |
$787,000 to $2,260,000 |
$172,000 to $228,000 |
Unit 9 |
$377,000 to $1,181,000 |
$92,000 to $109,000 |
Unit 10 |
$816,000 to $3,094,000 |
$78,000 to $95,000 |
Unit 11 |
$407,000 to $1,030,000 |
$24,000 to $26,000 |
Unit 12 |
$885,000 to $3,354,000 |
$66,000 to $81,000 |
Unit 13 |
$271,000 to $837,000 |
$43,000 to $50,000 |
Unit 14 |
$55,000 to $259,000 |
$3,000 to $4,000 |
Multiple Units |
$228,000 to $691,000 |
$35,000 to $51,000 |
Consultation
Cost |
$5,538,000 to $19,358,000 |
$602,000 to $752,000 |
Project Modification Cost (All Units) |
$37,850,000 |
$0 |
Total 1 |
$43,388,000 to $57,208,000 |
$602,000 to $752,000 |
Note:
Costs may not sum due to rounding. |
SECTION
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
15. 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. This report was prepared by Industrial
Economics, Incorporated (IEc), under contract to FWS’s Division of Economics.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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, 5th 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. However, the March 2001 decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the Services’ definition of destruction or adverse modification as currently contained in 50 CFR 402.02 to be invalid. In response to this decision, the Services are “reviewing the regulatory definition of adverse modification in relation to the conservation of the species.” The Services define jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species.
1.1 Description of Species and Habitat
19. 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.
20. Adult sturgeon range between 6 and 8 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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. In several rivers throughout its range, dams have severely restricted sturgeon access to historic migration routes and spawning areas.
24. 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:
25. 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:
26. 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. Aside from the protection that is provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that are carried out, permitted, or funded by Federal agencies, the designation of critical habitat will not afford any additional protections for species with respect to such strictly private activities.
27. 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.
28. 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 both jeopardy and critical habitat impacts, 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.
29. 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.
30. 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 Service, the Forest Service, the Air Force, the Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. For private lands subject to critical habitat designation, section 7 consultations and modifications to land uses and activities can only 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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:
34. 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 (Saint Petersburg, FL Southeast Regional Office), and personnel from affected agencies, including: 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.
SECTION 2
35. 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
36. This section summarizes key economic and demographic information for the counties containing proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon. 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
37. 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 suggests 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.
Exhibit 2-1 BASELINE
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL COUNTIES CONTAINING |
|||||
State |
County |
Population |
Percent of State |
Per Capita Income |
Persons per square mile |
Alabama |
State Total |
4,447,100 |
|
$30,790 |
87.6 |
Coffee |
43,615 |
1.00% |
$31,316 |
64.2 |
|
Conecuh |
14,089 |
0.30% |
$22,643 |
16.6 |
|
Covington |
37,631 |
0.85% |
$25,691 |
36.4 |
|
Dale |
49,129 |
1.10% |
$30,476 |
87.6 |
|
Escambia |
38,440 |
0.86% |
$25,712 |
40.6 |
|
Geneva |
25,764 |
0.58% |
$26,009 |
44.7 |
|
Houston |
88,787 |
2.00% |
$32,086 |
153.1 |
|
Mobile |
399,843 |
9.00% |
$29,943 |
324.3 |
|
Florida |
State Total |
15,982,378 |
100% |
$32,877 |
296.4 |
Bay |
148,217 |
0.93% |
$32,047 |
194 |
|
Calhoun |
13,017 |
0.08% |
$25,362 |
23 |
|
Columbia |
56,513 |
0.35% |
$28,521 |
70.9 |
|
Dixie |
13,827 |
0.09% |
$21,982 |
19.6 |
|
Escambia |
294,410 |
1.84% |
$31,069 |
444.7 |
|
Franklin |
11,057 |
0.07% |
$24,088 |
20.3 |
|
Gadsden |
45,087 |
0.28% |
$24,881 |
87.4 |
|
Gilchrist |
14,437 |
0.09% |
$27,483 |
41.4 |
|
Gulf |
13,332 |
0.08% |
$28,605 |
24 |
|
Hamilton |
13,327 |
0.08% |
$24,174 |
25.9 |
|
Holmes |
18,564 |
0.12% |
$23,416 |
38.5 |
|
Jackson |
46,755 |
0.29% |
$25,953 |
51 |
|
Lafayette |
7,022 |
0.04% |
$27,354 |
12.9 |
|
Levy |
34,450 |
0.22% |
$24,838 |
30.8 |
|
Liberty |
7,021 |
0.04% |
$27,178 |
8.4 |
|
Madison |
18,733 |
0.12% |
$24,980 |
27.1 |
|
Okaloosa |
170,498 |
1.07% |
$36,788 |
182.2 |
|
Santa Rosa |
117,743 |
0.74% |
$37,201 |
115.8 |
|
Suwannee |
34,844 |
0.22% |
$26,070 |
50.6 |
|
Walton |
40,601 |
0.25% |
$27,211 |
38.4 |
|
Washington |
20,973 |
0.13% |
$25,224 |
36.2 |
|
Louisiana |
State Total |
4,468,976 |
|
$30,466 |
102.6 |
Jefferson |
455,466 |
10.19% |
$37,312 |
1483.6 |
|
Orleans |
484,674 |
10.85% |
$25,200 |
2677.8 |
|
St. Bernard |
67,229 |
1.50% |
$32,478 |
144.6 |
|
St. Tammany |
191,268 |
4.28% |
$43,653 |
224 |
|
Washington |
43,926 |
0.98% |
$22,584 |
65.6 |
|
Mississippi |
State Total |
2,844,658 |
100% |
$28,527 |
60.6 |
Clarke |
17,955 |
0.63% |
$26,236 |
26 |
|
Copiah |
28,757 |
1.01% |
$23,107 |
37 |
|
Forrest |
72,604 |
2.55% |
$27,652 |
155.5 |
|
George |
19,144 |
0.67% |
$28,656 |
40.1 |
|
Greene |
13,299 |
0.47% |
$24,753 |
18.7 |
|
Hancock |
42,967 |
1.51% |
$29,168 |
90.1 |
|
Harrison |
189,601 |
6.67% |
$30,706 |
326.3 |
|
Hinds |
250,800 |
8.82% |
$32,033 |
288.6 |
|
Jackson |
131,420 |
4.62% |
$34,411 |
180.8 |
|
Jones |
64,958 |
2.28% |
$26,639 |
93.6 |
|
Lawrence |
13,258 |
0.47% |
$24,574 |
30.8 |
|
Marion |
25,595 |
0.90% |
$22,516 |
47.2 |
|
Pearl River |
48,621 |
1.71% |
$27,091 |
60 |
|
Perry |
12,138 |
0.43% |
$24,328 |
18.8 |
|
Pike |
38,940 |
1.37% |
$21,689 |
95.2 |
|
Rankin |
115,327 |
4.05% |
$41,627 |
148.8 |
|
Simpson |
27,639 |
0.97% |
$25,392 |
46.9 |
|
Walthall |
15,156 |
0.53% |
$20,201 |
37.5 |
|
Wayne |
21,216 |
0.75% |
$24,508 |
26.2 |
2.1.2 Economic Activity
38. The proposed designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon lies within the vicinity of several major centers of industrial and commercial economic activity. Understanding the types of businesses that operate around critical habitat provides context for the current activities that occur in the proposed designation and future development pressure on the region.
39. Exhibit 2-2 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 2-2 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 |
40. 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
41. An important component of the regulatory baseline is the Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan, published in 1995. The Recovery Plan establishes recovery criteria for the sturgeon and proposes actions to restore and maintain sturgeon populations. The ultimate goal of the Recovery Plan is to enable the species to recover to the point that it can be removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. A secondary goal is to recover the species to the point that it can support a commercial fishery. While the Recovery Plan imposes no binding restrictions or obligations on landowners and managers, it serves as an important information source regarding sturgeon habitat areas.
2.2.2 Overlap with Other Listed Species
42. 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 2-3.
Exhibit 2-3 OTHER
LISTED SPECIES INCLUDED IN |
|
Species |
Status |
Atlantic loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta caretta) |
Threatened |
Ringed sawback turtle (Graptemys oculifera) |
Threatened |
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) |
Threatened |
Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas) |
Endangered |
Kemp’s Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) |
Endangered |
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) |
Endangered |
Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) |
Endangered |
Alabama red-bellied turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) |
Endangered |
American bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) |
Threatened |
Fat three-ridge (mussel) (Elliptoideus sloatianus) |
Endangered |
Shiny-rayed pocketbook (mussel) (Lampsilis subangulata) |
Endangered |
Ochlockonee moccasinshell (mussel) (Medionidus simpsonianus) |
Endangered |
Purple bankclimber (mussel) (Elliptoideus sloatianus) |
Threatened |
Inflated heelsplitter mussel (Potamilus inflatus) |
Threatened |
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) |
Endangered |
Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) |
Endangered |
Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) |
Endangered |
Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys) |
Endangered |
St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularius) |
Endangered |
Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) |
Endangered |
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) |
Threatened |
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) |
Endangered |
2.2.3 Federal
and State Statutes and Regulations
43. 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.
44. 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.
SECTION 3
45. 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, these estimates include the
effects of section 7 implementation for all activities associated with the proposed
critical habitat area. 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 estimates in this section should reflect an “upper bound” of
impacts caused by the designation.
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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 the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). 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. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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
53. 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, or 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 their obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. 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 cost to the Action agency and/or the applicant. In certain instances, these modifications can lead to broader regional economic impacts.
3.1.4 Regional Economic Impacts
54. As outlined in Section 2 of this report, approximately 700,000 business establishments in 53 counties across four states are located in and around the sturgeon critical habitat designation. The consultation process and related project modifications could directly affect the operations of certain of these enterprises operating within particular industries. For example, delayed or modified dredging activities could affect shippers navigating inland waterways, causing cost and revenue effects through shipping delays or the use of alternative transportation means. Other navigation, commercial fishing, hydropower generation, and oil and gas activities could likewise experience direct effects of the section 7 consultation process.
55. Project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises can have a subsequent detrimental effect on other sectors of the local economy, especially when the affected industry 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
56. Numerous Action agencies carry out and permit activities and projects in or adjacent to proposed critical habitat areas. These activities may lead to section 7 consultation with the Services, and in some cases specific projects may be modified in order to protect the sturgeon and/or its habitat. This section provides descriptions of activities likely to be affected by section 7 implementation. It also identifies activities unlikely to incur major section 7 impacts. Specific numbers of expected section 7 informal and formal consultations related to these activities in each proposed critical habitat unit are provided in Appendix B. Administrative and project modification costs associated with section 7 implementation for affected projects are provided in Section 4.
57. This analysis assumes that each activity described will lead to section 7 consultation with either FWS or NOAA Fisheries, and that a consultation with each agency will not be required for a single project. The proposed rule outlines proposed jurisdictional responsibilities for the management of the sturgeon. FWS would be responsible for all consultations on the sturgeon in riverine units and NOAA Fisheries would be responsible for all consultations on the sturgeon in marine units. In estuarine areas, the Services propose to divide consultation responsibilities according to the Action agency involved, such that FWS would consult with the Federal Highway Administration (along with state Departments of Transportation), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. NOAA Fisheries would consult with the Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service, and any other affected agencies in estuarine areas. FWS would take the consultation lead for projects extending into the jurisdictions of both Services. Consultations described in this report, below and in Appendix B, are assigned to either FWS or NOAA Fisheries based on this jurisdictional breakdown.
3.2.1 Activities Likely to Require Section 7 Consultation
58. Since the listing of the sturgeon as threatened in 1990, FWS has conducted 320 informal and 14 formal consultations, and NOAA Fisheries has conducted 70 informal and 4 formal consultations involving this species. 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.
Army Corps of Engineers
59. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is responsible for carrying out and permitting the majority of activities with the potential to affect riverine, estuarine, and marine areas. ACOE civil works divisions undertake projects to maintain navigation channels and water infrastructure, conduct environmental restoration, and maintain flood control. ACOE regulatory divisions 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 ACOE are potentially affected by the critical habitat proposal: New Orleans, Louisiana; Vicksburg, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and Jacksonville, Florida.
60. ACOE has engaged in numerous past consultations with the Services, and future impacts to ACOE-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
61. ACOE is responsible for maintaining and improving waterways to support channel navigation. ACOE uses dredges to maintain navigation channels at specified depths and widths to allow for barge transport of shipped goods and other boat traffic. Furthermore, ACOE must occasionally engage in emergency dredging to repair the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes. ACOE 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).
62. 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, ACOE 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. Availability of hydraulic dredges is a major concern to ACOE, as only four 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.
63. ACOE 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 barge), 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.
64. The major risks of dredging projects to sturgeon are entrainment in dredges, prevention of migratory passage through channels and inlets due to blockage by large dredges, and elevated turbidity causing increased siltation on feeding or spawning areas. Numerous formal and informal consultations on dredging activities are anticipated in the proposed critical habitat units over the next ten years (see Appendix B).
Sediment Disposal
65. ACOE must provide a suitable disposal site for dredged material. The most common disposal methods are: ocean placement, beach nourishment, confined disposal facilities (CDFs), flow-lane and within-banks placement, and capped disposal. Placement of dredged sediment into open or confined disposal sites located in rivers and marine areas poses a risk from disposal of dredging spoils on spawning and feeding habitat. Moreover, sturgeon may be caught in confined disposal cells. Upland disposal and use of dredged sediments for beach nourishment and other restoration projects pose less risk to sturgeon. Numerous consultations on disposal activities are predicted (see Appendix B). Consultations on ACOE’s authorized navigation projects will likely consider both dredging and disposal activities.
Beach Nourishment and Wetland/Habitat Creation
66. Part of ACOE’s mission is to protect beach areas from hurricane and coastal storm damage to coastal communities and promote recreation. Beach nourishment activities are typically carried out in conjunction with waterway dredging projects, which provide a source of beach sand for nourishment projects. Dredged material removed during navigation channel maintenance dredging can be used for marsh creation and beach nourishment. Dedicated dredging projects (independent of navigation dredging) are also commonly utilized to restore wetlands and stabilize beaches along the Gulf of Mexico.
67. Dredged material may also be used for wetland and 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. ACOE predicts many informal consultations on beach nourishment and wetland/habitat creation activities over the next ten years. 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).
Flood Control/Bank Stabilization
68. ACOE 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. ACOE may consult on certain flood control efforts in several units (see Appendix B).
Clearing and Snagging
69. ACOE conducts clearing and snagging activities on an as-needed basis, using barges to remove fallen trees and other debris from river channels. ACOE expects to engage in one formal consultation regarding debris removal on the Choctawhatchee River in Unit 5 (see Appendix B).
Dams and Reservoirs
70. ACOE 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, ACOE develops engineering safety criteria for safe dams and inspects dams owned or operated by other Federal, state, and local agencies and private interests.
71. ACOE is responsible for maintenance and repair of its dams. Typical maintenance and repair activities include: powerhouse and/or lock rehabilitation, changes in reservoir release patterns to accommodate hydropower generation schedules, spot dredging to eliminate adverse cross-currents below dams, modifications to accommodate fish passage, upstream levee work, and public use area maintenance activities. Typical water supply activities include: changing the river flow regime to implement allocation formulas according to water control plans, updating/revising the water control plans, and providing special navigation releases from the dams to facilitate barge traffic. In certain cases, ACOE may alter dam release patterns to accommodate sturgeon (i.e., releasing extra water to ensure sufficient flows during spawning season). Activities related to dam maintenance and construction are expected to lead to consultation in several units (e.g., regarding the Jim Woodruff Dam in Unit 6) (see Appendix B).
72. ACOE may consider constructing new dams with the potential to affect critical habitat. For example, the Okaloosa County Commission in Florida is considering a dam on the Yellow River in Unit 4, which ACOE could construct. If this dam or other new dams are built, they may serve the purposes of water supply, recreation on resulting man-made lakes, and possibly hydropower generation. Construction of new dams may have 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.
Programmatic Consultations on Dredging and Disposal
73. The Mobile, Alabama District of ACOE is likely to engage in a programmatic consultation jointly with the FWS Ecological Services Offices in Panama City, Florida (lead office), Daphne, Alabama, and Jackson, Mississippi regarding some or all of its dredging and disposal activities, in order to streamline the consultation process. ACOE and FWS have not yet determined the specifics of this programmatic consultation. For example, it may be a single consultation encompassing the Mobile District’s dredging operations in all affected states and water bodies. Alternatively, it could be organized as one programmatic consultation on riverine activities and one on marine and estuarine activities.
74. The presence of a programmatic consultation could streamline the consultation process and inform the selection of project-appropriate modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. ACOE 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, a programmatic consultation 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.
75. This analysis considers both a with- and without-programmatic consultation scenario. Appendix B identifies projects that are likely to be included in a programmatic consultation, if it is developed. In the without-programmatic scenario, formal consultations are predicted for individual dredging projects in many critical habitat units. In contrast, the with-programmatic scenario predicts that one large programmatic consultation will occur. Then, ACOE will engage in informal consultations with FWS on individual dredging projects. Therefore, the development of the programmatic consultation has the potential to significantly reduce both the administrative costs associated with consultations on dredging and disposal projects and the uncertainty regarding the outcome of any one consultation.
76. NOAA Fisheries is in the final stages of formal programmatic consultation regarding hopper dredging in the Gulf of Mexico. This programmatic consultation encompasses four ACOE Districts, three of which are affected by proposed critical habitat.
Regulated Modifications of Surface Water Bodies
77. Apart from its civil works activities, ACOE 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. ACOE typically consults with the Services when issuing individual standard permits for such projects, but the presence of critical habitat may also cause ACOE to elevate nationwide and regional permits and consider them as individual permits. Alternatively, ACOE may update its State and Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES), which govern how ACOE 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.
78. ACOE 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, particularly the Florida panhandle. The past consultation history indicates that while development activities are likely to result in numerous informal consultations, the consultations are unlikely to become formal or require project modifications. 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.
79. Private activities regulated under section 404 and section 10 include:
Minerals Management Service
80. 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 and Alabama.
81. 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
82. 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.
83. 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
84. 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 ACOE 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.
85. 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
86. 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.
87. 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
88. 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.
89. 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
90. 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 ACOE. 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.
Department of Defense
91. 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
92. 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. The Air Armament Center tests and evaluates non-nuclear munitions, electronic combat systems and navigation/guidance systems. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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 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.
95. 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).
96. 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 ACOE (attributed to ACOE 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
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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
100. 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.
101. 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 ACOE to dredge the river. ACOE may dredge the river once in the next ten years (attributed to ACOE 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
102. 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.
103. 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, ACOE will dredge the surrounding waters every three years under contract to the NAS (attributed to ACOE in Appendix B). Pensacola NAS will also likely consult over the revision of Pensacola NAS’ INRMP in 2010.
104. 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.
Coast Guard
105. 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.
106. Activities that may potentially be impacted by the need to consult under section 7 include aids to navigation, bridge administration, and dredging. 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.
107. Impacts associated with dredging and bridge replacement activities are attributed to ACOE and FHWA, as discussed above.
Forest Service
108. 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. 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.
109. 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
110. 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:
111. 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.
3.2.3 Summary of Impacted Activities
112. 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. ACOE activities are expected to lead to the largest number of section 7 consultations.
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 |
Army Corps of Engineers- Dredging and Disposal Projects | Dredging and sediment disposal. |
23 |
371 |
Army Corps of Engineers - Other Operations Projects | Beach nourishment, flood control/bank stabilization, clearing and snagging, reservoir operations. |
53 |
50 |
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 |
0 |
Coast Guard | Aids to navigation, bridge administration, dredging. | Included with ACOE/FHWA consultations | Included with ACOE/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 |
4 |
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 |
139 | |
1 Total does not include potential programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. Total number of consultations is likely to be lower if the programmatic consultation is implemented. |
113. 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.
Exhibit 3-2 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FUTURE SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS ON THE GULF STURGEON BY UNIT (TEN YEARS) |
||
Unit | Informal Consultations | Formal Consultations |
Unit 1 |
156 |
1 |
Unit 2 |
75 |
3 |
Unit 3 |
45 |
5 |
Unit 4 |
79 |
2 |
Unit 5 |
22 |
5 |
Unit 6 |
62 |
10 |
Unit 7 |
66 |
1 |
Unit 8 |
127 |
39 |
Unit 9 |
71 |
14 |
Unit 10 |
217 |
7 |
Unit 11 |
47 |
25 |
Unit 12 |
234 |
7 |
Unit 13 |
49 |
10 |
Unit 14 |
23 |
0 |
Multiple Units |
41 |
101 |
Total |
1314 |
139 |
1 Total does not include potential programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. Total number of consultations is likely to be lower if the programmatic consultation is implemented. |
3.3 Project
Modifications Arising from Section 7 Consultation
114. 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 modification 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 (RMPs) required in a formal consultation.
115. This section describes typical project modifications by Action agency. Appendix B identifies the modifications that may result from section 7 consultation on specific projects in each proposed critical habitat unit. For example, a consultation on a typical dredging and disposal project could lead to the adoption of dredging windows, changes to the extent or timing of the project, changes to the sequence of dredging, changes to the design or location of disposal sites, and/or implementation of monitoring and research efforts. However, it is unlikely that all of these modifications would apply to a single dredging project, and it is not possible to predict which future dredging projects will require which modifications. Per effort costs associated with modifications described below are summarized in Section 4.4.
3.3.1 Modifications to Army Corps of Engineers Projects
116. ACOE may implement or recommend to permit applicants a variety of project modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. Dredging and disposal projects are most likely to require modification. In addition, ACOE is likely to fund additional studies to expand knowledge about sturgeon behavior and migratory patterns as a condition of formal consultations.
Modifications to Dredging and Disposal Projects
117. ACOE’s dredging and disposal projects are likely to be modified as a result of potential impacts to the sturgeon and its critical habitat. The adoption of various modifications to dredging and disposal projects may depend, in part, on the development of a programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities in the Mobile District of ACOE. Potential project modifications specific to dredging and disposal projects include:
Potential Modifications to Dam Projects
118. Modifications may affect ACOE's activities related to currently operating dams, such as the Jim Woodruff Dam in Unit 6. ACOE may need to alter dam release patterns and update water control plans to minimize deviations from natural flow regimes, especially during critical periods for sturgeon. For example, dam releases should provide for minimum flows during spring spawning periods; provide for minimum flows during periods when sturgeon are in thermal refuge/resting areas; assure that fluctuations in flow do not prevent access to spawning areas or adherence of eggs to substrate; and assure that release patterns do not significantly change the temperature regime in spawning and resting areas during spawning and resting times. 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 and minimizes harm to spawning habitat.
Potential Modifications to Other Projects
119. The Services have recommended or required additional modifications to certain past projects that may also apply to some ACOE-operated or ACOE-permitted projects, other than dredging, disposal, and dams. These modifications may include:
3.3.2 Modifications to FHWA Bridge Projects
120. Bridge construction and replacement activities are likely to involve modifications to avoid and minimize harm to the sturgeon and its habitat. 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. 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. 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.
3.3.3 Modifications to FERC Pipeline Projects
121. FERC-licensed interstate pipeline projects may adopt the following modifications: modifying pipeline routes to avoid habitat impacts; restricting timing of construction to prevent conflicts with sturgeon migrations; implementing best management practices to reduce turbidity during construction; using screened intakes for water withdrawals related to hydrostatic testing to prevent entrainment of sturgeon; and modifying construction methods (e.g., use directional drilling rather than open cut construction to place pipeline underground in sensitive areas). Since pipelines are likely to extend over large areas and cross multiple water bodies, modifying the timing and/or route of projects, as well as adopting best management practices, are usually more viable alternatives than using directional drilling, which can be very costly. Moreover, past consultations on pipeline construction suggest that directional drilling is primarily implemented to avoid impacts to wetlands, with secondary benefits to sturgeon.
3.3.4 Modifications to Projects at Eglin Air Force Base
122. Eglin AFB may adapt explosives tests and undertake monitoring and research as a result of the sturgeon listing and critical habitat designation. Eglin biologists may also conduct aerial helicopter surveys to monitor for sturgeon prior to conducting test detonations, and operators may ramp up explosives tests by employing smaller detonations first as a scare tactic. In addition, Eglin sets aside a portion of its annual budget to sponsor sturgeon monitoring studies in Choctawhatchee Bay, Santa Rosa Sound, and the Yellow River.
3.3.5 Research and Monitoring
123. The Services may recommend that projects carried out and permitted by various Action agencies, including ACOE dredging and disposal projects, FHWA bridge construction projects, and MMS lease sales, adopt standard monitoring and research measures in order to expand knowledge of sturgeon behavior and migratory habits. Such measures may include:
3.3.6 Activities Unlikely to Involve Modification
124. Many activities expected to lead to section 7 consultation are unlikely to involve project modifications. For example, small-scale ACOE-operated and permitted construction and maintenance projects will tend to involve minimal changes. In general, beach nourishment and clearing and snagging projects are also unlikely to involve modifications. However, some project modifications may be adopted if activities such as construction or clearing and snagging are scheduled to occur in particularly sensitive areas or at particularly sensitive times, such as in known spawning areas during spawning months.
125. Extensive modifications to projects involving the following Federal nexuses are unlikely: MMS, FEMA, Coast Guard, NOAA Fisheries (fisheries management activities), and Forest Service. However, these Action agencies may occasionally offer funding to support sturgeon research and monitoring studies.
126. In addition to the direct costs to undertake consultations and project modifications outlined above, physical changes to habitat areas that may be associated with project modifications (e.g., altering the depth of navigation channels) may have other indirect economic impacts on local industries and enterprises in the future. These potential regional impacts are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. Activities that have the potential to be indirectly affected could include shipping channel navigation, commercial fishing, hydropower generation, and oil and gas pipeline construction projects.
127. However, the extent to which regional economic impacts are realized depends largely on the extent to which projects are stopped or fundamentally altered as a result of modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. For example, impacts to the navigation industry are contingent upon whether the consultation process yields project modifications to dredging activities that restrict or otherwise affect shipping channel navigation and reliability. In general, regional economic impacts would only be incurred if planned projects are not able to proceed as planned and reasonable alternatives cannot be identified. The past consultation record and conversations with the Services suggest that such outcomes are unlikely. While project modifications are likely to add direct costs to individual projects, they are unlikely to alter affected projects so fundamentally that impacts to the regional economy would be incurred (e.g., projects are more likely to be delayed and modified than halted altogether).
128. Economic activities in sturgeon critical habitat areas that are dependent upon reliable and open shipping channels include deep draft navigation, inland navigation, and commercial fishing. , To the extent that future project modifications affect the timeliness and efficacy of dredging activities, resulting shipping constraints or reliability problems could yield broader economic impacts. The probability of a modification significantly affecting project timing and effectiveness, however, is low. For example, while the Services recommend dredging windows as part of some informal consultations, if ACOE determines that dredging windows cannot reasonably be implemented without compromising the project, FWS cannot include them as RPMs during the formal consultation phase.
129. Potential indirect impacts from changes to water flow as a result of project modifications are uncertain, because both the specifics of future affected projects and the outcomes of associated consultations are uncertain. However, the probability of significant impacts on water flow, even if projects are subject to significant project modifications, appears to be low. A small potential may exist for future flow modifications related to current and/or proposed dams in Units 2, 4, and 6 to affect hydroelectrical power generation, water supply, or recreational opportunities on man-made lakes.
130. A small potential also exists for limitations on construction of oil and gas pipelines licensed by FERC, which may affect investment in and costs of such projects, creating indirect impacts to the regional economy.
Exhibit 3-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS |
||
Economic Activity |
Relevant Units |
Nature of Potential Impact |
Deep draft navigation |
2, 8, 9 |
Includes imports and exports of goods in large vessels, coastwise shipments of goods, and vessel construction activities (e.g., oil refinery, construction and service of petroleum drilling operations, and major vessel construction facility in Pascagoula Harbor). Navigation channel restrictions and reliability problems due to postponed dredging could lead to use of smaller vessels, light loading of vessels, and use of alternative ports, increasing transportation costs. Increased possibility of vessel damage from travel in inadequately dredged channels. |
Inland navigation |
2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 |
Includes shipment of goods on inland waterway system. Navigation channel restrictions and reliability problems due to postponed dredging could lead to use of smaller tows, light loading of vessels, and use of alternative transport (truck, rail), increasing transportation costs. Potential increased concern for vessel damage. Water flow adjustments/constraints related to Federal reservoirs could affect water availability. |
Commercial and charter fishing |
2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 |
Includes commercial harvesting of fish and shellfish, along with charter boat activity. Channel restrictions and reliability problems due to postponed dredging could lead to increased running time, vessel delays, loading restrictions, and vessel damages. Restrictions could affect utilization of existing fish processing facilities. |
Hydroelectrical power generation |
6 |
Water flow adjustments/constraints could affect hydropower generation. |
Oil and gas pipelines |
All |
Restrictions on pipeline construction could affect viability of projects. |
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, AL District Office. |
3.5 Summary
of Section 7 Impacts
131. Appendix B summarizes the potential for future section 7 consultations and project modifications for activities affecting the sturgeon and its proposed critical habitat in each unit. Importantly, these estimates reflect the consultation profiles associated with the geographic areas proposed for designation having a Federal nexus, regardless of whether these actions can be attributed co-extensively to the listing. As a result, these estimates are an upper-bound measure of the impacts potentially associated with the proposed designation.
132. Section 4 provides estimates of the expected economic costs of the consultations on the activities described in this section, as well as summaries of the total section 7 cost of the listing and proposed critical habitat designation for the sturgeon.
SECTION 4
133. This section presents the expected total economic cost of actions taken under section 7 of the Act associated with the geographic area proposed as critical habitat for the sturgeon, including those costs attributable co-extensively to the listing of the sturgeon as threatened. It provides per effort administrative costs of section 7 consultation, and derives total cost estimates of the consultations and modifications associated with the activities described in Section 3. This section also evaluates the costs attributable solely to the proposed designation of critical habitat.
134. It is important to note that the listing of the sturgeon as threatened under the Act may result in impacts on land use activities that are not associated with section 7. For example, section 9 of the Act prohibits take of listed species, and section 10 outlines permitting procedures for entities whose activities do not involve a Federal nexus. Economic costs associated with these impacts are not included in this analysis because they are not associated with critical habitat.
4.1 Estimated Costs of Section 7 Consultation
135. 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. 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 FWS and other Federal agencies.
136. 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.
137. Per effort costs associated with formal consultations and informal consultations are presented in Exhibit 4-1. The low and the high scenarios represent a reasonable 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 $1,300 to $7,900, 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.
Exhibit 4-1 ESTIMATED
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SECTION 7 CONSULTATION |
|||||
Critical Habitat Impact |
Scenario |
FWS or NOAA Fisheries |
Action Agency |
Third Party |
Total Cost |
Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,000 |
$1,300 |
$1,200 |
$3,500 |
High |
$3,100 |
$7,900 |
$2,900 |
$13,900 |
|
Formal/ Reinitiated Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$7,900 |
$2,900 |
$13,900 |
High |
$6,100 |
$12,100 |
$4,100 |
$22,300 |
|
Notes:
Low and high estimates primarily reflect variations in staff wages and
time involvement by staff. Third parties are defined as state agencies,
local municipalities, and private parties. Action agency costs include
the cost of conducting a biological assessment. Programmatic consultations
are assumed to be formal. Costs are presented in 2002 dollars. |
138. 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.
139. Based on this analysis, the upper-bound total nominal cost of consultations over the next ten years will range from $5.5 million to $19.4 million. Most of these costs will be borne by Federal agencies other than the Services. In addition, most consultation activity (and related costs) will occur in units 1, 8, 10 and 12.
Exhibit 4-2 TOTAL
CONSULTATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION |
|||||
Action |
Range |
Costs to the Services |
Costs to Other Federal Agencies |
Costs to Third Parties |
Total Costs |
Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,314,000 |
$1,708,000 |
$976,000 |
$3,998,000 |
High |
$4,073,000 |
$10,381,000 |
$2,258,000 |
$16,812,000 |
|
Formal/ Reinitiated Consultation |
Low |
$431,000 |
$1,098,000 |
$12,000 |
$1,541,000 |
High |
$848,000 |
$1,682,000 |
$16,000 |
$2,546,000 |
|
Total 1 |
Low |
$1,745,000 |
$2,806,000 |
$987,000 |
$5,538,000 |
High |
$4,921,000 |
$12,063,000 |
$2,374,000 |
$19,358,000 |
|
Notes:
Third parties are defined as state agencies, local municipalities, and
private parties. This analysis assumes that consultations involving ACOE
permits, FERC permits, and FHWA bridge replacement will involve third
parties; all other consultations will involve only FWS or NOAA Fisheries
and the affected Action agency. Costs may not sum due to rounding. |
Exhibit
4-3
TOTAL CONSULTATION COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE GULF STURGEON BY UNIT (TEN YEARS) |
|||
Unit | Informal Consultations | Formal/Reinitiated Consultations | Total Section 7 Costs |
Unit 1 |
$497,000 to $2,050,000 |
$11,000 to $18,200 |
$508,000 to $2,068,000 |
Unit 2 |
$191,000 to $869,000 |
$33,000 to $55,000 |
$224,000 to $923,000 |
Unit 3 |
$117,000 to $527,000 |
$58,000 to $95,000 |
$175,000 to $622,000 |
Unit 4 |
$194,000 to $898,000 |
$22,000 to $36,000 |
$216,000 to $934,000 |
Unit 5 |
$57,000 to $257,000 |
$55,000 to $91,000 |
$112,000 to $348,000 |
Unit 6 |
$155,000 to $711,000 |
$110,000 to $182,000 |
$265,000 to $893,000 |
Unit 7 |
$200,000 to $842,000 |
$14,000 to $22,000 |
$214,000 to $864,000 |
Unit 8 |
$352,000 to $1,542,000 |
$435,000 to $718,000 |
$787,000 to $2,260,000 |
Unit 9 |
$223,000 to $926,000 |
$154,000 to $255,000 |
$377,000 to $1,181,000 |
Unit 10 |
$739,000 to $2,967,000 |
$77,000 to $127,000 |
$816,000 to $3,094,000 |
Unit 11 |
$132,000 to $575,000 |
$275,000 to $455,000 |
$407,000 to $1,030,000 |
Unit 12 |
$808,000 to $3,227,000 |
$77,000 to $127,000 |
$885,000 to $3,354,000 |
Unit 13 |
$161,000 to $655,000 |
$110,000 to $182,000 |
$271,000 to $837,000 |
Unit 14 |
$55,000 to $259,000 |
$0 |
$55,000 to $259,000 |
Multiple Units |
$118,000 to $509,000 |
$110,000 to $182,000 |
$228,000 to $691,000 |
Total 1 |
$3,998,000 to $16,812,000 |
$1,541,000 to $2,546,000 |
$5,538,000 to $19,358,000 |
Note:
Costs may not sum due to rounding. 1 Total does not include potential programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. Total consultation costs are likely to be lower if the programmatic consultation is implemented. |
140. These
consultation costs represent the upper-bound without-programmatic consultation
scenario. As previously noted in Section 3.2.1, the development of a programmatic
consultation on dredging and disposal activities conducted by the Mobile District
of ACOE has the potential to significantly reduce the administrative costs associated
with consultations on dredging and disposal projects. After engaging in one
intensive programmatic consultation, with an estimated level of effort equivalent
to three typical formal consultations, ACOE could engage in streamlined consultations
thereafter on individual dredging projects. Exhibit 4-4 illustrates the consultation
cost savings associated with the with-programmatic consultation scenario. Additional
modification cost savings may be realized as well, but cannot be quantified
due to lack of information on the frequency and type of modifications likely
to be implemented under the programmatic consultation.
Exhibit 4-4 COST
SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMMATIC |
|||
Activity | Number of Consultations (Ten Years) | Per Effort Cost | Total Cost |
Without-Programmatic Scenario | |||
Dredging and disposal projects | 37 formal consultations | $11,000 to $18,200 | $407,000 to $673,000 |
With-Programmatic
Scenario
|
|||
Dredging and disposal projects | 37 informal consultations | $2,300 to $11,000 | $85,000 to $407,000 |
Programmatic consultation | 1 formal consultation | $33,000 to $54,6001 | $33,000 to $54,600 |
Total: With-Programmatic Scenario | $118,000 to $462,000 | ||
Consultation Cost Savings Potentially Associated with Programmatic Consultation (Ten Years) | $211,000 to $289,000 | ||
1 The programmatic consultation is assumed to involve a level of effort equivalent to three formal consultations. |
4.2 Estimated Costs of Project Modifications
141. Estimated per effort costs associated with certain categories of the project modifications described in Section 3.3 are summarized in Exhibit 4-5. Per effort cost data were not available for all potential project modifications; only activities for which cost data were available are included in the table.
Exhibit 4-5 PER EFFORT COSTS OF POTENTIAL PROJECT MODIFICATIONS |
|||
Modification | Description | Cost Estimate | Party Bearing Cost |
Dredging windows | Avoiding dredging at certain times incurs costs of keeping dredges on standby. Decreasing number of months available to complete work creates costs associated with decreases in competition among dredging contractors. | $200,000/month
for dredge standby; $40,000/month for decreased competition |
ACOE |
Minimize extent of dredging | Inability to perform advanced maintenance dredging increases costs by doubling dredging frequency, causing inefficient use of pumping capabilities and increased mobilization costs. | $1,000,000/event | ACOE |
Minimize length of time of dredging | Increasing daily down time when dredges are not used to six hours per day. | $25,000/project | ACOE |
Sequence dredging | Sequencing dredging projects to avoid conflicts with sturgeon migration may cause double mobilizations and up to three months of standby dredge time. | $500,000/project | ACOE |
Fish detectors | Using fish detectors or other electronic devices. | $5,000/project | ACOE |
Silt curtains | Increase in labor and equipment costs combined with loss of productivity due to handling, placing, and relocating curtain. | $220,000/project | ACOE, FHWA |
Bubble curtains | Laying bubble curtain pipes around project sites and pumping air through the pipe. | Unknown; technology still in testing phases | FHWA, possibly ACOE |
Pipeline construction measures | Altering installation of pipelines to reduce turbidity and siltation, through use of directional drilling to bury pipeline, use of best management practices, and/or construction of temporary enclosures. | $50,000/day for equipment for design changes; $1,000 to $1,500 per foot for directional drilling | Oil and gas pipeline companies |
Research and monitoring | Monitoring sturgeon to assess project effects. Funding research studies to gain knowledge about sturgeon behavior and migratory patterns. | $1,500/effort for one-time aerial survey; up to $2 million for major multi-year study | Various Action agencies |
Bucket drop | Dropping bucket dredge head to warn sturgeon away from project site. | Negligible | ACOE |
Scare charges | Detonating small explosive charge in advance of major detonations to warn sturgeon away from project site. | Negligible | ACOE, DOD, FHWA |
Sources: Personal communications with ACOE, FERC, Eglin AFB, and the Services on multiple occasions. |
142. The
extent to which specific future projects will experience the per effort modification
costs outlined in Exhibit 4-5 is uncertain. For example, for a given dredging
project, it is difficult to predict whether the project will adopt dredging
windows and other modifications (e.g., alter dredging extent, length
of time, or sequence), or only certain of the potential modifications. This
uncertainty exists for the following reasons:
143. Given this uncertainty regarding the implementation of project modifications for predicted future projects, it is not possible to develop an exhaustive range of total modification costs associated with section 7 implementation for the sturgeon. Therefore, this analysis develops one scenario of potential modifications that illustrates the potential magnitude of project modification costs. The scenario is based on several major assumptions:
144. Based on the scenario described above and the per effort cost data presented in Exhibit 4-5, Exhibit 4-6 derives a total cost estimate of $37.9 million for project modifications associated with the listing and critical habitat designation for the sturgeon over the next ten years. This cost likely represents an upper-bound of modification costs for the activities included in the scenario. However, actual modification costs may be higher, since the assumed scenario is not inclusive of all potential activities that could lead to modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. For example, certain ACOE dam projects could lead to costly alterations in water release patterns in order to guarantee minimum flows for the sturgeon.
Exhibit 4-6 ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS OF POTENTIAL PROJECT MODIFICATIONS |
|||||
Project Type | Modification | Assumed Number of Affected Projects | Per Effort Cost | Total Cost Estimate | Party Bearing Cost |
Dredging and disposal | Dredging windows | 18 | $240,000 | $4,320,000 | ACOE |
Project changes: minimizing extent/ length of dredging, changing sequence, using fish detectors | 19 | $1,530,000 | $29,070,000 | ACOE | |
Bridge replacement | Silt curtains | 3 | $220,000 | $660,000 | FHWA |
Pipeline construction | Project changes, adopting BMPs | 20 | $50,000 | $1,000,000 | Oil and gas pipeline companies |
Research and monitoring | ACOE-funded study | 1 | $400,000 | $400,000 | ACOE |
MMS-funded study | 1 | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 | MMS | |
Eglin AFB-funded study | 1 | $400,000 | $400,000 | Eglin AFB | |
Total Estimated Project Modifications | $37,850,000 | ||||
Sources: Personal communications with ACOE, FERC, Eglin AFB, and the Services on multiple occasions. |
145. The cost estimates presented in Exhibit 4-7 are a function of the number of consultations as detailed in Appendix B, plus the project modification scenario outlined in Section 4.2. Based on this analysis, the total upper-bound estimate of section 7 costs associated with the listing and proposed critical habitat designation for the sturgeon ranges from $43.4 million to $57.2 million over ten years. As discussed in Section 3.4, additional regional economic impacts to various industries (e.g., deep draft navigation, inland navigation) are possible if shipping channel reliability is reduced as a result of restrictions to dredging projects, but they are not quantified due to the low probability that projects will be modified in a manner that creates significant costs to the regional economy.
146. While the total economic costs associated with section 7 implementation for the sturgeon appear to be high, they must be considered in the context of the value of the economic activity that is predicted to occur over the next ten years in the region. In the 53 counties that include portions of the proposed critical habitat for the sturgeon, construction income was $3.8 billion in 2000. Income from disclosed earnings from agricultural services, including forestry, totaled $299 million in 2000 for these counties, mining activities totaled $995 million, manufacturing activities totaled $6.1 billion, transportation and public utilities totaledd $4.3 billion, wholesale retail trade totaled $9.1 billion, services totaled $15.5 billion, and real estate totaled $3.6 billion. Given a total value of $43.7 billion for annual income and spending on these industries in the 53 affected counties, the estimated upper-bound section 7 costs associated with the listing and proposed critical habitat designation for the sturgeon represent approximately 0.013 percent of the total value of economic activities annually.
4.4 Economic Impacts Associated Solely with the Designation of Critical Habitat
147. The cost estimates presented in Exhibit 4-7 are an indication of the total costs that may be associated with future section 7 consultations on the sturgeon and its designated critical habitat over the next ten years. These represent costs likely to be incurred by the Services, Action agencies, and non-Federal third parties for activities having a Federal nexus, which would require consultation under section 7 of the Act.
148. However, a subset of impacts may be attributable solely to the critical habitat designation. For example, activities that required informal consultations in the past may require formal consultation under the designation due to increased concerns about habitat impacts. Other past formal consultations may need to be reinitiated to address habitat-related concerns. In addition, the Services anticipate that a subset of the total predicted consultation costs will be attributable to the extra administrative effort required to address critical habitat issues during the formal and informal consultation process.
149. Establishing an explicit distinction between listing and designation impacts is difficult, due to a variety of factors that reasonably could be linked to either category. For example, ACOE asserts that the development of the proposed critical habitat designation has caused FWS to adopt a more stringent approach during consultations, resulting in more costly project modifications and an increased number of formal consultations. ACOE believes that the designation of critical habitat has raised awareness of the sturgeon and spurred additional research, causing greater section 7 impacts than had been occurring since the listing of the sturgeon as threatened in 1991. FWS acknowledges that awareness of sturgeon behavior and migratory patterns has increased in recent years, but believes that this change is due to improved research and monitoring studies that have been conducted independent of the proposed designation of critical habitat. Other Action agencies concur that the designation of critical habitat will not significantly change their process for consulting with FWS.
150. Another example is the potential development of a programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. This programmatic consultation, while intensive to develop, has the potential to reduce consultation and project modification costs on these activities. This initiative, and related cost effects, could conceivably be attributed to critical habitat designation; however, FWS believes that its development arises coextensively with the listing and the critical habitat designation.
151. In sum, this analysis recognizes that the consultation process between FWS and certain Action agencies is likely to become more intensive, and may be altered through a programmatic approach, over the next ten years. The analysis further assumes, however, that the changes stem primarily from better supporting data about the sturgeon’s behavior and migrations and are best attributed coextensively to listing and critical habitat designation. An extensive past record of formal and informal consultation exists, and FWS asserts that the designation of critical habitat will not alter its consultation process except to add an increment of administrative effort to each consultation.
152. This analysis identifies the subset of consultation costs attributable solely to the critical habitat designation based on time estimates from the FWS Panama City, FL Ecological Services Office. The Services estimate that pinpointing activity locations, considering the potential for adverse effects, and incorporating language specific to critical habitat issues will result in up to $35 per effort cost to FWS or NOAA Fisheries and $140 to the Action agency for each informal consultation, and $160 per effort cost to FWS or NOAA Fisheries and $550 to the Action agency for each formal consultation.
153. NOAA Fisheries also anticipates a small increase in section 7 costs due to the designation of critical habitat. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries believes it will have to reinitiate certain past consultations to more systematically address habitat impacts. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries expects Action agencies to reinitiate the following formal consultations:
154. NOAA Fisheries also believes that its consultations on natural resource management activities at Pensacola NAS and beach nourishment/habitat creation activities in some estuarine and marine units may have remained informal, but for the designation of critical habitat. This analysis quantifies the difference in administrative costs if consultations on the following affected projects had remained informal:
155. The costs of the reinitiated consultations, along with the cost of conducting formal rather than informal consultations on beach nourishment and Pensacola NAS activities, constitute the universe of costs attributable solely to the critical habitat provision of section 7. Additional project modifications may occur, such a reducing the scale of projects or extending the period of time between projects, but they are not quantified in this analysis due to limited data on the future implementation of such modifications. Exhibit 4-7 presents the costs attributable to critical habitat by unit. Based on this analysis, the total costs attributable exclusively to the critical habitat provision of section 7 may range from $602,000 to $752,000 over ten years.
Exhibit 4-7 ESTIMATED TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECTION 7 IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE GULF STURGEON BY UNIT (TEN YEARS) |
||
Unit | Total Section 7 Costs | Costs Attributable to Critical Habitat |
Unit 1 |
$508,000 to $2,068,000 | $23,000 to $28,000 |
Unit 2 |
$224,000 to $923,000 | $13,000 to $15,000 |
Unit 3 |
$175,000 to $622,000 | $10,000 to $11,000 |
Unit 4 |
$216,000 to $934,000 | $12,000 to $15,000 |
Unit 5 |
$112,000 to $348,000 | $7,000 |
Unit 6 |
$265,000 to $893,000 | $16,000 to $18,000 |
Unit 7 |
$214,000 to $864,000 | $10,000 to $12,000 |
Unit 8 |
$787,000 to $2,260,000 | $172,000 to $228,000 |
Unit 9 |
$377,000 to $1,181,000 | $92,000 to $109,000 |
Unit 10 |
$816,000 to $3,094,000 | $78,000 to $95,000 |
Unit 11 |
$407,000 to $1,030,000 | $24,000 to $26,000 |
Unit 12 |
$885,000 to $3,354,000 | $66,000 to $81,000 |
Unit 13 |
$271,000 to $837,000 | $43,000 to $50,000 |
Unit 14 |
$55,000 to $259,000 | $3,000 to $4,000 |
Multiple Units |
$228,000 to $691,000 |
$35,000 to $51,000 |
Consultation Cost Sub-Total |
$5,538,000 to $19,358,000 | $602,000 to $752,000 |
Project Modification Cost (All Units) | $37,850,000 | $0 |
Total 1 |
$43,388,000 to $57,208,000 |
$602,000 to $752,000 |
Note:
Costs may not sum due to rounding. 1 Total does not include potential programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. |
156. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the following represents a screening level analysis of the potential effects of critical habitat designation on small entities to assist the Secretary in making this certification.
157. This analysis determines whether this critical habitat designation potentially affects a “substantial number” of small entities in counties supporting critical habitat areas. It also quantifies the probable number of small businesses likely to experience a “significant effect.” While SBREFA does not explicitly define either “substantial number” or “significant effect,” the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies have interpreted these terms to represent an impact on 20 percent or more of the small entities in any industry and an effect equal or greater than three percent or more of a business’ annual revenues. In both tests, this analysis examines the total estimated section 7 costs calculated in earlier sections of this report, including those impacts that may be “attributable co-extensively” with the listing of the species. This results in a conservative estimate (i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than understate them), because it utilizes the upper bound impact estimate from the earlier analysis.
4.5.1 Identifying Activities That May Involve Small Entities
158. Section 3 of this report identifies activities that are within, or will otherwise be affected by, section 7 of the Act for the sturgeon. Exhibit 4-8 presents the land and water use activities that were identified as being potentially impacted by section 7 implementation for the sturgeon under the “with section 7” scenario.
Exhibit
4-8
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 |
Army Corps of Engineers- Dredging and Disposal Projects | Dredging and sediment disposal. |
23
|
371
|
Army Corps of Engineers - Other Operations Projects | Beach nourishment, flood control/bank stabilization, clearing and snagging, reservoir operations. |
53
|
50
|
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
|
0
|
Coast Guard | Aids to navigation, bridge administration, dredging. |
Included
with ACOE/FHWA consultations
|
Included
with ACOE/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
|
4
|
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 |
139
|
|
1 Total does not include potential programmatic consultation on dredging and disposal activities. Total number of consultations is likely to be lower if the programmatic consultation is implemented. |
159. Of the projects that are potentially affected by section 7 implementation for the sturgeon, several occur exclusively on Federal lands and do not have third party involvement (i.e. only the Action agency and the Services are expected to be involved). Thus, small entities should not be affected by section 7 implementation for affected projects with the following agencies:
160. Of the projects that are potentially affected by section 7 implementation for the sturgeon that do not occur on exclusively on Federal lands, many are expected to involve no project modifications, or very minor ones (e.g., silt fencing during construction). The greatest share of the costs associated with the consultation process stem from project modifications (as opposed to the consultation itself). Indeed, costs associated with the consultation itself are relatively minor, with third party costs estimated to range from $1,200 to $4,100 per consultation. Therefore, small entities are unlikely to be significantly affected by consultations that do not involve costly project modifications. Thus, this analysis indicates that small businesses involved in consultations with the following Action agencies should not be significantly affected as a result of section 7 implementation:
161. After excluding the two sets of Action agencies and consultations noted above from the total universe of impacts identified in the body of the analysis, the following Action agencies and consultations remain. This subset represents the group of Action agencies and consultations that may produce significant impacts on small entities. Specifically, these actions feature activities that do not occur exclusively on Federal lands and may involve relatively costly project modifications:
4.6 Description of Affected Small Entities
162. This section describes the industries most likely to be affected by section 7 implementation for the sturgeon. Potential indirect regional impacts are also discussed. More information about affected projects can be found in Sections 3 and 4 and in Appendix B of this report.
163. Again, as stated in Section 3-4, the extent to which regional economic impacts are realized depends largely on the extent to which projects are stopped or fundamentally altered as a result of modifications to protect the sturgeon and its habitat. For example, impacts to the navigation industry are contingent upon whether the consultation process yields project modifications to dredging activities that restrict or otherwise affect shipping channel navigation and reliability. In general, regional economic impacts would only be incurred if planned projects are not able to proceed as planned and reasonable alternatives cannot be identified. The past consultation record and conversations with the Services suggest that such outcomes are unlikely. While project modifications are likely to add direct costs to individual projects, they are unlikely to alter affected projects so fundamentally that impacts to the regional economy would be incurred (e.g., projects are more likely to be delayed and modified than halted altogether).
164. Economic activities in sturgeon critical habitat areas that are dependent upon reliable and open shipping channels include deep draft navigation, inland navigation, and commercial fishing. To the extent that future project modifications affect the timeliness and efficacy of dredging activities, resulting shipping constraints or reliability problems could yield broader economic impacts. The probability of a modification significantly affecting project timing and effectiveness, however, is low. For example, while the Services recommend dredging windows as part of some informal consultations, if ACOE determines that dredging windows cannot reasonably be implemented without compromising the project, FWS cannot include them as RPMs during the formal consultation phase.
165. Potential indirect impacts from changes to water flow as a result of project modifications are uncertain, because both the specifics of future affected projects and the outcomes of associated consultations are uncertain. However, the probability of significant impacts on water flow, even if projects are subject to significant project modifications, appears to be low. A small potential may exist for future flow modifications related to current and/or proposed dams in Units 2, 4, and 6 to affect hydroelectrical power generation, water supply, or recreational opportunities on man-made lakes.
166. A small potential also exists for limitations on construction of oil and gas pipelines licensed by FERC, which may affect investment in and costs of such projects, creating indirect impacts to the regional economy.
4.6.1 Estimated Number of Small Businesses Affected: The “Substantial Number” Test
167. To be conservative, (i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than understate them), this analysis assumes that a unique entity will undertake each of the projected consultations in a given year, and so the number of businesses affected is equal to the total annual number of consultations (both formal and informal). This analysis also limits the universe of potentially affected entities to include only those within the fifty counties in which critical habitat units lie; this interpretation produces far more conservative results than including all entities nationwide.
168. First, the number of small businesses affected is estimated. As shown in Exhibit 4-9, the following calculations yield this estimate:
169. This calculation reflects conservative assumptions and nonetheless yields an estimate that is still far less than the 20 percent threshold that would be considered “substantial.” As a result, this analysis concludes that a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities will not result from the designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon. Nevertheless, an estimate of the number of small businesses that will experience effects at a significant level is provided below.
Exhibit 4-9 ESTIMATED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION: THE "SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER" TEST |
||||
Industry Name |
Heavy
construction: Dredging |
Heavy
construction: Bridges |
Pipeline
construction |
|
Annual number of affected businesses in industry (Equal to number of annual consultations) | By formal consultation | 3.7 | 0.4 | 0 |
By informal consultation | 2.3 | 0.5 | 2.1 | |
Total number of all businesses in industry within study area | 816 | 490 | 365 | |
Number of small businesses in industry within study area | 767 | 454 | 310 | |
Percent of businesses that are small (Number of small businesses)/(Total Number of businesses) | 94% | 93% | 85% | |
Annual number of small businesses affected (Number affected businesses)*(Percent of small businesses) | 5.6 | 0.8 | 1.8 | |
Annual percentage of small businesses affected (Number of small businesses affected)/(Total number of small businesses); >20 percent is substantial | 0.7% | 0.2% | 0.6% |
4.6.2 Estimated
Effects on Small Businesses: The “Significant Effect” Test
170. Costs of critical habitat designation to small businesses consist primarily of the cost of participating in section 7 consultations and the cost of project modifications. To calculate the likelihood that a small business will experience a significant effect from critical habitat designation for the sturgeon, the following calculations were made:
171. Calculations for costs associated with section 7 implementation for the sturgeon are provided in Exhibit 4-10 below.
172. Because
the costs associated with designating critical habitat for the sturgeon are
likely to be significant for less than two small businesses per year in the
affected industries in the study area, this analysis concludes that a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities will not result from
the designation of critical habitat for the sturgeon. This would be true even
if all of the effects of section 7 consultation on these activities were attributed
solely to the critical habitat designation.
SECTION 5
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT
173. The published economics literature has documented that real social welfare benefits can result from the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species (Bishop (1978, 1980), Brookshire and Eubanks (1983), Boyle and Bishop (1986), Hageman (1985), Samples et al. (1986), Stoll and Johnson (1984). Such benefits have also been ascribed to preservation of open space and biodiversity (see examples in Pearce and Moran (1994) and Fausold and Lilieholm (1999) both of which are associated with species conservation. Likewise, regional economies can benefit from the preservation of healthy populations of endangered and threatened species, and the habitat on which these species depend.
174. The primary goal of the Act is to enhance the potential for species recovery. Thus, the benefits of actions taken under the Act are primarily measured in terms of the value the public places on species preservation (e.g., avoidance of extinction, and/or an increase in a species’ population). Such social welfare values may reflect both use and non-use (i.e., existence) values. For example, use values might include the potential for recreational use of a species, should recovery be achieved. Non-use values are not derived from direct use of the species, but instead reflect the utility the public derives from knowledge that a species continues to exist.
175. In addition, as a result of actions taken to preserve endangered and threatened species, various other benefits may accrue to the public. Such benefits may be a direct result of modifications to projects made following section 7 consultation, or may be collateral to such actions. For example, a section 7 consultation may result in the requirement for buffer strips along streams, in order to reduce sedimentation due to construction activities. A reduction in sediment load may directly benefit water quality, while the presence of buffer strips may provide the collateral benefits of preserving habitat for terrestrial species and enhancing nearby residential property values (e.g., preservation of open space).
176. This chapter describes the benefits resulting from implementation of section 7 of the Act, in the context of areas affected by the proposed designation. It then discusses the extent to which existing valuation studies can be used to monetize these benefits. Finally, it discusses whether these benefits can be defined on a unit-by-unit basis, and whether these benefits attributable to critical habitat designation can be distinguished from all section 7 related benefits.
177. As discussed below, it is not feasible to fully describe and accurately quantify the benefits of this designation in the context of this economic analysis. The discussion presented in this report provides examples of potential benefits, which derive primarily from the listing of the species, based on information obtained in the course of developing the economic analysis. It is not intended to provide a complete analysis of the benefits that could result from section 7 of the Act in general or critical habitat designation in particular. Given these limitations, the Services believe that the benefits of critical habitat designation are best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
178. Implementation of section 7 of the Act is expected to substantially increase the probability of recovery for the species. Such implementation includes both the jeopardy provisions afforded by the listing, as well as the adverse modification provisions provided by the designation. Specifically, the section 7 consultations that address the sturgeon will assure that actions taken by Federal agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of the sturgeon or adversely modify its habitat. Note that these measures are separate and distinct from the section 9 “take” provisions of the Act, which also provide protection to this species.
179. The benefits of critical habitat designation can therefore be placed into two broad categories: those associated with the primary goal of species recovery, and those that derive mainly from the habitat protection required to achieve this primary goal. The sections below describe these two categories of benefits.
5.1.1 Benefits Associated with Species Recovery
Existence Value
180. The sturgeon has some intrinsic existence value that will be enhanced by its survival and recovery. Existence value reflects the utility the public derives from knowledge that a species continues to exist. Potential existence values are discussed below in section 5-2.
Commercial Fishing
181. 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. As a result, full recovery of the population could eventually yield economic benefits in the form of allowable harvest. These benefits might include an increase in jobs and expenditures within the Gulf Coast regional economies, or, if considered within the welfare economics context, an increase in producer and consumer surplus.
182. The exact timing and magnitude of these potential benefits are uncertain. The Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan sets forth the recovery objective of delisting the species from discrete management units by the year 2023. Subsequent to delisting, the goal is to establish sufficient self-sustaining populations to support directed fishing pressure within these discrete management units. Under the best case scenario, a viable commercial fishery might develop in 20 to 30 years. Even within this time period, however, the likelihood of the sturgeon population being sufficiently large to yield significant fishing-related benefits is low. Nevertheless, recovery of the sturgeon presents the potential to provide direct and significant economic benefits to the Gulf Coast region in the long term.
Sport Fishing
183. Full recovery of the sturgeon population may lead to the development of a recreational sport fishing industry. Associated benefits could include an increase in tourism and recreation-industry jobs and expenditures within the Gulf Coast regional economies. However, as with commercial fishing, the likelihood of the sturgeon population recovering sufficiently to yield a viable sport fishery within a ten year time frame is extremely low.
5.1.2 Benefits Associated with Habitat Protection
Ecosystem Health
184. Sturgeon are an integral part of the ecosystems in which they live. Protecting the primary constituent elements for the sturgeon, including preserving water quality and natural flow regimes, will benefit other organisms that cohabit these areas. Each one of these organisms may in turn provide some level of direct or indirect benefit to the public and local economies.
185. Understanding the change in aquatic ecosystem health resulting from this designation would entail significant effort to model the likely changes in water quality as well as the ecological benefits of modified flow regimes. While these benefits can be described qualitatively, existing data are not available to quantify the scale of these changes, such as required for monetization. For example, it is widely understood that reduced sedimentation in a river system can benefit various fish, shellfish, and aquatic plant communities. In addition, in some cases reductions in sedimentation may provide direct economic benefit (e.g., reducing the need for, or scale of, dredging operations). Quantifying these changes would, however, require additional information on the make-up of these aquatic communities and the baseline state of environmental quality. More importantly, such quantification would require detailed information on the nature and scope of project modifications resulting from section 7, including the locations of the activities requiring modification. Such information is not currently available due to the uncertainty about the modifications potentially associated with future projects.
Recreational Benefits
186. In addition to the long-term potential for restoration of a sport fishery for the sturgeon, protecting critical habitat for this species may result in preservation of river, estuarine, and marine habitat suitable for recreational uses such as boating, fishing, and swimming. Conservation of river, estuarine, and marine habitat for recreational use may lead to increased tourism and contribute to the expansion of a tourist economy in certain counties. In addition, such activities are likely to generate social welfare benefits to recreators. Quantification of these benefits, however, is limited by the same information constraints are discussed above.
Flood Control
187. Preserving natural environments may also reduce FEMA and county expenditures on bank stabilization and other flood control programs, as well as reducing the impacts of floods that do occur. Modeling the expected change in these factors would require detailed understanding of the location and effects of expected project modifications, as well as models of the hydrology of the affected river systems.
Other Benefits
188. Measure undertaken to protect sturgeon habitat could lead to other benefits including: (1) protection of human and livestock drinking water supplies; (2) reduced cost of drinking water treatment and/or future stream restoration/maintenance; and (3) protection and enhancement of property values. Again, quantification and monetization of these categories of benefits would require additional, detailed information.
189. Additional benefits of designating critical habitat for the sturgeon may include educational/informational benefits (increased awareness by the public of the extent of sturgeon habitat), increased support for existing conservation efforts, and reduced uncertainty regarding the extent of sturgeon habitat. For example, critical habitat designation will provide a firm legal definition of the extent of sturgeon habitat, which may reduce regulatory uncertainty. At this time sufficient information does not exist to quantify or monetize the benefits of this designation, and thus it is not possible to present monetized benefits on a unit-by-unit basis.
5.2 Placing Monetary Values on the Benefits of Section 7 Implementation
190. As discussed above, sufficient information does not exist to allow for quantification of the secondary benefits of habitat protection (e.g., improved water quality, reductions in flood control costs). Thus, this report focuses on the primary benefit of implementation of section 7 of the Act, expressed in terms of the public’s willingness to pay to enhance the probability of recovery of an endangered species of fish. This discussion focuses on the existing economics literature, as gathered in the course of this analysis.
191. Benefits transfer is the method used by economists to apply the results of existing valuation studies to a new policy question. For example, the economics literature provides a large number of studies that define the economic surplus associated with recreational fishing trips. These studies are commonly used to predict the value of a fishing day at a site that has not been studied, given various attributes of that site (e.g., species of fish, demographics of the local community, etc.). Two core principals of defensible benefits transfer are (1) the use of studies that apply acceptable techniques to generate welfare values, and (2) similarity between the good being valued in the literature and the good being valued in the policy context to which the transfer is being made.
192. Exhibit 5-1 provides summaries of several studies reported in the literature that attempt to estimate the non-use value the public holds for preservation of various species of fish. Non-use values represent the public’s willingness-to-pay to preserve a species or enhance a species’ population above and beyond any direct use. For example, Berrens et al. (1996) asked a sample of New Mexico residents their willingness to pay for a hypothetical change in instream flow protection, with a focus on the protection of the Federally endangered silvery minnow. Background information was provided to participants regarding the beneficial uses of instream flows and the cost of protecting them. Respondents were told that the silvery minnow is one of 11 endangered fish that require a minimum amount of water in streams and rivers, and that trust funds are used in some states to buy or lease water for this purpose. Respondents were asked if they would be willing to allow a New Mexico state agency to buy or lease water from willing parties for instream flow protection. If the respondent answered yes to this question, he/she was asked to state his/her willingness to contribute annually to the fund over a hypothetical five-year period. Respondents to this survey indicated a willingness to pay of about $30/year for five years for this program.
193. As demonstrated in Exhibit 5-1, the estimated values for fish species conservation vary widely between studies. These variations depend on: (1) the good being valued (e.g., dam removal and fish habitat restoration, reduction of future fish injuries resulting from toxic contamination, maintenance of sufficient instream water levels); (2) how the question was asked (e.g., yes/no referendum, elicitation of a willingness to pay using a payment card approach); (3) the sample frame used for the survey (e.g., Montana recreational fishing license holders, all English speaking California households), and (4) the mechanism through which the respondent would actually pay the bid amount (i.e., increase in annual taxes, a one-time fee, an increase in monthly electric bill), as well as other factors. Importantly, in some cases the reported values reflect actions to preserve a number of fish species. Given these differences, it is not possible to predict the willingness to pay individuals would have for the protections afforded to the sturgeon through section 7 of the Act. However, while the values summarized in Exhibit 5-1 do not provide a clear picture of the values the public would place on actions taken to enhance recovery of the sturgeon, they do support the notion that preservation of fish species may generate substantial benefits to the public.
5.3 Assigning Benefits on a Unit-by-Unit Basis and to the Critical Habitat Designation
194. Where
possible, the benefits of critical habitat designation should be described on
a unit-by-unit basis, and distinguished from the benefits that result from implementation
of the jeopardy provisions of section 7 of the Act. The benefits discussed above
arise primarily from the protection afforded to the sturgeon under the section
7 jeopardy provisions. Specifically, future consultations - and any associated
project modifications - are expected to be primarily associated with the listing
of the species (i.e., the jeopardy provision of section 7), rather than the
critical habitat designation (i.e., the adverse modification provision).
Exhibit
5-1
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VALUATION LITERATURE RELATED TO FISH SPECIESa |
||||
Author |
Species and Geographic Areab |
Key Issues Addressed in Survey |
Survey Administration |
Range of Valuesc |
Kotchen and Reiling, 2000 |
Species: (Listed as Federally endangered, 1967)
Geographic
Area: |
Nonuse value for protection of Shortnose sturgeon. Survey participants received background information and a proposed recovery plan for the species. Respondents were asked to vote in a hypothetical future referendum to approve a statewide species protection fund. Respondents were asked to vote yes/no to random dollar amounts that represent a one-time tax increase designed to underwrite the fund. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$26.63 |
Ekstrand and Loomis, 1998 |
Species:
Geographic
area: |
Economic value for preserving critical habitat units (CHUs) that support nine threatened and endangered fish species in the Four Corners Region. Respondents were provided with maps for 2,456 miles of CHUs and specific CHU protections were detailed (e.g., fish passageways, bypass releases of water from dams, etc). Households were told that government officials were considering proposals to eliminate CHUs based on opportunity costs of hydropower. Respondents were given the opportunity to fund a new payment mechanism through the establishment of a Four Corners Region Threatened and Endangered Fish Trust Fund. The Fund would rely on the contribution of all US taxpyers annually and would prevent the extinction of the nine threatened and endangered fish species. The survey stated that within 15 years, three of the fish species would be delisted. Respondents were provided with one of 14 amounts ranging from $1 to $350 and asked to vote yes/no for the establishment of the Trust Fund. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$268 |
Berrens at al, 1996 |
Species:
Geographic
Area: |
Hypothetical change in instream flow protection, with a focus on the protection of the Federally endangered silvery minnow (listed in 1994). Background information was provided to participants regarding the beneficial uses of instream flows and the cost of protecting them. Respondents were told that the silvery minnow is one of 11 endangered fish that require a minimum amount of water in streams and rivers. Respondents were then told that protecting endangered fish and their habitat may require protecting minimum instream flows and that trust funds are used in some states to buy or lease water for this purpose. Respondents were asked if they would be willing to allow a NM state agency to buy or lease water from willing parties for instream flow protection. If the respondent answered affirmatively, he/she was asked to state willingness to contribute annually to the fund over a hypothetical five-year history. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$28.73 |
Loomis, 1996 |
Species:
Geographic
Area: |
Value of dam removal and river restoration to benefit salmon and steelhead populations. Respondents were provided background information on Olympic National Park and the Elwha River. Respondents were asked to value the removal of two dams on the Elwha River, restoration of the river to its natural predam state– including an additional 70 miles of fish habitat --and a tripling of the salmon population as a result of removing existing fish ladders. Respondents were told that if a majority of people agreed to pay the cost of dam removal, the dams would be removed. Respondents were asked to vote yes/no to increase their Federal taxes over the next 10 years by a randomly selected amount (15 discrete bid amounts ranged from $3 to $190). |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$59
- $73 - $68 |
Carson et al, 1994 |
Species:
Geographic
Area: |
Interim lost use value (a measure of the compensation due to the public) as a result of PCB and DDT contamination. Respondents were told that injury had occurred to four species (bald eagles, peregrine falcons, kelp bass, and white croaker) as a result of contamination. Respondents were told in the baseline the natural recovery of the species would require 50 years. Respondents were given the opportunity to vote for or against a government program financed by a one-time income tax surcharge per household that would guarantee a reduction in the natural recovery time from 50 to 5 years. Respondents were told the program would reduce the level of future injuries occurring during the 50 years of natural recovery to the lesser level occurring in the five years of accelerated recovery. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$55.61 |
Cummings et al, 1994 |
Species:
Geographic
Area: |
Existence value of the species when valued in the context of alternative agendas. First, survey participants received background information on threats to the squawfish including reduction in habitat and number of breeding fish due to water development projects (dams, irrigation, etc) and pollution. As a potential solution, respondents were told about a hypothetical government program that could purchase water rights to reverse the decline in habitat and improve survival rates. Respondents were asked to state the maximum amount they would be willing to pay in higher annual state taxes to see the program implemented. Some respondents were also presented with similar problem statements and potential solutions for two other nonwildlife-related issues (i.e., multiple-agenda scenario) to simulate a budget constraint. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$3.42
to $8.49 Low-end range represents willingness to pay when valued in isolation; high-end represents participants' willingness to pay in a multiple agenda context |
Duffield and Patterson, 1992 |
Species:
Geographic
area: |
Improved stream flows on select spawning tributaries that were recently severely dewatered. Using two different payment vehicles-- including actual cash donation (where participants mail an actual contribution) and a future hypothetical donation to an organization that manages a trust fund that oversees stream flows --respondents were asked how much they would be willing to contribute (or, actually contribute) to maintain summer flows on tributaries that support the arctic grayling and cutthroat trout. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$2.24
- $17.36 $14.92
to $31.85 (35 % of respondents are considered contributors) |
Olsen et al., 1991 |
Species:
Geographic
area: |
The value to both resources users and nonusers of doubling the size of existing salmon and steelhead runs. Telephone interview defined existence value and described size of fish runs prior to industrial development of Columbia River. Respondents were asked to value a guaranteed doubling of existing fish runs. Non-resource users expressed their willingness to pay by identifying the maximum amount they would pay above their average monthly (or last) power bill to know that future runs would be altered to a more stable and diverse condition. Resource users were asked to estimate two value components: (1) the value above and beyond the cost associated with their last fishing experience (assuming no change or improvement to catch level) and (2) the value to achieve an incremental change in the number of fish caught (i.e., a doubling). |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$2.21
- $4.88 $6.18
|
Stevens et al., 1991 |
Species:
Geographic
Area: |
Economic value of Atlantic salmon restoration program to Massachusetts residents. Respondents received introductory information about the species and were told that budget cuts had eliminated a program designed to restore salmon habitat in New England rivers. Respondents were also told about a hypothetical private trust fund to preserve and protect the species. Without the fund the species would no longer exist in New England, though the creation of the fund did not guarantee survival of the species. Individuals were asked whether they would contribute a certain amount per year over the next five years to underwrite the fund. |
Sample
Frame:
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$7.93 |
Boyle and Bishop, 1987 |
Species: Striped shiner (Listed as Endangered by State of Wisconsin, 1979)
Geographic
Area: |
The value members of society place on the preservation of a relatively obscure endangered fish species. Respondents were first asked to assume that all existing funding to preserve the shiner is terminated and that without funding no organized effort to preserve the species would exist, thereby leading to species extinction. Respondents were then asked to vote yes/no to donate a randomly selected amount to become a member in a private foundation that would (1) actively maintain and restore shiner habitat and (2) would effectively prevent extinction. |
Sample Frame: 1984 Wisconsin taxpayers (contributors and noncontributors to WI's existing Endangered Resources Donation Program)
Sample
Size:
Response
Rate:
Survey
Mode:
Payment
Vehicle: |
$4.16 - $5.66 Low range indicates one-time mean willingness to pay per taxpayer who had not previously contributed to the State's actual Endangered Resources Donation Program (ERD); high end indicates those that had previously contributed. |
a
Table contains data from Table 2 ("WTP per household for rare and
T/E Species") in Loomis and White, 1996. |
American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 76: 205-214.
Background information on Apalachicola, Conecuh, and DeSoto National Forests, http://www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/florida/forests.htm, http://www.r8web.com/alabama/forest/forests.htm, http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/miss/.
Background information on Coast Guard Missions and Activities, http://www.uscg.mil/ overview.htm.
Berrens, Robert P., Ganderton, Philip, and Silva, Carol. 1996. Valuing the Protection of Minimum Instream Flows in New Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Vol. (21)2.
Boyle, K. and R. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Water Resource Research. Vol. 23, pp. 943-950.
Carson, Richard T., Hanemann, Michael W., Kopp, Raymond J., Krosnick, Jon A., Mitchell, Robert C., Presser Stanley, Ruud, Paul A., Smith, V. Kerry. 1994. Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB contamination in the Southern California Bight. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, La Jolla, CA.
Crutchfield, J.A., S. Langdon. O.A. Mathiesen, and P.H. Poe. 1982. The Biologicial, Economic, and Social Values of a Sockeye Salmon Stream in Briston Bay, Alaska: A Case Study of Taimina River. University of Washington, Fisheries Research Institute Circular #82-2.
Cummings, R., Ganderton, P. and McGuckin, T. 1994. Substitution Effects in CVM Values.
Duffield, J. and David A. Patterson. 1992. Field Testing Existence Values: Comparison of Hypothetical and Cash Transaction Values. In B. Rettig (compiler), Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, 5th Report, W-133/Western Regional Research Publication, Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Eglin Air Force Base, “Eglin Air Force Base History,” accessed at www.eglin.af.mil/ history.htm.
Elkstrand, Earl R. and John Loomis. 1998. Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty When Estimating Willingness to Pay for Protecting Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Fish. Water Resources Research. Vol. 34, No. 11. November.
Hupert, D.D. 1990. Economic Benefits from Commercial Fishing. Draft Report to National Marine Fisheries Service.
Kotchen, Matthew J., and Stephen D. Reiling. 2000. Environmental Attitudes, Motivations, and Contingent Valuation of Nonuse Values: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecological Economics. Vol. 32: 93-107.
Loomis, John B., and Douglas S. White. 1996. Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-analysis. Ecological Economics. Vol. 18: 197-206.
Loomis, J. 1996. Measuring the Benefits of Removing Dams and Restoring the Elwha River: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey. Water Resources Research. 32(2): 441-447.
Olsen, D., Richards, J. and Scott, D., "Existence and Sport Values for Doubling the Size of Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Runs." Rivers, Vol. 2, pp. 44-56. 1991.
Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce, “NAS Pensacola,”accessed at www.pensacolachamber.com/.
Robert Morris Associated, Annual Statement of Studies: 2001-2002.
Stennis Space Center, “Stennis Space Center Fact Sheets,” accessed at www.ssc.nasa.gov/.
Stevens, T., J. Echeverria, R. Glass, T. Hager, and T. More. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What do CVM estimates really show?" Land Economics. Vol. 67, pp. 390-400. 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Services for the Public, accessed at www.usace.army.mil/public.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Public Health Assessment, Tyndall Air Force Base,” accessed at www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/tyndall/tyn_toc.html.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE Education: Navigation - What is Dredging, accessed at www.education.wes.army.mil/navigation/dredging.html.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (EPA 240-R-00-003).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 29, 1999. Revised Interim Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon, (67 FR 109).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/Management Plan, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 6, 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon, (67 FR 109).
U.S. Small Business Administration, “Table of Small Business Size Standards,” accessed at www.sba.gov/size/indextableofsize.html.
Information is also based on written communication from: