# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A05-20048

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 13, 2005
- **Citation:** 70 FR 59808

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT84

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Arkansas River Basin Population of the Arkansas River Shiner (
Notropis girardi
)

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are designating critical habitat for the Arkansas River Basin population of the Arkansas River shiner (
Notropis girardi
) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 856 kilometers (532 miles) of linear distance of rivers, including 91.4 meters (300 feet) of adjacent riparian areas measured laterally from each bank are included within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The areas that we have determined to possess the features that are essential to the conservation of the Arkansas River shiner include portions of the Canadian River (often referred to as the South Canadian River) in New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma, the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma, and the Cimarron River in Kansas and Oklahoma, and the Arkansas River in Kansas. As presented in the proposed rule, we have excluded from this designation all previously designated critical habitat in the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Kansas under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In addition, we have excluded all previously proposed critical habitat in Unit 1a of the Canadian River in New Mexico and Texas and a portion of Unit 1b in Texas and Oklahoma under authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

November 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Oklahoma Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 222 South Houston, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127-8909 (telephone 918/581-7458). The final rule, maps, economic analysis, and environmental assessment also will be available via the Internet at
http://ifw2es.fws.gov/Oklahoma
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Field Supervisor, Oklahoma Ecological Services Office (telephone 918/581-7458; facsimile 918/581-7467).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, “Because the Act can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.” Currently, only 470 species or 38 percent of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical habitat.

We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.

We note, however, that two courts found our definition of adverse modification to be invalid (March 15, 2001, decision of the United States Court Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
Sierra Club
v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.
, F.3d 434 and the August 6, 2004, Ninth Circuit judicial opinion,
Gifford Pinchot Task Force, et al.
v.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
). On December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be used in making section 7 adverse modification determinations.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides little additional protection to listed species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in any benefit to the

species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

Background information on the Arkansas River shiner and its habitat requirements can be found in our previous final designation of critical habitat for this species, published in the
Federal Register
on April 4, 2001 (66 FR 18002). Additional background information is also available in our recent proposal of critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, published on October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859). That information is incorporated by reference into this final rule. This rule, which becomes effective on the date listed under
EFFECTIVE DATE
at the beginning of this document, replaces the April 4, 2001, critical habitat designation for this species.

Previous Federal Actions

We previously designated a total of approximately 1,846 kilometers (1,148 miles) of rivers, and 91.4 meters (300 feet) of their adjacent riparian zones, encompassing portions of the Arkansas River in Kansas, the Cimarron River in Kansas and Oklahoma, the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma, and the Canadian River in New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma on April 4, 2001 (66 FR 18002). On April 25, 2002, the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association and 16 other plaintiffs filed a complaint in United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for alleged violations of the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and NEPA. A Memorandum Opinion in that case was issued by Senior U.S. District Judge C. LeRoy Hansen in September of 2003 that vacated critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner and ordered the Service to complete a final rulemaking to redesignate critical habitat by September 30, 2005. In accordance with this Memorandum Opinion, we published a proposed rule to designate 2,002 kilometers (1,244 miles) of linear distance of rivers, including 91.4 meters (300 feet) of adjacent riparian areas measured laterally from each bank on October 6, 2004. This distance included areas that were proposed to be excluded in the final rule. We extended the comment period associated with this proposed rule on April 28, 2005 (70 FR 21987). On August 1, 2005, we published a notice announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) and draft environmental assessment, public hearing locations and dates, and reopening of the public comment period (70 FR 44078).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner in the proposed rule published on October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859). We also contacted the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. The initial comment period was open from October 6, 2004 through April 30, 2005. We extended this comment period until June 17, 2005 (April 28, 2005, 70 FR 21987). A second comment period was open from August 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005, to also solicit comments on the draft environmental assessment and draft economic analysis and to announce the dates, locations, and times of the public hearings (70 FR 44078). In addition, we published newspaper notices inviting public comment and announcing the public hearings in the following newspapers in New Mexico: Quay County Sun; Kansas: Dodge City Globe, Hutchinson News Herald, and Wichita Eagle Beacon; Oklahoma: Woodward News, The Daily Oklahoman, and Tulsa World; Texas: Amarillo Globe News and Lubbock Avalanche Journal. We held three public hearings on the proposed rule: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (August 15, 2005); Amarillo, Texas (August 17, 2005); and Liberal, Kansas (August 18, 2005). Transcripts of these hearings are available for inspection (see
ADDRESSES
section). All comments and new information received during the two comment periods have been incorporated into this final rule as appropriate.

A total of 255 commenters responded during the two comment periods, including 11 Federal agencies (including elected officials), 7 State agencies, 11 private organizations, and 226 individuals. Several commenters individually submitted more than one set of comments. We received 5 comments after the close of the second comment period, but those comments were similar in nature to comments we had already received. During the comment period that opened on October 6, 2004, and closed on June 17, 2005, we received 26 comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation: 2 from peer reviewers, 4 from Federal agencies, 3 from State agencies, and 5 from private organizations. Of the 26 parties responding to the proposal during the first comment period, 2 supported the proposed designation, 15 were opposed, and 9 provided additional information or otherwise expressed no position on the proposal. During the second comment period that opened on August 1, 2005, and closed on August 31, 2005, we received 235 comments directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation, DEA, and draft environmental assessment. Of these latter comments, 8 were from a Federal agency, 7 from members of Congress, 7 from State agencies, 8 from private organizations, and 212 from individuals. Many of the comments (138) from private individuals were signed form letters. During the second comment period a total of 2 commenters supported the designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner and 71 opposed the designation. Many of those opposing the designation or not expressing a position did express support for excluding one or more of the proposed critical habitat units. We reviewed all comments for substantive information and new data regarding the Arkansas River shiner and its critical habitat. Comments have been grouped together by issue and are addressed in the following summary. All comments and information have been incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from at least three knowledgeable individuals who have expertise with the species, with the geographic region where the species occurs, and/or familiarity with the principles of conservation biology. Of the six individuals contacted, two responded. The peer reviewers who submitted comments generally supported the proposal and their comments are included in the summary below and incorporated into the final rule, as appropriate.

Peer Review Comments

(1)
Comment:
A peer reviewer at an academic institution who conducts research on a variety of fish species found our proposal to be extremely thorough and appropriate for an understanding of the needs of the Arkansas River shiner. He stated that the life history of the Arkansas River shiner dictates that long stretches of free-flowing water are critical Arkansas River shiner habitats.

Our Response:
As noted by the peer reviewer, we have tried to be as thorough as possible, and have considered and applied every known

study describing the life history and habitat requirements of the species when determining critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner.

(2)
Comment:
This peer reviewer found the argument for excluding the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Kansas to be convincing and supported using these areas to establish experimental populations of the Arkansas River shiner.

Our Response:
We agree that excluded areas still have the features that are essential for the Arkansas River shiner and we intend to utilize many recovery tools throughout the range of the species, including establishing experimental populations, as appropriate.

(3)
Comment:
Another peer reviewer at a different academic institution who has extensive experience with riverine systems in Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma expressed concern regarding proposed exclusion of Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Kansas. He stated that our position is based on the assumption that Arkansas River shiner populations in these two reaches are either so small that they cannot recover or that these populations are extirpated. In his opinion, these two reaches have not been sampled adequately for us to reach this conclusion. The recent capture of the Arkansas River shiner from the Cimarron River near Guthrie, Oklahoma is used as an example of our inability to conclude that the Arkansas River shiner has been extirpated from any particular reach.

Our Response:
We agree that only a small percentage of either of these two reaches have been extensively searched for the Arkansas River shiner. We strive to base our listing decisions on the best scientific and commercial data available. Unfortunately, extensive survey data for both of these reaches were unavailable. We will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require such designation. Additionally, designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not mean that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Before initiating any efforts to establish experimental populations in these reaches, we intend, subject to available funding, to conduct more exhaustive surveys of both units.

We believe a major benefit of excluding areas from critical habitat designation is that landowners, local jurisdictions, and other entities involved in recovery efforts for the Arkansas River shiner will be more willing to work with us in a spirit of cooperation and partnership. A possible benefit of including critical habitat on such lands is education about the species and its habitat needs. We considered that this educational benefit has largely already been met by the public participation process, and therefore, that this would not be a particularly important benefit of critical habitat designation. We have concluded, therefore, that the benefits of excluding critical habitat from such lands exceed the value of including the lands as critical habitat. See additional discussion under “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act.”

(4)
Comment:
This peer reviewer, in his best professional judgment, suggested that restoring Arkansas River shiners in the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Kansas would be extremely beneficial considering these repatriated populations would help ensure that multiple populations of the species persist. However, he expressed reservation that repatriation of the species was the only means to accomplish this objective. Instead both habitat restoration and repatriation might be necessary or habitat restoration alone would be sufficient should remnant populations still persist.

Our Response:
We agree that restoration of Arkansas River shiner populations to additional portions of their historical range significantly reduces the likelihood of extinction and that some habitat restoration may also be necessary. A vital recovery component for this species will likely involve establishment of secure, self-sustaining populations in habitats from which the species has been extirpated. While we believe excluding historically occupied areas from the critical habitat designation could be detrimental to conservation of the species, we also believe negative public perceptions with respect to critical habitat could seriously hamper voluntary restoration efforts. Establishing experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act appears to be the most appropriate tool to utilize in future restoration efforts. We believe the provisions of section 10(j) would help foster an atmosphere of cooperation that would encourage future voluntary conservation actions. Section 10(j) of the Act enables us to designate certain populations of federally listed species that are released into the wild as “experimental.” The circumstances under which this designation can be applied are the following: (1) The population is geographically separate from non-experimental populations of the same species (e.g., the population is reintroduced outside the species' current range but within its probable historic range); and (2) we determine that the release will further the conservation of the species. Section 10(j) is designed to increase our flexibility in managing an experimental population by allowing us to treat the population as threatened, regardless of the species status elsewhere in its range. In situations where we have experimental populations, certain section 9 prohibitions (
e.g.
, harm, harass, capture) that apply to endangered and threatened species may no longer apply, and a special rule can be developed that contains the prohibitions and exceptions necessary and appropriate to conserve that species. This flexibility allows us to manage the experimental population in a manner that will ensure that current and future land, water, or air uses and activities will not be unnecessarily restricted and the population can be managed for recovery purposes. Please see the “Units 2 and 4” discussion under the “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for more detailed information on the section 10(j) regulation and process.

(5)
Comment:
This peer reviewer expressed concern that we proposed to exclude the Beaver/North Canadian River in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River in Kansas and was unclear why reintroduction of the Arkansas River shiner could not occur in these units if they were designated as critical habitat. The importance of these units to the conservation of the species would seem to outweigh the benefit of not designating these reaches as critical habitat.

Our Response:
We strongly believe that, in order to achieve recovery for the Arkansas River shiner, we would need the flexibility provided for in section 10(j) of the Act to help ensure the success of augmenting and reestablishing Arkansas River Shiner populations in the Beaver/North Canadian River and/or the Arkansas River. Use of section 10(j) is meant to encourage local cooperation through management flexibility. Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat shall not be designated under the Act for any experimental population determined to be not

essential to the continued existence of a species. In the case of the Arkansas River shiner, the flexibility gained by establishment of an experimental population through section 10(j) would be of little value if a designation of critical habitat overlaps it. This is because Federal agencies would still be required to consult with us on any actions that may adversely modify critical habitat. In effect, the flexibility gained from section 10(j) would be rendered useless by the designation of critical habitat.

If, during the recovery planning process we determine a revision is warranted, we can amend critical habitat at that time. Provided such a revision is warranted, and funding available, we could propose revised critical habitat and consider any new information provided, both on additional areas to be considered in the revision as well as areas included in the current designation as essential (i.e., excluded and designated areas). Based on the best available science at this time, we determine that the areas designated by this rule are sufficient to conserve the species.

(6)
Comment:
This peer reviewer stated the proposal did a good job referencing the existing literature and outlining the factors limiting the existence of the Arkansas River shiner. However, he expressed concern that much was still unknown and management actions should proceed with caution. What was clear was the critical importance of habitats in the Arkansas and Beaver/North Canadian Rivers for recovery of the species.

Our Response:
We have based this proposal on the best scientific and commercial data available but we agree that many details of Arkansas River shiner life history and habitat requirements are still unknown. Our intent is to implement conservation actions for the species in a manner consistent with the available information but which avoids or minimizes the risk to the species. We agree that these habitats are important for recovery of the species and intend to address appropriate conservation of these habitats during the recovery planning process. However, based on the current information, which indicates these two reaches are unoccupied, we have excluded these areas from the final critical habitat designation.

Comments Related to Previous Federal Actions, the Act, and Implementing Regulations

(7)
Comment:
Designating critical habitat prior to development of a recovery plan for the Arkansas River shiner is inappropriate. The public should be allowed to participate in developing a recovery plan for the species, which would be far more effective than designating critical habitat.

Our Response:
We agree that, in an ideal situation, we would have a recovery plan in place for any species prior to designating its critical habitat. In that way, the public would have input into the recovery process, and enough would be known about the species to help determine what areas should be designated as critical habitat. However, the Act requires that critical habitat be designated concurrently with a species' listing or, in some circumstances, within one year of a final listing determination. Unfortunately, the Act does not allow for a delay in critical habitat designation until after a recovery plan is in place.

It is important to note that the recovery planning process, which will allow the involvement of affected individuals; local, state, and tribal governments; and others interested in conservation of the Arkansas River shiner, will result in development of specific recovery actions to be implemented on behalf of the species' conservation. Although implementation is not mandatory, the recovery plan provides a “blueprint” for achieving recovery and substantially influences how the species is managed under the Act. Thus, although critical habitat is usually designated prior to recovery plan development, its on-the-ground recovery implementation can be influenced by a final recovery plan.

(8)
Comment:
Critical habitat designation is not necessary and provides little conservation benefit or protection to the species.

Our Response:
The Act under section 4(a)(3) requires that critical habitat be designated for species listed as threatened or endangered unless such designation would not be prudent. We believe such designation would be prudent for the Arkansas River shiner. Critical habitat designation is only one facet of species conservation. The protections afforded listed species under sections 7 and 9 are substantial, and a critical habitat designation usually adds only marginal protections above those already afforded listed species. Partnerships with individual landowners and a variety of stakeholders can provide a much greater conservation benefit for listed species, as they offer positive management actions that cannot be achieved through a critical habitat designation. We agree that designation of critical habitat often provides little or no additional benefit to species conservation (see “Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species”).

(9)
Comment:
The Service has underestimated the degree to which federal actions will trigger section 7 consultation for actions that occur within or near critical habitat.

Our Response:
We disagree. As described in the “Section 7 Consultation” section below, consultation would occur when the action agency determines that activities they sponsor, fund, or authorize may affect federally listed species or are likely to destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The threshold for triggering section 7 consultation is clear. During the informal section 7 consultation process, we will assist Federal agencies in making a determination if their action is likely to affect critical habitat. However, the Federal Action Agency has the responsibility to make that determination, not us.

(10)
Comment:
The comment period for the NEPA document and economic analysis were inadequate to allow the public to understand and comment meaningfully and should be extended.

Our Response:
The notice of availability for the NEPA document and economic analysis published August 1, 2005. We accepted comments on these two documents, in addition to the proposed rule, for 30 days ending on August 31, 2005. We believe this public comment period provided adequate opportunity for public comment. In addition, due to the large scope of this rule and in order to comply with our September 30, 2005, court ordered date for completion of the final rule it would not have been possible to extend the comment period beyond August 31, 2005.

Comments Related to Critical Habitat, Primary Constituent Elements, and Methodology

(11)
Comment:
The 300-foot lateral extent or “buffer zone” is excessive and unnecessary.

Our Response:
Critical habitat includes the area of bankfull width plus 300 feet on either side of the banks. This is not for the purpose of creating a “buffer zone.” Rather, it defines the lateral extent of those areas we believe contain the features that are essential to the species' conservation. Although the Arkansas River shiner cannot be found in the riparian areas when they are dry, these areas are sometimes flooded and provide habitat during high-water periods. In addition, the riparian vegetation within these lateral areas

provides seeds and insects eaten by Arkansas River shiners, and thus contains a primary constituent element of critical habitat.

The riparian zone also provides an array of important watershed functions that directly benefit plains fishes. Vegetation in the corridor shades the stream, stabilizes banks, and provides organic litter and large woody debris. The riparian zone stores sediment, recycles nutrients and chemicals, mediates stream hydraulics, and controls microclimate. Healthy riparian zones help ensure water quality essential to aquatic life. Conversely, human activities in the riparian zone can harm stream function and fishes by directly and indirectly interfering with these important functions. Because the riparian corridor is particularly susceptible to degradation, we concluded that the adjacent riparian corridor would require special management consideration and therefore was appropriate for inclusion in critical habitat.

Comments Related to Site-Specific Areas

The following comments and responses involve issues related to the inclusion or exclusion of specific stream reaches or our methods for selecting appropriate areas for designation as critical habitat.

(12)
Comment:
Several commenters expressed support for exclusion of various units or portions of those units. One supported exclusion of the City of Wichita from Unit 4, four supported exclusion of the entirety of Unit 4, four supported exclusion of Units 2 and 4, and 141 supported exclusion of Unit 2 alone. Others (15) expressed support for exclusion of all or a portion of Unit 1a, including the segment within the upper reaches of Lake Meredith.

Our Response:
Areas in Unit 1a, Unit 2, and Unit 4 are excluded from critical habitat (see “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a detailed discussion).

(13)
Comment:
Several commenters expressed support for exclusion of Units 1b and 3 or exclusion of all of the units from the designation.

Our Response:
All proposed areas in Unit 1b and Unit 3, with the exception of a 204 km (127 mi) long reach of Unit 1b, were not excluded from critical habitat (see “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a detailed discussion). Units 1b and 3 contain all of the primary constituent elements and require special management. We cited streamflow alteration, introductions of nonnative species and water quality degradation as some of the threats in those areas that require special management considerations.

(14)
Comment:
Several commenters expressed concern regarding the designation of Unit 3. One stated the Cimarron River does not support a viable population, two stated the unit is unoccupied by the Arkansas River shiner, four stated the portion of Unit 3 in Kansas is unoccupied, and five stated the Cimarron River does not support the primary constituent elements.

Our Response:
The Cimarron River is included in the designation because it contains all of the primary constituent elements and is occupied by the species. As stated in this final rule, 16 specimens of the Arkansas River shiner were reported captured from the Cimarron River between 1985 and 1992. In August of 2004, eight Arkansas River shiners were collected near Guthrie, Oklahoma, by SWCA Environmental Consultants (Stuart Leon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 2004). While this population is undoubtedly small and is by no means secure, it continues to persist over time. Because the Arkansas River shiner has a maximum life span of about 3 years, with the majority not surviving past two years of age, it is doubtful that the species would continue to be collected if a small population did not persist. We cannot reasonably conclude the species is extirpated from any portion of the Cimarron River unit based on the continued, although infrequent, observation of the Arkansas River shiner. Failure to record Arkansas River shiner from specific locations in the past several years is generally indicative of low population levels but does not necessarily support a declaration of extirpation from the entire stream. Documentation of small populations is very difficult and often results in false declarations of extirpation (Mayden and Kuhajda 1996). At the least, this illustrates the need for caution in concluding that a population has been extirpated. Fish, particularly small species, are often very difficult to locate when population levels are very low.

We agree that the Cimarron River and many of the other rivers and streams historically occupied by the Arkansas River shiner have portions that dry either seasonally, during drought conditions, or for other natural reasons. This species is adapted to this phenomenon and often persists in isolated pools and tributary refugia only to recolonize these dewatered areas once flow resumes. If sufficient areas of flow persist, and if all other habitat requirements are met, the stream is suitable for the species whether or not there is flow throughout all areas at all times. Consequently, the absence of the Arkansas River shiner from an area during certain periods or under certain conditions does not necessarily demonstrate that they are not present at other times. As long as a permanent barrier does not exist, Arkansas River shiners move fairly long distances within these streams.

Comments Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

(15)
Comment:
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is not adequate for an action of this magnitude; instead an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.

Our Response:
Our EA considered a no-action alternative and several action alternatives and discussed the adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of each. We determined through the EA that the overall environmental effects of this action are insignificant. An EIS is required only if we find that the proposed action is expected to have a significant impact on the human environment. Based on our analysis and comments received from the public, we prepared a final EA and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), negating the need for preparation of an EIS. We believe our EA was consistent with the spirit and intent of NEPA. The final EA, FONSI, and final economic analysis provide our rationale for determining that critical habitat designation would not have a significant effect on the human environment. Those documents are available for public review (see
ADDRESSES
section).

Comments Related to Section 7 Consultation

(16)
Comment:
Consultation will result in project-related delays.

Our
Response:
As described in the “Section 7 Consultation” section below, consultation would occur when the action agency determines that activities they permit, fund, authorize, or undertake may affect federally listed species or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat only affects these activities. Absent Federal permitting, funding, or authorization, critical habitat designation on private (non-Federal) lands would not obligate or trigger any consultation requirement for private (non-Federal) actions on private land.

Section 3 of the draft economic analysis addressed the administrative costs associated with section 7 consultation. The duration and complexity of any particular section 7

consultation can be influenced by a number of factors and may require substantial administrative effort on the part of all participants. Generally most delays related to project implementation can be avoided or minimized if consultation is initiated early during the project planning process. The Act specifies timeframes under which consultations are to be completed and we strive to meet those timeframes.

Comments Related to Biological Concerns

The following comments and responses involve issues related to the biological basis for the designation and status of the Arkansas River shiner.

(17)
Comment:
The Arkansas River shiner does not require the protection of the Act.

Our Response:
The Arkansas River Basin population of the Arkansas River shiner was listed as threatened in 1998. Additional information on the biology and status of this species and our rationale for the listing can be found in the November 23, 1998, final listing determination (63 FR 64772).

(18)
Comment:
Current soil conservation practices keep runoff from entering the river and such measures would likely preclude existence of Arkansas River shiner habitat.

Our Response:
Some soil conservation practices, such as terracing, are very effective at reducing run-off and may contribute to overall declines in peak discharge during rainfall events. However many conservation practices, such as construction of terraces, shelterbelts, grassed waterways, and certain vegetative plantings, are specifically designed to minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation. Without these practices in place, soil erosion and ensuing increased siltation would likely occur in rivers and streams of the Arkansas River basin. We do not believe that construction of terraces, shelterbelts, grassed waterways, and other vegetative plantings for conservation are likely to significantly impact habitat or threaten survival of the Arkansas River shiner.

(19)
Comment:
Grazing by livestock will not have an adverse impact on the Arkansas River shiner, at least no more significant than grazing by other ungulates such as deer or bison.

Our Response:
As stated in the final listing determination (63 FR 64772), we believe well-managed, free-range livestock grazing is compatible with viable Arkansas River shiner populations and will not cause significant degradation of the riparian zone. In fact, low to moderate grazing and seasonal or rotational grazing practices are compatible with many natural resource objectives.

(20)
Comment:
The Arkansas River shiner has no lasting value and should be allowed to become extinct.

Our Response:
Congress, in section 2 of the Act (Findings, Purposes, and Policy), found that numerous species of fish, wildlife, and plants had become extinct or were in danger of, or, threatened with, extinction due to a lack of concern for their conservation. Furthermore, Congress found that these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are intrinsically valuable to the nation and its people for reasons of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value (section 2(a)(3)). These findings are the basis of the Act.

A variety of opinions likely exist as to a particular species' contribution to society. We believe that conserving all species of wildlife has a positive effect on society. Society, like the Arkansas River shiner, depends upon reliable supplies of clean water. Conserving water resources will help to provide a necessary resource for future generations of people and maintain a healthy aquatic ecosystem for fish and wildlife. As the health of ecosystems declines, the number of species inhabiting those systems decline. In general, the presence of rare and declining species is very often a good indicator of failing ecosystem health. It would be contrary to the Act and our mission to allow the Arkansas River shiner to become extinct without undertaking all reasonable conservation actions.

(21)
Comment:
The Arkansas River shiner and Red River shiner (Notropis bairdi) are not distinct species.

Our Response:
We disagree. While the morphological characteristics, life history, and phylogeny of the two fishes are similar, all of the published scientific literature concludes the two fishes are separate and taxonomically distinct. For example, the scholarly publications on the fishes of Oklahoma (Miller and Robison 1973), Arkansas (Robison and Buchanan 1988), and Kansas (Cross 1967) all show the two fishes to be distinct species. Other scientific publications such as Felley and Cothran (1981), Marshall (1978), Cross
et al.
(1983), and Gilbert (1980) also consider these fishes to be separate, distinct taxa. Hubbs and Ortenburger (1929) provided the first description of both the Arkansas River shiner and the Red River shiner. They considered both to be separate and taxonomically distinct. Most recently, Mayden (1989) thoroughly examined the phylogenetic relationships of all North American minnows. He concluded that the two species are valid and distinct. We are not aware of any studies, scholarly or otherwise, which suggest these two species are not separate and taxonomically distinct.

(22)
Comment:
Several commenters provided additional information or confirmed the existence of numerous threats to the Arkansas River shiner including: impoundments, predation, introduction of Red River shiner, water quality degradation, and declining stream flows.

Our Response:
We agree that these and other threats have influenced the distribution and abundance of the Arkansas River shiner. Please refer to information in this rule or refer to the “Summary of Factors Affecting the Species” section of our final listing determination (63 FR 64772).

Comments Related to the Effects of Designation

The following comments and responses involve issues related to the effects of critical habitat designation on land management or other activities.

(23)
Comment:
We received many comments from individuals expressing their concern that critical habitat designation will infringe on their rights as private property owners and that the designation could result in a reduction in their property's value.

Our Response:
Only activities taking place on private property having some sort of Federal nexus (
e.g.
, Federal funding, permitting, authorization) could potentially be affected. Our experience has shown that the majority of such activities have rarely triggered formal section 7 consultation. Please see our economic analysis for further information about economic effects of this designation.

(24)
Comment:
Numerous commenters expressed concern that the designation of critical habitat will restrict access to the affected areas, impose land use restrictions, force fencing of the riparian zone, further regulate the oil and gas industry, or restrict off-road and recreational vehicle use.

Our Response:
Individuals, organizations, States, local and tribal governments, and other non-Federal entities could potentially be affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve Federal funding and the action has the potential to affect the species or its critical habitat. In this instance, Federal agencies are required to enter into section 7 consultation with us. Effects of

the designation on projects with a Federal nexus are explained in the “Effect of Critical Habitat Designation” section. Designation of critical habitat does not prescribe specific management actions but does serve to identify areas that are in need of special management considerations.

(25)
Comment:
Off-road vehicle (ORV) use is not affecting the Arkansas River shiner.

Our Response:
Specific information on this issue is lacking, however it is possible that heavy recreation use may adversely impact the stream and habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, particularly during periods of low flow. Recreational activities involving a Federal nexus are rare within any of the units and occur primarily within Unit 1a. The entirety of Unit 1a, including the Rosita ORV area, has been excluded from the final critical habitat designation, thus should not be influenced by the designation of critical habitat. However, the National Park Service is contemplating restrictions within the Rosita ORV area to prevent potential adverse impacts to the Arkansas River shiner under the jeopardy standard. The primary adverse impacts involve use of the river channel during the spawning season and during summertime low-flow periods when fish are concentrated in isolated pools. The Rosita ORV area is considered to be occupied by the Arkansas River shiner; therefore, this restriction is being considered regardless of the critical habitat designation.

(26)
Comment:
The designation of critical habitat will result in control of, or “taking” of, private property in violation of the rights granted under the Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Our Response:
The mere promulgation of a regulation, like the enactment of a statute, does not take private property unless the regulation on its face denies the property owners all economically beneficial or productive use of their land (
Agins
v.
City of Tiburon
, 447 U.S. 255, 260-263 (1980);
Hodel
v.
Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Ass'n
, 452 U.S. 264, 195 (1981);
Lucas
v.
South Carolina Coastal Council
, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014 (1992)). The Act does not automatically restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes requirements under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may result in destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. This requirement does not apply to private actions that do not need Federal approvals, permits, or funding. Furthermore, as discussed above, if a biological opinion concludes that a proposed action is likely to result in destruction or modification of critical habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives. In accordance with Executive Order 12630, we conclude that this designation does not have significant takings implications (see “Required Determinations” section below).

Comments Related to Recovery

The following comments and responses involve issues related to recovery and recovery planning for the Arkansas River shiner. Although not relevant to the designation of critical habitat, we chose to address some of the comments related to this issue.

(27)
Comment:
Some comments expressed concern regarding implementation of unfavorable recovery actions or noted that the details, costs, and recovery goals of the recovery program have not been provided. Others mentioned specific tasks, such as further research, captive propagation, control of salt cedar (
Tamarix
spp.), stream flow restoration, control of nonnative fishes, and restoration of the Arkansas River shiner to unoccupied habitat, which we might implement during recovery.

Our Response:
On July 1, 1994, the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce set forth an interagency policy to minimize social and economic impacts of the Act consistent with timely recovery of listed species (59 FR 34272). Consistent with this policy, we intend to work closely with stakeholders throughout the Arkansas River basin regarding development of recovery actions for the Arkansas River shiner and will strive to balance implementation of those recovery actions with social and economic concerns.

The ultimate purpose of listing a species as threatened or endangered under the Act is to recover the species to the point at which it no longer needs the Act's protections. The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through different mechanisms. Section 4(f) of the Act authorizes us to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. A recovery plan delineates reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and delist the species, and which may include measures specifically mentioned during the comment period. Recovery plans do not, of themselves, commit personnel or funds nor obligate an agency, entity, or person to implement the various tasks listed in the plan. Recovery plans serve to bring together Federal, State, and private stakeholders in the development and implementation of conservation actions for the species, by providing a framework to identify site specific management actions necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the species, set recovery priorities, and estimate costs of various tasks necessary to accomplish the goals of the plan. One of the main emphases of recovery plans is to address threats affecting the survival of the species and to remove or minimize their influence. However, we have no intention of restoring these ecosystems to pristine conditions.

In the “Available Conservation Measures” section of the final listing determination, we listed four general conservation measures that could be implemented to help conserve the Arkansas River shiner. While this list does not constitute the entire scope of a recovery plan as discussed in the provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, it does provide an indication of measures we intend to investigate during preparation of a recovery plan.

Future conservation and recovery of the shiner will emphasize remaining aggregations and habitats in the Canadian, Cimarron, and Beaver
/
North Canadian Rivers. We also intend to address the implications of groundwater withdrawals and diversions of surface water during the recovery process. Generally, we will support and encourage the States in their efforts to increase irrigation efficiency and improve conservation of groundwater sources in the High Plains. Conservation of the High Plains aquifer, and the resulting benefits to streamflow within the Arkansas River basin, will not occur without the participation of the States. We believe voluntary conservation of the groundwater resource will be more effective in recovery efforts for the Arkansas River shiner than restricting or otherwise regulating withdrawals.

Introductions of non-indigenous species, such as the Red River shiner, will be closely monitored. Where needed, we will develop and implement measures to minimize or eliminate the accidental or intentional release of these species. Studies will be initiated to determine the feasibility of, and techniques for, eradicating or controlling Red River shiners in the Cimarron River. If control or eradication is feasible, a control program will likely be implemented.

We have already begun steps to evaluate and study captive propagation of the Arkansas River shiner using the non-native Pecos River population. And we have begun participating in a joint effort to investigate the feasibility of controlling salt cedar as a means of enhancing stream flow in western portions of the basin. The State of Texas

has also initiated similar efforts in the Canadian River. We believe such efforts will be beneficial to recovery of the species.

At the time of final listing, we prepared a recovery outline for the shiner and have begun to implement some preliminary recovery tasks identified in the outline. Recovery outlines are brief internal planning documents that are prepared within 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule. These documents are intended to direct recovery efforts pending completion of the recovery plan. We have not, to this point, completed or even begun drafting a recovery plan. Considering the first two sections of a recovery plan present information on the biology, life history, and threats to the species, the final listing determination and this document will be used in the preparation of these sections. As such, much of the work required to draft a recovery plan has been completed. However, an implementation schedule, which details estimates of the time required to complete identified tasks and costs to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal is far from complete. We hope to utilize the expertise of the many stakeholders in the completion of this section of the plan. Once a recovery plan for the Arkansas River shiner has been developed, the plan will be available for public review and comment prior to adoption.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—General Comments on Methodology

(28)
Comment:
A comment offers that the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) should present results at a more disaggregated spatial level than watersheds to facilitate land exclusions by the Secretary of the Interior. The aggregated level at which impacts are presented fails to pinpoint specific areas of high economic impact.

Our Response:
We believe that the level of resolution of impact estimates presented in the DEA is appropriate for this rulemaking. The Service identified five critical habitat units, which are subdivided into 18 watersheds. The watershed level is an appropriate geographic boundary for disaggregating economic impacts associated with protecting aquatic species, because it provides important information about the linkage between upstream economic activities and downstream impacts. As described in Appendix C, the DEA uses the smallest delineation of a watershed provided consistently across all States by the U.S. Geological Survey (i.e., watersheds named using an eight-digit hydrologic unit code, or “HUC”). In addition, the eight-digit HUC is currently used by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Service as it considers which Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) will be required to take additional action to protect the shiner. The State of Oklahoma has mapped smaller watersheds, naming them using 11-digit HUCs. If the analysis were to subdivide shiner habitat by 11-digit HUCs in Oklahoma, the analysis would mistakenly exclude impacts to CAFOs in 11-digit HUCs that do not intersect habitat. This erroneous exclusion of potential costs would also occur if some other, smaller geographic boundaries such as census tracts, were used. Finally, economic activity within this habitat is relatively homogenous, and much of the data used to project future economic activity is not detailed enough to allow for further, meaningful disaggregation. As a result, presentation of costs at a more disaggregated spatial level is unlikely to pinpoint smaller areas bearing disproportionate costs.

(29)
Comment:
One comment states that most oil and gas operators are not familiar with references to watersheds provided in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2, and a list or map of counties associated with each watershed would be helpful to clarify what areas are included and which wells are encompassed.

Our Response:
The information requested is available in Exhibit ES-2 of the DEA, which provides a map overlaying the watersheds on county and State boundaries in addition to the names of each.

(30)
Comment:
One commenter stated that that the DEA neglects to consider the role of risk and uncertainty about future impacts. Because future scenarios are difficult to predict, the commenter asserts that the DEA should acknowledge the effect of altering assumptions.

Our Response:
The DEA provides extensive discussion of the likelihood and uncertainty about future impacts and the bias associated with key assumptions. For example, discussion of factors influencing the frequency and impact of administrative efforts is discussed in paragraph 107. The potential for impacts at Lake Meredith, other Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) projects, and Ute Dam, and uncertainty surrounding the quantification of costs, is discussed in paragraphs 119, 121, and 126 through 128. Key assumptions, probability of impact, and areas of uncertainty in the estimation of impacts to the oil and gas industry are discussed in paragraphs 148 through 149, 152 through 157, 162, 165, 171, 175, and 178. The likelihood and uncertainty about future impacts to CAFOs, and the effect of key assumptions are discussed in paragraphs 181, 190 through 193, and 196 through 199. The effect of major assumptions and areas of uncertainty in estimating other agricultural impacts are described in paragraphs 202 through 203, 207 through 209, 212 through 213, 217, 222, 227, 229, 233, 235 through 236, 240, 244 through 247, and 252 through 253. In the analysis of transportation-related impacts, paragraph 255 provides information about the uncertainty associated with estimated impacts. Issues related to the estimation of impacts to recreators are discussed in paragraphs 273, 275, 278, and 279. Paragraphs 283 through 285 describe the uncertainty associated with predicting impacts to utility projects. Uncertainty regarding other types of effects, such as impacts to exotic plant control, wildlife management areas, real estate development activities, and the development of management plans is discussed in paragraphs 286 through 287, 293, 295, and 297 through 298.

(31)
Comment:
One comment states that the annualizing of total cost in the CAFO section of the DEA is not consistent with the annualization method applied in other sections of the DEA.

Our Response:
We disagree. The DEA uses a consistent method to calculate annualized costs for each category of impact, as described in note (a) of Exhibit ES-4b and ES-4c.

(32)
Comment:
A comment notes that in estimating the impact to row cropping activities, the DEA considers two alternate scenarios. The projected total costs for row-cropping are presented as the sum of the two scenarios, while it's more likely that either one or the other will occur.

Our Response:
We provide the following clarification. Paragraph 15 notes: “The analysis assumes that farmers may discontinue participation in Federal farm assistance programs and retire cropland/pastureland in proposed habitat from productive economic activity, but that a choice of one option or the other is more likely.” In Exhibits ES-4a through ES-4c, the total lower bound impact estimate assumes neither of these scenarios takes place, while the high-end impact estimate assumes that they both occur. It is likely that the actual level of impact that occurs equals an amount between these two estimates, consistent with the statement in paragraph 15.

We acknowledge that the text in paragraph 15 of the Executive Summary

is incorrect, specifically under the fifth bullet point in which the DEA states: “Therefore, the analysis does not sum costs of agricultural land retirement and non-participation in Federal farm programs.” In fact, as stated above, the DEA does sum the costs of agricultural land retirement and non-participation in Federal farm programs for the high-end impact estimate in Exhibits ES-4a through ES-4c.

(33)
Comment:
One comment on the DEA states that the impact to water supplies and wastewater treatment in communities along these rivers is not completely addressed. The additional cost of upgrading wastewater treatment is $1,000,000 per 1,000 people. It lists 40 communities in Units 1b and 3 that would be directly impacted.

Our Response:
Impacts of water management activities at dams are estimated in Section 4 of the DEA. Impacts of potential reductions in groundwater withdrawals are estimated in Section 7. The DEA estimates the impacts of wastewater management associated with CAFOs in Section 6. The impacts to small entities associated with regulating water supplies and wastewater treatment is estimated separately in Appendix A.

In addition, paragraph 282 of the DEA explains that since the shiner's listing, 77 utility-related consultations, which include projects related to wastewater treatment facility management and construction and construction of water and transmission lines, have occurred. Only eight of the consultations resulted in project modifications. Interviews with a regional engineering firm typically involved with such projects revealed that the costs associated with the project modifications were comparable to costs for the originally-designed project. Paragraphs 283 through 285 forecast the rate of future consultations for utility projects, discuss the uncertainty associated with predicting future costs for large projects, and provide a case study of potential costs for the Norman, Oklahoma Wastewater Treatment Division. This represents the best available information at this time.

(34)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the assumption that the impact to CAFO operations would be passed on to the consumer is incorrect, because cattle owners don't price the cattle but take whatever they can get for them.

Our Response:
We agree with this comment. The DEA does not assume that costs are passed on to the consumer. It assumes that compliance costs are borne entirely by the CAFO operators.

(35)
Comment:
A comment states that critical habitat designation has a negative impact on the value of properties within the boundaries of the designation, regardless of whether any future regulatory action is taken by the Service in connection with the activities on those properties.

Our Response:
As stated in paragraph 40 of the DEA, we agree that critical habitat designation may stigmatize properties, resulting in a decrease in property value. However, empirical data measuring the difference in property values before and after critical habitat designation in this region are not available.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Clarification of Costs Attributed to Particular Consultations Or Actions

(36)
Comment:
A comment states that the DEA projects a formal consultation if the CRMWA expands its wellfield but does not make clear the costs associated with this potential consultation.

Our Response:
As shown in Exhibit 3-5, the analysis assumes that the Bureau of Reclamation will undergo a formal section 7 consultation on the potential development of its wellfields. The range of administrative costs of a typical section 7 consultation are presented in Exhibit 3-1 and are applied to this project. Paragraph 120 provides information about the general costs of the wellfield project. It also notes that data to estimate the incremental cost of pipeline placement related to shiner protection were requested but not received.

(37)
Comment:
A comment notes that costs associated with consultations for brush control are not clear.

Our Response:
Exotic plant control activities are discussed in Section 9.3 of the DEA; associated administrative costs are discussed in Section 3 of the report at paragraph 103 and Exhibit 3-5. Formal consultation on exotic plant control activities in Texas is anticipated. As shown in Exhibit 3-5, the costs of these consultations between the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Service are included in future administrative costs related to shiner conservation activities and spread across all watersheds in Texas that contain shiner habitat. As stated in paragraph 286, the DEA does not estimate project modification costs associated with exotic plant control for two reasons: (1) these activities are generally not undertaken specifically for the shiner; and (2) because exotic plant control generally benefits the species, shiner-specific project modifications are typically not required by the Service. Therefore, the DEA limits future impacts to exotic plant control activities to administrative costs only.

(38)
Comment:
One comment states that the economic impact analysis references the potential for stormwater discharge permits to trigger consultation with the Service on every proposed oil and gas location. The comment requests clarification of if or how this information was used in the cost impact analysis.

Our Response:
As described in paragraph 148, the DEA assumes a greater number of oil and gas development wells will be subject to consultation under the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations. Project modification costs associated with oil and gas well development activities are estimated in Section 5 of the DEA and summarized in paragraph 162. Administrative costs of consultation associated with oil and gas well development activities are estimated in Section 3 of the DEA and summarized in paragraph 106 and Exhibit 3-9.

(39)
Comment:
A comment letter requested that the DEA explain what is included in the annualized costs presented in Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2.

Our Response:
Exhibits 5-1 and 5-2 summarize impacts to oil and gas well development and pipeline activity that are explained in greater detail later in Section 5 of the DEA. Detailed information about the number of projects affected, potential types of project modifications, and associated costs are presented in paragraphs 143 through 157, 161 through 171, and 174 through 178.

(40)
Comment:
Several comments state that the DEA does not clearly identify and outline assumptions, uncertainties, scenarios considered, and best management practices required along with the cost for each requirement used in the cost impact scenarios in the analysis of impacts to the oil and gas industry. They suggest that the DEA clarify in Exhibits 5-4, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9, and 5-11 the cost associated with the highlighted project modifications and which modifications were used in the cost impact analysis.

Our Response:
Key assumptions, probability of impact, and areas of uncertainty in the estimation of impacts to the oil and gas industry are discussed in paragraphs 148 through 149, 152 through 157, 162, 165, 171, 175, and 178. However, for clarification:

The project modifications described qualitatively in Exhibit 5-4 summarize available historical information about the types of project modifications requested of oil and gas drilling projects

by the Service's Ecological Services Field Office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Based on conversations with the Service and review of information provided by the Department of Energy (DOE), costs associated with the modifications that are most likely to be required—directional drilling and erosion control measures—are provided in Exhibit 5-5. Exhibit 5-6 summarizes the results of the analysis applying project modification costs provided in Exhibit 5-5 to past oil and gas well development consultations that considered the shiner. Exhibit 5-8 applies these same costs (Exhibit 5-5) to forecasted oil and gas well development in shiner habitat, signified by the column labeled “Total Potential Wells in CHD (critical habitat designation) (20 years).” Note that based on new information provided in public comment, the unit cost estimates provided in Exhibit 5-5 have been revised and impacts to this industry are recalculated. These revised estimates flow through Exhibits 5-6 and 5-8 in the final economic analysis.

Exhibit 5-9 provides historical information about the types of project modification requested in Oklahoma for oil and gas pipeline construction and maintenance activities. Exhibit 5-10 provides the unit cost estimates for cost of the project modifications most likely to be requested for future projects. Exhibit 5-11 summarizes the results of the analysis applying pipeline project modification costs of approximately $17,000 to $22,000 as provided in Exhibit 5-10 to past pipeline consultations.

(41)
Comment:
One comment states that based on Exhibit 5-10, it does not appear that consideration was given to consultation costs, clearance under the Act, installation of best management practices, loss of a project, project delays, and the delay of production to market for pipeline projects.

Our Response:
Consultation costs and clearance under the Act for pipeline activity are captured in Section 3 of the DEA. No information was provided during industry interviews or in public comment about shiner-related best-management practices (BMPs) on pipeline projects aside from the setback requirement described in Exhibit 5-10. Lacking data, we are unable to estimate costs associated with delay at this time.

(42)
Comment:
One commenter requested the DEA clarify what BMPs for oil and gas drilling include and what the associated costs are. In addition, the comment asserts the DEA cost estimate for soil erosion is low and that implementing basic BMPs may cost $3,500 per day for one to two days, and could be greater depending on location.

Our Response:
We acknowledge that Exhibit 5-5 might be confusing to the commenter, because it suggests that BMPs other than soil erosion control have been considered in the cost analysis. In fact, the BMPs included in the cost analysis of potential project modification costs for oil and gas well development activities are limited to soil erosion control. We appreciate the submission by the commenter of more accurate data for soil erosion costs, and have incorporated this information into our revised impact estimates.

(43)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the Service needs to examine the economic impact to an individual grower within the proposed critical habitat designation.

Our Response:
Underlying all of the impacts measured in the DEA are individual impacts to farmers. In particular, paragraphs 302 through 308 and 318 through 323 provide some information about the financial resources of small farmers and potential impacts to these entities. However, the scope of this analysis does not allow for complete disaggregation of impacts to every farming entity.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Potential Impacts on Groundwater Withdrawals

(44)
Comment:
Several comments expressed concern that while the DEA provides some information on the value of groundwater in shiner habitat, it excludes the potential economic impact of restricting groundwater withdrawals from the analysis. One comment states that these impacts are excluded on the grounds that there is no Federal nexus for groundwater pumping by private entities, and it would be difficult for the Service to assert that individual users were violating the Act's “take” prohibitions. The comment notes that, in the future, it is possible for groundwater withdrawals to be subject to consultation due, for example, to new or revised NPDES permits or other Federal programs, as well as other regulatory actions to curtail groundwater withdrawals for the benefit of the shiner.

Our Response:
The DEA acknowledges in paragraphs 208 and 245 the significant role groundwater plays in the economies of counties that contain shiner habitat, and the possibility that groundwater pumping may be limited where pumping leads to dewatering of streams. However, the DEA does not base the treatment of potential impacts to groundwater solely on the absence of a Federal nexus and the difficulty in attributing “take” on an individual groundwater pumper. Instead, the DEA also recognizes in paragraph 246 that data required to conduct such an analysis are not available. These data are: the conjunctive characteristics of surface and groundwater; the level of pumping that would allow for recovery of historic groundwater levels; and the geographic area within which users would be required to reduce pumping. Additional data that would be necessary to complete this type of analysis and that are currently unavailable include a minimum streamflow for the shiner, information on groundwater use patterns of all impacted groundwater users, and the specific quantities of water that would need to be withheld from each water user in order to reach the minimum streamflow. Overall, the hydrologic relationships between groundwater pumping and the quality of habitat for the shiner are not defined, which precludes the analysis from considering how much, if any, reduction in groundwater pumping would be required to protect the species or its habitat.

Due to limitations in data availability, the DEA utilizes available data and simplifying assumptions to bound the potential magnitude of impacts to groundwater pumping from shiner conservation activities. Paragraph 247 discusses the methodology and data used in order to estimate the total value of groundwater to potentially affected users. The resulting implied values of groundwater presented in Exhibit 7-21 serve as an upper-bound estimate of potential impacts to groundwater users for the scenario in which users halt pumping altogether and convert irrigated land to non-irrigated uses. These implied values, are not, however, included in the aggregate cost estimates presented in the Executive Summary of the report given the highly speculative nature of the vehicles through which groundwater users may be impacted and the significant uncertainty regarding the potential magnitude of pumping restrictions discussed in the previous paragraph.

(45)
Comment:
A comment provided states that, in calculating the value of groundwater resources, the DEA considers only crop irrigation and not its use in other industries and for residential consumption.

Our Response:
In determining the most likely uses of groundwater in the counties that contain shiner habitat, the DEA relies on information contained within Exhibits 2-7 through 2-10. With the exception of Exhibit 2-9, which summarizes water use in Texas counties

that contain shiner habitat for both surface and groundwater combined, the exhibits demonstrate that groundwater is used predominantly for irrigation in Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. Further, Exhibit 7-19 demonstrates that in these counties, the overwhelming majority of irrigation water in counties that contain shiner habitat and overlay the High Plains Aquifer is drawn from groundwater sources. Given these data, and the predominantly rural, agricultural nature of the region that contains shiner habitat, the analysis limits the valuation of groundwater to its value as capitalized into the value of agricultural lands. To the extent that industrial or residential consumption in cities is affected, this analysis may understate the value of groundwater to these users.

(46)
Comment:
One commenter expressed concern that the rule will affect not only agricultural operations, but also water rights and water use patterns similar to the controversies regarding the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the aquatic species in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California.

Our Response:
The DEA does not consider the need for water diverters to reduce groundwater and/or surface water use, due to uncertainty regarding the likelihood of such restrictions and data limitations. Estimating these potential impacts requires information on minimum streamflow required to maintain shiner habitat, as well as hydrological data on current and future streamflow, water consumption patterns for specific users; and conjunctive use hydrological data linking specific water users to streamflow in shiner habitat. These data and information on requirements are currently unavailable.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Potential Impacts to CAFOs

(47)
Comment:
One comment noted that the DEA assumes that each CAFO within proposed critical habitat will be required to implement general permit conditions required by the Service but does not consider the impact of more stringent regulatory requirements.

Our Response:
As described in paragraphs 189 and 191, all CAFOs are assumed to implement the requirements described in Exhibit 6-3, which are applied in addition to the general permit requirements. In other words, the requirements in Exhibit 6-3 represent measures designed to protect shiner habitat that are more stringent than what is required by the general permit. The analysis applies these requirements to all States and all CAFOs, regardless of the location of the CAFO within the watershed.

(48)
Comment:
Two organizations comment that the DEA considers only costs of project modifications to CAFOs but not the possibility of production effects and/or regional impacts associated with lost revenues and jobs. For example, if acreage devoted to a vegetative buffer is taken out of production, then the requirements would reduce the total CAFO sales revenue and create regional economic impacts. The potential loss of output and accompanying distributional economic impacts should be included in the DEA and have the potential to double or triple impact estimates.

Our Response:
To the extent that CAFOs may have to cease or alter operations because of burdensome regulatory costs, reduced revenues may have regional impacts. Paragraphs 302 through 307 discuss the affordability of CAFOs requirements and the potential for these requirements to cause financial stress. Because compliance costs are relatively constant across CAFOs size classes, while revenues are not, the regulation is likely to be the most burdensome for the smallest operations. The analysis predicts that 33 to 67 small CAFOs could experience financial stress; the impact of which could cause these entities to go out of business. This represents approximately 1.5 percent of all small animal feeding operations in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, so regional effects in these States in terms of indirect effects and job losses may exist, but are likely to be small.

In addition, evidence suggests that the national markets for CAFOs products are unlikely to be affected by designation. In 2003, EPA promulgated a final rule revising NPDES and Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG) for CAFOs. Among other requirements, the new rule required CAFOs to implement a 100-foot vegetated buffer next to conduits to surface waters. Its economic analysis supporting the proposed rule, which looked at all of the new requirements including the buffer, estimated annual compliance costs two orders of magnitude greater than those estimated for CAFOs as a result of shiner critical habitat designation. EPA conducted a separate partial equilibrium analysis to determine whether market effects would result from the regulation and determined that industry-level changes in production and prices would not be significant for most sectors (
i.e.
, consumer prices were expected to rise by less than one percent for all but the hog sector, where the increase was slightly more than one percent) (68 FR 7248). Although the potential buffer requirements are more stringent in watersheds with shiner critical habitat, the number of CAFOs affected is a fraction of those affected by the NPDES requirements. The EPA analysis suggests that a partial equilibrium analysis of the effects of shiner conservation activities is unlikely to find a significant production effect.

(49)
Comment:
A commenter states that the DEA does not address the potential complexities for CAFOs caused by the confounding effects of reducing or eliminating land application areas for manure, wastewater, and sludge, and reducing the availability of groundwater for production of crops and forage necessary for nutrient utilization.

Our Response:
As discussed in paragraphs 246 through 247, whether groundwater pumping by farmers will be affected is difficult to predict. No Federal nexus exists for private groundwater pumping, and it is difficult to link take, as defined by section 9 of the ESA, to individual users. In addition, the quantity of water required for shiner protection is unknown, as no minimum or maximum flow requirements are specified as primary constituent elements (PCEs). To the extent that a CAFO operator reduces or eliminates land application areas and also must reduce groundwater usage, impacts could be compounded. However, data are not available to reasonably estimate the probability and magnitude of impacts under such a scenario.

(50)
Comment:
A commenter states that the DEA does not consider costs associated with CAFO permitting and other regulatory activities that may be required prior to implementation of recommendations made by the Service, such as preparation of permitting documentation, completion of permit applications, meetings with regulatory agencies, and administrative and technical requirements.

Our Response:
The DEA assumes that each CAFO within the watersheds analyzed consults with the Service once over the time period of the analysis. The administrative costs of these consultations are described in paragraphs 93 through 99 and included in Exhibit 3-9.

(51)
Comment:
A commenter states that the DEA costs of developing a spill plan include only testing and plan-related costs and not the cost of implementing mitigation measures in the event a leak is detected or a spill occurs.

Our Response:
The analysis assumes that CAFOs operators are obligated to

mitigate leaks and spills, regardless of the presence of the shiner or its habitat.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Impacts to Reservoir Operations

(52)
Comment:
One organization comments that the DEA does not estimate costs to Lake Meredith for the modification of reservoir operations to provide instream flows for the shiner. The comment notes that this lack of a quantified estimate is based on the fact that no target flow is established for shiner, uncertainty regarding whether flood control would be halted as a result of any consultation, and a lack of a Federal nexus associated with the operation of Lake Meredith other than for flood control (DEA, footnote 42). The comment also notes that the DEA states that if releases were required to benefit the shiner, the CRMWA member cities may have to find a replacement water supply but does not evaluate the costs of this scenario. The DEA should either analyze the impact of requiring releases for the benefit of the shiner or determine that this is not a possibility.

Our Response:
In the absence of a minimum flow requirement for the shiner, it would be highly speculative to quantify any quantity of water required to be released from Lake Meredith. In addition, paragraph 119 states: “In addition, the analysis notes that critical habitat is not proposed directly downstream of Sanford Dam. The potential for releases from Sanford to augment flow in Unit 1b, a distance of roughly 80 miles from the dam, is unknown.” Despite the lack of information about specific changes to reservoir operations, the DEA provides an economic valuation of water held at Lake Meredith of $14 million (see paragraph 118). Note that the cost per thousand gallons is $0.51, not $51 as stated in this paragraph (this is a typographical error and does not affect the value estimate).

(53)
Comment:
A comment notes that paragraph 118 of the DEA provides a cost estimate of $51 per thousand gallons of water to CRMWA member cities in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 whereas the correct estimate would be $0.51 per thousand gallons. Further, that time period should not be considered predictive of future costs as it was the first year of operation of the Groundwater Supply Project. Costs to member cities per thousand gallons in 2003-2004 rose to $0.62.

Our Response:
As discussed in response to the previous comment, the reported $51 per 1,000 gallons is a typographical error that does not affect the estimate of the cost of water to cities served by the CRMWA. However, using the higher value provided by the commenter of $0.62 per thousand gallons, the value of water delivered to municipalities from Lake Meredith in FY 03-04 is approximately $18 million.

(54)
Comment:
One commenter expressed confusion at the DEA's inclusion of impacts related to requiring releases at Ute Dam while excluding impacts related to the same at Lake Meredith. The commenter believes that the eventuality of these impacts is equally likely at both sites.

Our Response:
Two fundamental differences between Ute and Sanford Dams make the analysis of potential impacts to Ute Dam operations less speculative than those to Sanford Dam operations: (1) critical habitat for the shiner is proposed directly downstream of Ute Dam, while it is proposed 80 miles downstream of Sanford Dam; and (2) a seepage rate is available for Ute Dam that contributes to maintaining the shiner population downstream as discussed in paragraph 125. Such a seepage rate is not available for Sanford Dam.

(55)
Comment:
Two commenters state that the DEA should include economic impacts to flood control. They state that Section 4 of the DEA contains little information on the Upstream Flood Control Program. Each dam site must have an EIS completed before its construction or rehabilitation. These dams were designed to control flooding, and provide municipal and agricultural water. The DEA conclusion that they are not likely to be impacted is misleading because of the required EIS and consultation with the Service and other groups. The new effort to rehabilitate the aging flood control sites may be impacted by the proposed critical habitat designation.

Our Response:
The Upstream Flood Control Program, administered by the Oklahoma Conservation Commission, constructs small flood control dams on tributaries upstream from rivers or large streams. Watershed projects are sponsored locally, and receive planning and financial assistance from the NRCS. Of 2,540 dams planned through the Program, 2,101 were constructed as of March 2005. The majority of these projects are PL-566 and PL-534 dams. Based on extensive conversation with NRCS personnel in Oklahoma, the DEA discusses potential impacts to PL-566 dams that may impact shiner habitat in Section 4.6. In paragraph 133, the DEA identifies 16 PL-566 dams that may be impacted by shiner habitat and states that “The NRCS does not anticipate findings of adverse impact from the Service; therefore, future consultations on these projects are assumed to be informal and project modifications are not anticipated.” The DEA estimates the administrative costs of consultation for these 16 dams in Section 3.

(56)
Comment:
One comment stated that the DEA should consider how reducing water releases at Ute Dam by 12 percent will affect the wholesale price of water.

Our Response:
Because water delivery from Ute Dam has not occurred yet, estimating the potential impact on water prices would be speculative. Such an estimate requires data on the amount of water likely consumed by water communities, availability of alternate sources of water and prices of those sources, and an understanding of the relationship between delivery costs and water quantity. Data limitations make the calculation of price changes infeasible at this time.

(57)
Comment:
One commenter states that the DEA should not limit consideration of water management costs to Ute Dam. The commenter notes that, according to the NRCS, 16 PL-566 dams are scheduled for construction in Oklahoma upstream of the proposed critical habitat designation and may be affected.

Our Response:
Section 4.6 of the DEA considers potential impacts to sixteen PL-566 dams scheduled for construction in Oklahoma and states that: “The NRCS does not anticipate findings of adverse impact from the Service; therefore, future consultations on these projects are assumed to be informal and project modifications are not anticipated.” Informal consultation costs are captured in Section 3 of the DEA, as referenced in paragraph 106 and Exhibit 3-7.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Impacts to Oil and Gas Development

(58)
Comment:
A comment updates information provided by the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) during the development of the DEA. The comments states that basic directional drilling costs range from $7,500 to $12,000 per day in addition to the daily conventional drilling costs of approximately $10,000 to $17,500 per day. Further, drilling fluids, rental equipment, supervision, and other costs can increase the cost per day to $35,000. OIPA also states that vertical hole drilling costs approximately $25,000 per day. In contrast, another comment states that an average well drilling cost for a 12,000 foot well is $5 million, not including the costs of re-routing pipelines.

Our Response:
As stated in paragraph 159 of the DEA, the Service notes that directional drilling has been required twice to protect the shiner since the listing of the species in 1998 at a cost of roughly $200,000 per project. In estimating future project modification costs to oil and gas well development activities, at paragraph 162 the DEA assumes that the equivalent percentage of future oil and gas well development projects (five percent) will require directional drilling to protect the shiner at an additional cost of $200,000 per project. We assume that the daily costs provided in the comment are within the range of the $200,000 per project estimate used in the DEA.

(59)
Comment:
Two comments provided state that the assumption that oil and gas well development increases by one percent per year over the forecast period is a conservative assumption and that the DEA confuses production rates and drilling activity. OIPA asserts that the projected production rate information should not be used to infer a similar rate on the number of wells that may be drilled in the future and presents evidence that drilling rates increase when production rates decrease. One comment states that the DEA use information in the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's 2004 annual report to project future drilling activity. The comment cites information from this report suggesting that between 1994 and 2004, oil and gas approved intents to drill increased 30 percent and, therefore, a three percent annual increase should be applied to forecast annual drilling rates. Another comment suggests that the DEA should also consider alternative scenarios in which energy prices are higher in future years than in the recent past as drilling activity is positively related to the price of energy.

Our Response:
We agree that applying information specific to drilling rates is more appropriate than projecting future growth in drilling rates based on production rates. Therefore, we revise our estimate of the number of wells likely to be drilled applying the three percent annual increase recommended in public comment (note that a 30 percent increase over ten years translates to an annual growth rate of approximately 2.7 percent, however we believe rounding to three is appropriate given the uncertainty inherent in this analysis). We describe the relationship between drilling activity and energy prices in paragraph 153 of the DEA and note that drilling rates are also affected by the available oil and gas reserves that underlie habitat and the maximum number of wells that could be supported in this area. Given these uncertainties, along with the uncertainty associated with forecasting oil and natural gas prices for 20 years into the future, we believe that revising our growth rate based on the three percent rate provided in comment will address this concern about the impact of future energy prices on drilling activity. We note that more significant year to year fluctuations may occur.

(60)
Comment:
Two comments state that the DEA neglects to consider additional pipelines, including flow lines and gathering lines, which are necessary for the production of crude oil and natural gas. The comment states that 76 percent of the wells (1,011 wells) drilled in the counties containing proposed critical habitat are gas wells and will require gathering lines. A cost impact scenario should be analyzed that includes the installation of more pipelines.

Our Response:
The current methodology for estimating future pipelines potentially impacting habitat is described in paragraphs 171 and 174 through 176. Given the uncertainties discussed in these paragraphs, and a lack of available information about the number of pipelines supporting each well and that may impact habitat, we assume that growth in oil and gas pipeline activities will be similar to growth in drilling activities. Therefore, we adjust our impact estimates by assuming a three percent growth rate in pipeline activity, based on information provided in public comment.

(61)
Comment:
Several comments note the potential for conservation efforts to lead to reduced and/or delayed production of oil and natural gas. One comment offered that a reduction in overall production levels will result in regional impacts. A separate comment suggests that the Service consider a scenario where consultation delays or stops production, impacting gross production tax payments to the state and royalty payments to mineral owners. A third comment states that delays in drilling could result in the expiration of leases before drilling occurs or loss of the use of a rig to another site for six or more months. Finally, a comment notes that delay costs estimated in the DOE report for storm water discharge requirements should be applied in the analysis.

Our Response:
The DEA includes costs associated with delaying drilling in essential habitat, as discussed in paragraphs 149 and 162, and shown in Exhibits 5-5 and 5-8. These estimates are derived from the DOE report. The DEA does not anticipate an overall reduction in drilling activity (see paragraph 150). The availability of drilling equipment is constrained, as noted in public comments which state that small delays can result in the loss of drilling equipment and labor to other locations. These comments suggest that if drilling were prevented in essential habitat, substitute sites outside of habitat are available. Individuals operating in essential habitat may be affected negatively as activity moves to other locations, resulting in distributional effects, but no net change in social welfare.

Support for the assertion that local individuals may experience losses related to lost or delayed production and lower royalties is provided in the DOE report cited in paragraph 148 of the DEA. This report estimates impacts of proposed storm water discharge requirements on the oil and gas industry nationwide. It includes cost information related to species-specific requirements of a NPDES permit, including section 7 consultation under the Act. Using information provided in the report about potential delay time (see Exhibit 5-5 of the DEA), we estimate the potential value of lost production may range from approximately $500,000 to $1.7 million (assumes a discount rate of seven percent).

(62)
Comment:
A comment expressed concern that the 1998 cost information applied in the DEA in estimating impacts to oil and gas drilling and production is outdated.

Our Response:
As described in paragraph 149, project modification costs for drilling activities were obtained from a 2004 study completed by the DOE. As noted elsewhere in this response to comment, these cost estimates have been updated with information provided as part of public comment. Costs associated with pipeline activities are based on interviews conducted in 2005 with an engineering firm currently conducting this type of work (see Exhibit 5-10).

(63)
Comment:
A comment states that the consultation process would be especially burdensome on small oil and gas operators as they may not have the personnel or expertise to consult with the Service or implement best management practices.

Our Response:
In Appendix A of the report, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Screening Analysis estimates the level of impact of shiner conservation activities on small oil and gas operators in counties that contain shiner habitat.

(64)
Comment:
A comment states that the 2003 data applied in the DEA estimate 1,312 wells were drilled within the counties containing proposed

critical habitat. The 2004 data, however, indicate that 1,332 wells were drilled in those same Counties. These wells comprise 62 percent of the total wells drilled in Oklahoma and the Service should consider that in its assessment of impacts to the oil and gas industry.

Our Response:
Information contained within Exhibit 5-3 of the DEA, to which this comment refers, provides data and information on oil and gas well activity and production levels for counties that contain shiner habitat. We agree that the counties in Oklahoma that contain shiner habitat do contain a significant percentage of total wells located within Oklahoma. The analysis of potential impacts to oil and gas well development from shiner conservation activities considers only those wells located within and adjacent to shiner habitat. Therefore, wells under consideration in the DEA reflect a smaller percentage of statewide well activity in Oklahoma.

(65)
Comment:
A comment notes that following the method outlined in the DEA, the impact of shiner conservation efforts on oil and gas pipelines should range from $4.4 million to $5.7 million. The costs presented in paragraph 177 and Exhibit 5-13 of the DEA, however, present a range of $3.8 million to $4.4 million.

Our Response:
We acknowledge a mistake in the calculation of oil and gas pipeline impacts and appreciate the submission of corrected information. The cost model associated with oil and gas pipelines has been modified to correctly reflect project modification costs provided in Exhibit 5-10 of the DEA.

(66)
Comment:
A party requests that comments with corresponding footnotes 84 and 87 be removed as the discussions did not relate to national trends, which were not known at that time.

Our Response:
We will remove these footnotes from the final economic analysis.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Impacts to Grazing Activities

(67)
Comment:
Two comments expressed concern that cattle currently water from the rivers and graze in the riparian area and that finding an alternative water source or additional seasonal grazing meadows would be difficult or impossible. As a result, the comments state that the value of this water and sub-irrigated meadows incalculable. The comments further note that because the river meadows are sub-irrigated, the value of lost irrigated cropland should be used to value grazing lands.

Our Response:
The Service agrees that finding substitute water sources or lands for cattle could be difficult. Consistent with the comment, the DEA does not assume that cattle will be moved to other areas. Rather, it assumes that the ability to graze these areas is lost completely and values this loss based on the number of cattle supportable on habitat lands and perpetuity value of fees paid by ranchers to graze these lands (see paragraphs 234 through 238). In other words, the analysis provides an estimate of the total value of these lands to ranchers as a bound on magnitude of potential losses given significant regulatory uncertainty. Note that the value of grazing activity on these lands is derived from market prices for grazing rights, which implicitly include values for the attributes of that land, including hydrologic features such as subirrigation. Because the permit values cited in the DEA represent average prices across each State, they likely incorporate values for both subirrigated and lower quality grazing lands. To the extent that this is the case, the total value of these grazing lands may be understated.

(68)
Comment:
Two comments state that the costs of fencing for livestock and other project modification costs are not included in the DEA. In particular, the Hughes County Conservation District estimates that fencing the tributaries of the South Canadian River will cost $168,962 and that it is likely that costs will be incurred for off-site watering facilities of $80,000. The estimated original cost of implementing practices to fulfill the recommendations of the Service would be $412,960.

Our Response:
The DEA estimates a total loss in value of grazing activity in proposed habitat. The analysis assumes that ranchers will only undertake project modifications if they can do so without incurring a net loss. Thus, the analysis assumes that to the extent that ranchers continue to operate, the costs of project modifications must be less than the total value of their operation. Therefore, the estimate of the total value of grazing activity presented in the DEA is the upper bound estimate of potential impacts to ranchers.

(69)
Comment:
The Hughes County Conservation District estimates that 4,000 acres in Hughes County, Oklahoma will be affected by the CHD. These acres have a total production value of $41 per acre per year.

Our Response:
The DEA estimates affected acreage using USGS land coverage geographic information system (GIS) data (see paragraph 235), and its estimate of affected acres in Hughes County is consistent with this comment. It estimates the value of lost production, used to calculate regional impacts, to be $32 per animal unit month (AUM), which can be converted to an estimate of $51 per acre using information provided in paragraphs 236 and 242. As a result, the value of lost production is calculated using a higher per acre value in the DEA than reported by Hughes County.

(70)
Comment:
Two comments provided on the DEA state that the DEA should consider the impact of designation on invasive species management efforts. Water is retained in the river when efforts are undertaken to control invasive species such as salt cedar and Russian olives. One organization comments that on the Canadian River, CRMWA treats salt cedar averaging 50 acres per mile, $200 per acre. Another comment notes the potential for curtailment of invasive species management if herbicides are found to harm the shiner.

Our Response:
As stated in the response to the comment regarding the impacts to ranchers of fencing and other project modification costs, the DEA estimates a total loss in value of grazing activity in habitat. This value exceeds any project modification costs, such as invasive species control, that would practicably be implemented. The analysis assumes that ranchers will only undertake project modifications if they can do so without incurring a net loss. Thus this analysis assumes that to the extent that ranchers continue to operate, the costs of project modifications must be less than the total value of their operation. Therefore, the estimate of the total value of grazing activity presented in the DEA is the upper bound estimate of potential impacts to ranchers.

(71)
Comment:
One commenter stated that the economic analysis should forecast impacts over at least 100 years as the majority of ranchers along the Cimarron River have been owned by the same families for 100 or more years.

Our Response:
Forecasting economic activity in areas of habitat is speculative beyond a 20-year time horizon. However, data are provided in the DEA that can be used to calculate the lost value of farming and ranching activities in perpetuity. The value of lost farming in the DEA is calculated by multiplying the value of crop production reported in Exhibit 7-6 by the estimated crop reduction reported in the same exhibit. For grazing, the perpetuity value of grazing permits (dollars per AUM) is provided in Exhibit 7-13. This value, multiplied by the number of lost AUMs reported in Exhibit 7-14, provides the total value of lost grazing in perpetuity. For both categories, the 20-year loss is

equivalent to approximately 46 percent of the perpetuity value assuming a three percent discount rate and 65 percent of the perpetuity value assuming a seven percent discount rate.

(72)
Comment:
One commenter stated that cattle grazing is not considered in the DEA.

Our Response:
Grazing related impacts are discussed in detail in the Executive Summary and Section 7 of the DEA.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Impacts to Recreation

(73)
Comment:
A comment notes that the State Departments of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Tourism, and Wildlife Conservation are promoting agro-tourism in the region. This effort is intended to bring dollars to rural areas. The comment states that impacts to this emerging industry are tremendous.

Our Response:
Without information about the type of agro-tourism (e.g., hunting, fishing, visiting working farms, ranches or vineyards) taking place within the proposed designation habitat, current and projected visitation rates, and an indication of how shiner conservation activities would impact this industry, we are unable to estimate losses associated with this activity. These data are not readily available at this time.

(74)
Comment:
One comment states that the DEA underestimates visitation to the Rosita area by two to three times, which effects the results of the analysis.

Our Response:
As described in paragraph 275, the DEA relies on visitation data provided by National Park Service (NPS) staff at the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area specifically for Rosita (note that visitation to the entire National Recreation Area, which includes other areas not proposed for critical habitat designation, is greater than visitation to Rosita alone). Data were provided by month for years 2000 through 2004 for each of the two areas. Although the data indicate an overall decline in visitation over this time period, the analysis assumes future visitation remains constant at the five-year historical average rate.

(75)
Comment:
Multiple comments confirm the importance of the off-road vehicle (ORV) land along the Canadian River. They note that it is the only public ORV land within 300 miles, and related businesses would suffer if this activity was limited within the proposed critical habitat designation. One commenter estimates that 50 to 60 percent of all off-road vehicles sold in the region are used at the Canadian River and estimates lost sales in the Panhandle area to be approximately $20 million. Including parts and accessories sales, taxes, and job losses, the total economic loss could be $200 million. Another commenter estimates that for the two major motorcycle dealers in Amarillo, Texas, there would be a potential loss of $80 million in revenue over the next 20 years.

Our Response:
The Service agrees that restricting ORV use in the Rosita section of the Lake Meredith National Recreation Area could negatively impact businesses in the Pan Handle supplying goods and services to recreators. Using the IMPLAN model, the DEA estimates an initial impact to the regional economy of up to $1.6 million in the first year, along with a potential for 44 lost jobs and $168,000 in lost tax revenues (see paragraphs 277 through 279). These impacts would occur once and persist for some period of time until the economy adjusts to the change. In addition, paragraph 325 summarizes information about current annual sales of ORVs provided by ORV-business owners in the Amarillo-Lubbock business area.

It is difficult to compare the impact estimates provided by these business owners and generated from the IMPLAN model with the estimates provided in public comment. It is unclear whether the comments report total sales for ORV retail businesses, or only the portion of sales that would be lost due to shiner-related restrictions. Closures in Rosita are likely to occur between July and September, and account for only 25 percent of the total trips taken to Rosita annually. In addition, another ORV area located within Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, Big Blue, is not proposed for critical habitat designation. Estimated lost trips to Rosita account for approximately 15 percent of total ORV visitors annually to Lake Meredith National Recreation Area. To the extent that recreators substitute trips to Rosita with trips to Big Blue, losses to local businesses will be less than estimated in the DEA.

Comments Related to Economic Impacts and Analysis—Estimation of Impact to Transportation Projects

(76)
Comment:
One comment states that the new Federal Highway Bill calls for additional funding for roads and bridges and inquires if these new projects may be impacted by the designation.

Our Response:
Federal Highway funding allocations to State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are subject to section 7 consultation requirements. The DEA describes interviews with State DOTs to identify reasonably foreseeable projects and potential modification costs associated with shiner protection (see paragraphs 261 through 268). In addition, Section 3 estimates the administrative costs of future section 7 consultations, including those for transportation projects (see paragraphs 105 through 106).

(77)
Comment:
The Arkansas River Shiner Coalition comments that the DEA should consider the effects on project delay to transportation projects.

Our Response:
The Service acknowledges that delayed completion of transportation projects resulting from consultation with the Service may result in additional economic impacts that are not quantified in the DEA. Considering that planning for projects generally takes years, if not decades, future projects are likely to be able to incorporate consideration of the shiner into their project schedule. However, projects intersecting habitat and slated to begin construction within the next one to two years may experience delays.

Comments from States

Section 4(f) of the Act states, “the Secretary shall submit to the State Agency a written justification for her failure to adopt regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition.” Comments received from States regarding the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner are addressed below.

(78)
State Comment:
A comment expressed support that the proposed rule adequately articulated that designation of critical habitat provides no substantial recovery benefit or additional measure of protection beyond that provided by the Act.

Our Response:
As stated in the proposed rule and this final rule, we agree that critical habitat provides little additional protection beyond that provided by the Act.

(79)
State Comment:
A comment expressed support for exclusion of the Beaver/North Canadian River (Unit 2) from the final designation.

Our Response:
As provided in this final rule, we have excluded Unit 2, the Beaver/North Canadian River, from the designation.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

In developing this final designation of critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner, we reviewed public comments received on the proposed designation of critical habitat published on October 6, 2004 (69 FR 59859), and the draft economic analysis and draft

environmental assessment published on August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44082). In addition to minor modifications and corrections, we conducted further evaluation of lands proposed as critical habitat and excluded additional habitat from the final designation. Table 1, included at the end of this section, outlines changes in stream length for each unit. Specifically, we are making the following changes to the final rule from the proposed rule published on October 6, 2004:

(1) In the proposed rule, we stated our intent to exclude from this designation all habitats in the Beaver/North Canadian River (Unit 2) in Oklahoma and the Arkansas River (Unit 4) in Kansas. After reviewing public comment, including that provided by our peer reviewers, we have determined to exclude these areas under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. While these two river systems are important to recovery of the species, we believe conservation of the species can best be accomplished by using our authorities under section 10(j) of the Act. Therefore we have concluded that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating critical habitat in these two rivers (see the “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a more detailed discussion).

(2) We have excluded from designation the proposed critical habitat unit in the Canadian River of New Mexico and Texas between Ute Reservoir and Lake Meredith. This 255 km (158.4 mi) long stream reach area was previously identified as Unit 1a and is excluded under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA), in cooperation with at least 23 other Federal, State, and private partners, completed a special management plan for the Arkansas River shiner within this unit. After reviewing the plan, we believe that a reasonable certainty of execution and effectiveness exists such that conservation of the Arkansas River shiner would be promoted. Therefore we have concluded that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating critical habitat in this area (see “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a more detailed discussion).

(3) Within Unit 1b, we have excluded a reach of the Canadian River approximately 204 km (127 mi) long, extending from the Oklahoma state line, downstream to the State Highway 33 bridge near Thomas, Oklahoma, from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a detailed discussion). This reach includes the Packsaddle Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the Four Canyons Preserve. An ongoing, funded conservation program to control salt cedar and other invasive plant species exists within this reach. Funding for this program has been secured through a Private Stewardship Grant and the goal of this program is to work with private landowners to increase stream flow in this reach of the Canadian River and thus providing a clear conservation benefit to the Arkansas River shiner. Excluding these lands preserves the partnerships that we developed with the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and other stakeholders. Therefore we have concluded that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designating critical habitat in this area (see “Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act” section below for a more detailed discussion).

(4) Within Unit 1b, we identified a 42 km (26 mi) reach of the Canadian River upstream of the Oklahoma state line and extending to the U.S. Highway 60/83 bridge near Canadian, Texas. As a result of this segment being surrounded by conservation lands and detached from a considerably larger designated reach, it is our determination that this segment no longer meets the definition of critical habitat and was removed from consideration.

Table 1 below provides the approximate area (in miles (km)) designated as critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner and areas excluded from the final critical habitat designation by State.

State
Areas designated as critical habitat
Areas excluded from the final critical habitat designation

Kansas
62.5 (100.6)
194.1 (312.4)

New Mexico
0
38.0 (61.2)

Oklahoma
470.2 (756.7)
336.2 (541.1)

Texas
0
142.6 (229.6)

Total
532.7 (857.3)
710.9 (1,084.3)

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as—(i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. “Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary. No specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the Arkansas River shiner at the time of listing are designated as critical habitat in this final rule.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public access to private lands.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing must first have features that are “essential to the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical habitat only

if the essential features located there may require special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but not known to be occupied at the time of listing will often contain the PCEs that are essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, be included in the critical habitat designation for that species.

The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the
Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658), and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data available. They require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are designated as critical habitat, a primary source of information is generally the listing package for the species. Additional information sources include a recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.

Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protec

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A05-20048. Public record. Not legal advice.