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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AD 22

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed

Determination of Critical Habitat for Woundfin, Virgin River Chub, and

Virgin Spinedace and Notice of Public Hearing

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

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to designate

critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (Gila seminuda = G. robusta

seminuda), the Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis),

and the woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus). The Virgin River chub and

wouldfin are listed as endangered; the Virgin spinedace has been

proposed for listing as threatened (May 18, 1994), but the listing has

not been finalized as yet. There is considerable overlap in critical

habitat proposed for the three species, the proposed designation

includes 330.8 km (206.8 mi) of the Virgin River and its tributaries in

portions of Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The Service proposes 151.7 km

(94.8 mi) of critical habitat for the woundfin (approximately 13.5

percent of its historical range); 151.7 km (94.8 mi) for the Virgin

River chub (70.8 percent of its historical range, excluding the chub

occupying the Muddy River); and 201.9 km (126.2 mi) for the Virgin

spinedace (87.3 percent of its historical range). The majority of the

land to be designated as critical habitat is under Federal or private

ownership.

All three fish species are endemic to the Virgin River Basin of

southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and southeastern Nevada. The

proposed critical habitat designation includes portions of the mainstem

Virgin River and its tributaries, including the 100-year floodplain.

This proposed critical habitat would result in additional review

requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency

actions

are endemic to the Virgin River Basin of

southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and southeastern Nevada. The

proposed critical habitat designation includes portions of the mainstem

Virgin River and its tributaries, including the 100-year floodplain.

This proposed critical habitat would result in additional review

requirements under section 7 of the Act with regard to Federal agency

actions. Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to consider economic

costs and benefits prior to making a final decision on the size and

scope of critical habitat.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until June 5, 1995.

A public hearing will be held from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with

registration beginning at 4:30 p.m., on Monday, May 8, 1995. Requests

for additional public hearings must be received by May 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Requests for additional public hearings or comments and

materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City Field

Office, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. The

public hearing will be in the Garden Room at the St. George Hilton Inn,

1450 South Hilton Drive, St. George, Utah. Comments and materials

received will be available for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the above address. Copies of comments

and materials received also will be available for public inspection at

the Washington County Public Library in St. George, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert D. Williams, Assistant

Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office, at the above address,

ed will be available for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the above address. Copies of comments

and materials received also will be available for public inspection at

the Washington County Public Library in St. George, Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert D. Williams, Assistant

Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office, at the above address,

(801) 524-5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) and Virgin River chub

(Gila seminuda =G. robusta seminuda) are presently listed as endangered

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis

mollispinis) was proposed for listing on May 18, 1994, as threatened

under the Act. In the subsequent text, all three species of fish are

referred to as ``listed fishes'' even though the Virgin spinedace has

only been proposed for listing at this time. These three fishes are all

endemic to the Virgin River Basin. The Virgin River flows generally

along the Hurricane Fault, which forms the boundary between the

Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin. These two geologic provinces are

quite dissimilar. The Colorado Plateau is characterized by horizontal-

lying strata eroded into canyons, plateaus, and mesas. Long, isolated

mountain ranges separated by broad alluvial valleys typify the Great

Basin province. The Virgin River originates in south-central Utah,

running in a southwest direction from Utah to northwestern Arizona, and

southeastern Nevada for approximately 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles

(mi)) before emptying into Lake Mead. Prior to the completion of

Boulder (Hoover) Dam in 1935, the Muddy River in southeastern Nevada

joined the Virgin River before the latter emptied into the Colorado

River. These two rivers now flow separately into the Overton Arm of

Lake Mead

ection from Utah to northwestern Arizona, and

southeastern Nevada for approximately 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles

(mi)) before emptying into Lake Mead. Prior to the completion of

Boulder (Hoover) Dam in 1935, the Muddy River in southeastern Nevada

joined the Virgin River before the latter emptied into the Colorado

River. These two rivers now flow separately into the Overton Arm of

Lake Mead.

These Virgin River fishes have declined in numbers due to the

cumulative effects of environmental impacts which include dewatering

from numerous diversion projects; proliferation of nonnative fishes;

and alterations to natural flow, temperature, and sediment regimes.

Woundfin

Based on early records, the original range of the woundfin extended

from near the junction of the Salt and Verde Rivers at Tempe, Arizona,

to the mouth of the Gila River at Yuma, Arizona (Gilbert and Scofield

1898, Minckley 1973). Woundfin were also found in the mainstem Colorado

River from Yuma (Jordan and Evermann 1896, Meek 1904, Follett 1961)

upstream to the Virgin River in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and into La

Verkin Creek, a tributary of the Virgin River in Utah (Gilbert and

Scofield 1898, Snyder 1915, Miller and Hubbs 1960, Cross 1975).

However, there is reason to believe that the woundfin occurred further

upstream in the Verde, Salt, and Gila Rivers in Arizona.

Except for the mainstem of the Virgin River, woundfin were

extirpated from most of their historical range. Woundfin presently

range from Pah Tempe Springs (also called La Verkin Springs) on the

mainstem of the Virgin River and the lower portion of La Verkin Creek

in Utah, downstream to Lake Mead. A single specimen was taken from the

middle Muddy (Moapa) River, Clark County, Nevada, in the late 1960's

and since that time no additional specimens have been collected (Deacon

and Bradley 1972).

Adult and juvenile woundfin inhabit runs and quiet waters adjacent

to riffles with sand and sand/gravel substrates

n River and the lower portion of La Verkin Creek

in Utah, downstream to Lake Mead. A single specimen was taken from the

middle Muddy (Moapa) River, Clark County, Nevada, in the late 1960's

and since that time no additional specimens have been collected (Deacon

and Bradley 1972).

Adult and juvenile woundfin inhabit runs and quiet waters adjacent

to riffles with sand and sand/gravel substrates. Adults are generally

found in habitats with water depths between 0.15 and 0.43 meters (m)

(0.5 and 1.4 feet (ft)) with velocities between 0.24 and 0.49 meters

per second (m/s) (0.8 and 1.6 feet per second ft/s)). Juveniles select

areas with slower and deeper water, while fry are found in backwaters

and stream margins which are often associated with growths of

filamentous algae. Spawning takes place during the period of declining

spring flows.

Virgin River Chub

The Virgin River chub was described as a full species (Gila

seminuda) in 1875 (Cope and Yarrow 1875) and it was thought to be

restricted to the Virgin River between Hurricane, Utah, and its

confluence with the Colorado River. However, Ellis (1914) considered

this chub to be an intermediate between the roundtail chub (G. robusta)

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

robusta seminuda) of the roundtail chub.

Until recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other

authorities (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Minckley 1973, Smith et al.

1977) have treated the chub in the Muddy River as a separate, unnamed

subspecies of roundtail chub (Moapa roundtail chub = G. robusta ssp.).

Since 1982, the Service has considered this chub to be a Category 2

candidate species (47 FR 58455, 54 FR 556, 56 FR 58804).

In a recent taxonomic study of the genus Gila, DeMarais et al.

thorities (Holden and Stalnaker 1970, Minckley 1973, Smith et al.

1977) have treated the chub in the Muddy River as a separate, unnamed

subspecies of roundtail chub (Moapa roundtail chub = G. robusta ssp.).

Since 1982, the Service has considered this chub to be a Category 2

candidate species (47 FR 58455, 54 FR 556, 56 FR 58804).

In a recent taxonomic study of the genus Gila, DeMarais et al.

(1992) asserted that full species status (G. seminuda) was warranted

for the Virgin River chub. The Muddy River form is included in G.

seminuda, although it is a separate population. Gila seminuda most

likely arose through hybridization involving G. robusta and G. elegans.

These taxonomic revisions were recently accepted by the Service,

American Fisheries Society, and the American Society of Ichthyologists

and Herpetologists Fish Names Committee (Mr. Joseph S. Nelson, American

Fish Society, in litt. 1993). This proposal to designate critical

habitat does not include the Muddy River form of the Virgin River chub.

However, the Service will review the status of the Muddy River

population of the Virgin River chub.

The Virgin River chub was first collected in the 1870's from the

Virgin River near Washington, Utah. Historically, it was collected from

the mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs, Utah, downstream to

the confluence with the Colorado River in Nevada (Cope and Yarrow 1875,

Cross 1975). Presently, the Virgin River chub occurs within the

mainstem Virgin River from Pah Tempe Springs downstream to at least the

Mesquite Diversion.

Adult and juvenile Virgin River chub select deep runs or pools with

slow to moderate velocities containing boulders or other instream cover

over a sand substrate. Generally, larger fish occupy deeper habitats;

however, there is no apparent correlation with velocity. Chub are

generally found in velocities ranging up to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s).

Virgin Spinedace

to at least the

Mesquite Diversion.

Adult and juvenile Virgin River chub select deep runs or pools with

slow to moderate velocities containing boulders or other instream cover

over a sand substrate. Generally, larger fish occupy deeper habitats;

however, there is no apparent correlation with velocity. Chub are

generally found in velocities ranging up to 0.76 m/s (2.5 ft/s).

Virgin Spinedace

The historical distribution of the Virgin spinedace is not well

known. Holden (1977) speculated that the species occurred in most of

the clear water tributaries and in several mainstem reaches of the

Virgin River in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, and

southeastern Nevada. Museum records and species survey information

support this historic distribution (Rinne 1971, Cross 1975, Valdez et

al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993).

Over the last 50 years, there has been a decline in the range of

the species with about a 37-40 percent (83 km, 52 mi) habitat loss due

to human impacts (Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and Hardy 1993). Stream

reaches that once contained spinedace (but are now dewatered) include

portions of the East Fork of Beaver Dam Wash, the Santa Clara River

downstream Gunlock Reservoir, Mogatsu Creek, Ash Creek near

Toquerville, Leeds Creek, and the mainstem Virgin River between Quail

Creek Diversion and Pah Tempe Springs. Current distribution of the

spinedace includes portions of the mainstem Virgin River and 11 of its

tributaries and subtributaries including the East Fork Virgin River,

Shunes Creek, North Fork Virgin River, North Creek, La Verkin Creek,

Ash Creek, Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam Wash, Coal Pits Wash, Moody

Wash, and Mogatsu Creek.

Virgin spinedace are found in runs or pools in clear streams. The

presence of cover either in the form of vegetation, boulders, debris,

or undercut banks is also characteristic. Substrates in occupied

habitats include rubble/cobble, gravel, sand, and silt

Virgin River, North Creek, La Verkin Creek,

Ash Creek, Santa Clara River, Beaver Dam Wash, Coal Pits Wash, Moody

Wash, and Mogatsu Creek.

Virgin spinedace are found in runs or pools in clear streams. The

presence of cover either in the form of vegetation, boulders, debris,

or undercut banks is also characteristic. Substrates in occupied

habitats include rubble/cobble, gravel, sand, and silt. Spinedace are

found in streams at depths of 0.1 to 0.9 m (0.3 to 2.9 ft) and with

current velocities between 0.1 and 1.0 m/s (0.3 to 3.2 ft/s).

Importance of the Virgin River Floodplain

Components of the river system include the mainstem channel in

which water is maintained most or all of the year and the upland

habitats which are inundated during spring flows. These seasonally

flooded habitats contribute to the biological productivity of the river

system by providing nutrients (allochthonous energy) and terrestrial

food sources to aquatic organisms (Hesse and Sheets 1993).

Additionally, Hynes (1970) reported that streams with higher

percentages of vegetation contained higher densities of aquatic

invertebrates. The Virgin River contains little aquatic vegetation and

produces a minimum of autochthonous (indigenous) organic matter. Thus,

the fauna of the Virgin River is dependent on allochthonous energy

inputs from the floodplain that provide much of the food base.

Studies of the major floodplain rivers of the world have documented

the value of flooded bottomlands and uplands for fish production

(Welcomme 1979). Due to their mobility, many species of fishes

are able to take advantage of food sources from flooded

lands. Indeed, many fishes have developed migratory strategies that

allow them to utilize inundated areas as spawning, nursery, and

foraging areas (Lowe-McConnel 1975, Welcomme 1979). In this context, a

rich food source of terrestrial origin may enhance fish growth,

fecundity, and/or survival

e to their mobility, many species of fishes

are able to take advantage of food sources from flooded

lands. Indeed, many fishes have developed migratory strategies that

allow them to utilize inundated areas as spawning, nursery, and

foraging areas (Lowe-McConnel 1975, Welcomme 1979). In this context, a

rich food source of terrestrial origin may enhance fish growth,

fecundity, and/or survival. Use of these inundated floodplains

increases the energy available for spawning and is necessary for

reproductive success in some species (Finger and Stewart 1987). In many

cyprinid fishes, including these Virgin River natives, spawning is

associated with seasonal rains and flooding of rivers. Flood-related

changes in the river environment not only induce spawning for many

species, but these changes comprise the ultimate factors limiting the

survival of eggs, larvae, or young fish (Hontela and Stacey 1990).

Loss of floodplain habitats in the Missouri River Basin has reduced

fish biomass production as much as 98 percent (Karr and Schlosser

1978). Inundation of floodplain habitats during spring flows also

provides areas with warmer water temperatures, low velocity resting

habitat, and cover from predation. Recent studies in the Colorado River

system show that the life histories and welfare of native riverine

fishes are linked to the maintenance of a natural or historic flow

regimen (i.e., hydrological pattern of high spring and low autumn-

winter flows that vary in magnitude and duration depending on annual

precipitation patterns and runoff from snowmelt) (Tyus and Karp 1989,

1990). Minckley and Meffe (1987) suggest that loss of flooding will

result in extirpation of many of the native fish species in the

Colorado River system.

Previous Federal Actions

ric flow

regimen (i.e., hydrological pattern of high spring and low autumn-

winter flows that vary in magnitude and duration depending on annual

precipitation patterns and runoff from snowmelt) (Tyus and Karp 1989,

1990). Minckley and Meffe (1987) suggest that loss of flooding will

result in extirpation of many of the native fish species in the

Colorado River system.

Previous Federal Actions

The woundfin was listed as endangered on October 13, 1970 (35 FR

16047), and critical habitat was proposed on November 2, 1997 (42 FR

57329). However, on March 6, 1979, the proposal for critical habitat

was withdrawn (44 FR 12382) due to the 1978 amendments to the Act,

which required proposals to be withdrawn if not finalized within 2

years. A Woundfin Recovery Plan was originally approved in July 1979

and subsequently revised on March 1, 1984. On July 24, 1985, the

Service proposed the reintroduction of the woundfin into the Gila River

drainage in Arizona and determined this population to be ``nonessential

experimental'' in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act (50 FR

30188).

On August 23, 1978, the Service proposed the listing as endangered

and the designation of critical habitat for the Virgin River chub (43

FR 37668). This proposal was also withdrawn (45 FR 64853; September 30,

1980), due to the 1978 amendments to the Act. The Virgin River chub was

later listed as endangered on August 24, 1989 (54 FR 35305). Critical

habitat was proposed on June 24, 1988 (51 FR 22849); however, the final

determination was postponed. When the Virgin River chub was listed, the

Muddy River form was omitted due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy.

The Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan, which is under final

preparation, includes the woundfin and Virgin River chub (but not the

Muddy River form).

The Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a threatened

species on May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25875)

nal

determination was postponed. When the Virgin River chub was listed, the

Muddy River form was omitted due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy.

The Virgin River Fishes Recovery Plan, which is under final

preparation, includes the woundfin and Virgin River chub (but not the

Muddy River form).

The Virgin spinedace was proposed for listing as a threatened

species on May 18, 1994 (59 FR 25875). A proposal to designate critical

habitat for the spinedace was delayed because the Service felt that the

three fish species would receive greater protection if critical habitat

was designated simultaneously.

On March 18, 1994, the U.S. District Court, Colorado (Court)

ordered the Service to designate critical habitat for the Virgin River

chub, woundfin, and Virgin spinedace (if listed before December 31,

1994). The Court ordered that critical habitat be proposed no later

than April 1, 1995, and be finalized by December 1, 1995.

Although the listing of the Virgin spinedace has not been

finalized, the designation of critical habitat is being proposed for

it, in order to allow for public comment on all three species. The

final rule for critical habitat designation will also reflect the

listed status of the Virgin spinedace as of that date.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at

the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found

those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require special management

considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary

special management

considerations or protection and; (ii) specific areas outside the

geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of

the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and

procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing

under the Act is no longer necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing

regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent

and determinable, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) designate

critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered

or threatened. Critical habitat is now proposed for the woundfin,

Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace.

Role of Critical Habitat in Species Conservation

The designation of critical habitat is one of several measures

available to assist in the conservation and recovery of a species.

Critical habitat helps focus conservation activities by identifying

areas that contain essential habitat features (primary constituent

elements) regardless of whether or not the areas are currently occupied

by the listed species. Such designations alert Federal agencies,

States, the public, and other organizations to the areas' importance to

the conservation and recovery of the species. Critical habitat also

identifies areas that may require special management or protection

considerations. Areas designated as critical habitat receive protection

under section 7 of the Act. This is in regards to actions carried out,

funded, or authorized by a Federal agency that are likely to adversely

modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that Federal

agencies consult with the Service on actions that may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

Designation of critical habitat only affects Federal actions that

occur in the areas and does not automatically prohibit certain actions

or create a management plan for a listed species

eral agency that are likely to adversely

modify or destroy critical habitat. Section 7 requires that Federal

agencies consult with the Service on actions that may destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat.

Designation of critical habitat only affects Federal actions that

occur in the areas and does not automatically prohibit certain actions

or create a management plan for a listed species. Such designation does

not have a direct effect on habitat not specified as critical habitat.

Critical habitat designation may increase protection of designated

areas and assists in the recovery of species. Areas outside of critical

habitat, containing one or more of the primary constituent elements,

serve to maintain ecosystem integrity, thereby indirectly contributing

to recovery.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Recovery Plan

Recovery plans, developed in accordance with section 4(f) of the

Act, address the steps needed to recover a species throughout its range

and provide guidance, that may include population goals and

identification of areas in need of protection or special management. In

developing a recovery plan, the relationships between critical habitat

and other current planning efforts should be evaluated. Recovery plans

should recommend actions for managing designated critical habitat on

Federal lands, as well as critical habitat under other

landownership.

Primary Constituent Elements

In determining areas for designation as critical habitat, the

Service considers those physical and biological features that are

essential for the conservation of the species. Such physical and

biological features (in 50 CFR 424.12) include, but are not limited to,

the following items:

(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior;

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

physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and generally

al and

biological features (in 50 CFR 424.12) include, but are not limited to,

the following items:

(1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal

behavior;

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

physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring,

germination, or seed dispersal; and generally

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are

representative of the historical geographical and ecological

distributions of a species.

In addition, the Act stipulates that areas containing these

elements may require special management considerations or protection.

In determining critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes, the

Service focused on the primary physical and biological elements

essential to the conservation of each species. The Service is required

to list these elements together with a description of the designated

critical habitat.

The primary constituent elements determined necessary for the

survival and recovery of these Virgin River fishes include, but are not

limited to:

Water--A quantity of water of sufficient quality (i.e.,

temperature, dissolved oxygen, contaminants, nutrients, turbidity,

etc.) that is delivered to a specific location in accordance with a

hydrologic regime that is identified for the particular life stage for

each species.

Physical Habitat--Areas of the Virgin River Basin that are

inhabited or potentially habitable by fish for use in spawning,

nursing, feeding, and rearing, or corridors between such areas. In

addition to river channels, these areas also include side channels,

secondary channels, backwaters, springs, and other areas which provide

spawning, nursery, feeding, or rearing habitats, or access to these

habitats.

Biological Environment--Food supply, predation, and competition are

important elements of the biological environment and are considered

components of this constituent element

n

addition to river channels, these areas also include side channels,

secondary channels, backwaters, springs, and other areas which provide

spawning, nursery, feeding, or rearing habitats, or access to these

habitats.

Biological Environment--Food supply, predation, and competition are

important elements of the biological environment and are considered

components of this constituent element. Food supply is a function of

nutrient supply, productivity, and availability to each life stage of

the species. Predation and competition, although considered normal

components of this environment, may be out of balance due to nonnative

fish species in many areas.

Habitat requirements for the listed fishes vary. In designating an

area as critical habitat for more than one of the species, the Service

assessed the area for all applicable constituent elements. Specific

information on primary constituent elements for each of these fish

species is given in the following section.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

Woundfin--The proposed designation of critical habitat for the

woundfin is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the confluence of

Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. The Virgin River was divided

into five distinct reaches (due to its current functions

hydrologically) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8 mi) as measures

along the center line of each reach (Table 1). This represents

approximately 13.5 percent of the woundfin's historical habitat. Due to

the lack of historical data on the distribution of the woundfin in

Arizona, this number is only an estimate. These proposed reaches flow

through both public and private lands (Table 2).

Virgin River Chub--The proposed designation of critical habitat for

the Virgin River chub is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the

confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead

habitat. Due to

the lack of historical data on the distribution of the woundfin in

Arizona, this number is only an estimate. These proposed reaches flow

through both public and private lands (Table 2).

Virgin River Chub--The proposed designation of critical habitat for

the Virgin River chub is the mainstem Virgin River, extending from the

confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks to above Lake Mead. Due to the

hydrological current functions of the Virgin River, it was divided into

five distinct reaches (Table 1) and these reaches total 151.7 km (94.8

mi). This represents approximately 70.8 percent of the historical

habitat within the Virgin River Basin, excluding the range historically

occupied by the Muddy River chub population. These reaches flow through

both public and private land (Table 2).

Virgin Spinedace--The Service proposes 16 reaches within the Virgin

River Basin as critical habitat for the Virgin spinedace (Table 1) and

these reaches total 201.9 km (126.2 mi). This represents approximately

87.7 percent of the historical habitat for this species (230.2 km or

143.9 mi) (Valdez et al. 1991). Critical habitat is being proposed for

the mainstem Virgin River, the East and North Forks of the Virgin

River, Beaver Dam Wash, Shunes Creek, Moody Wash, Mogatsu Creek, the

Santa Clara River, Ash Creek, La Verkin Creek, and North Creek. These

reaches flow through both public and private lands (Table 2).

t of the historical habitat for this species (230.2 km or

143.9 mi) (Valdez et al. 1991). Critical habitat is being proposed for

the mainstem Virgin River, the East and North Forks of the Virgin

River, Beaver Dam Wash, Shunes Creek, Moody Wash, Mogatsu Creek, the

Santa Clara River, Ash Creek, La Verkin Creek, and North Creek. These

reaches flow through both public and private lands (Table 2).

Table 1.--Proposed Critical Habitat in Kilometers (Miles) for Virgin River Listed Fishes

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

State Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace State Totalsa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aState totals do not equal the cumulative totals of the three species due to considerable overlap of proposed

critical habitat among species.

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

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

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

aState totals do not equal the cumulative totals of the three species due to considerable overlap of proposed

critical habitat among species.

Table 2.--Shoreline Ownership in Kilometers (Miles) of Proposed Critical Habitat for Virgin River Listed Fishesa

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

Ownership Woundfin Virgin River Chub Virgin Spinedace

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

Federalb...................................... 85.2 (53.3) 85.2 (53.3) 76.8 (48.0)

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

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

Private....................................... 59.0 (36.8) 59.0 (36.8) 112.6 (70.4)

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

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

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

aLandownership was typically the same on both riverbanks. However, in several reaches (1.5 km or less) the river

formed a boundary between Federal and private lands. Based upon the location of the channel, these reaches

were identified as either Federal or private, not both. Therefore, distances may be doubled to represent

ownership along both riverbanks.

bFederal lands include those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park

Service.

Virgin River Floodplain

e river

formed a boundary between Federal and private lands. Based upon the location of the channel, these reaches

were identified as either Federal or private, not both. Therefore, distances may be doubled to represent

ownership along both riverbanks.

bFederal lands include those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park

Service.

Virgin River Floodplain

The riparian zone within the 100-year floodplain of the Virgin

River reaches is being proposed as critical habitat, but only those

portions of the 100-year floodplain that contain constituent elements

are being designated for critical habitat. Developed lands not

considered critical habitat within the 100-year floodplain boundary

include, but are not limited to, existing paved roads, bridges, parking

lots, dikes, levees, railroad tracks, railroad trestles, water

diversion canals outside of natural stream channels, active gravel

pits, cultivated agricultural land, and residential, commercial, and

industrial developments. These developed areas do not contain primary

constituent elements and will not contribute to the species' recovery.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

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

agencies authorize, fund, or carry out do not destroy or adversely

modify designated critical habitat. This is in addition to the

requirement of section 7(a)(2) that Federal agencies insure that their

actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species.

A Federal agency must consult with the Service if a proposed action of

theirs affects a listed species or its critical habitat. Regulations

implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are

codified in 50 CFR part 402.

Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(4) of the Act and

implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require that Federal agencies

confer with the Service on any action which will destroy or adversely

modify the designated areas

affects a listed species or its critical habitat. Regulations

implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are

codified in 50 CFR part 402.

Once critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(4) of the Act and

implementing regulations (50 CFR 402.10) require that Federal agencies

confer with the Service on any action which will destroy or adversely

modify the designated areas. Conference reports provide advisory

conservation recommendations to assist a Federal agency in identifying

and resolving conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action.

If a Federal agency requests consultation under section 7 of the

Act, and the Service concurs, a formal conference report may then be

issued. Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain

an opinion prepared in accordance with formal consultation procedures

as if the critical habitat were already designated. Such a formal

conference report is adopted as the biological opinion pursuant to 50

CFR 402.10(d) when the critical habitat is designated, provided no

significant information or changes in the action occur that would alter

the content of the opinion.

Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent

elements within the defined reaches and their contribution to the

species recovery, and includes consideration of the species' biological

needs and factors that will contribute to its recovery (i.e.,

distribution, numbers, reproduction, and viability). In evaluating

Federal actions, the Service will consider the action's impact on

factors used to determine critical habitat of the Virgin River listed

fishes. These factors include the primary constituent elements of

water, physical habitat, and biological environment. The ability of an

area to provide these constituent elements into the future and the

reaches' capability to contribute to the recovery of the species will

also be considered

consider the action's impact on

factors used to determine critical habitat of the Virgin River listed

fishes. These factors include the primary constituent elements of

water, physical habitat, and biological environment. The ability of an

area to provide these constituent elements into the future and the

reaches' capability to contribute to the recovery of the species will

also be considered. The potential level of allowable impacts or habitat

reduction in critical habitat reaches will be determined on a case-by-

case basis during section 7 consultation.

For species with multiple critical habitat reaches, each reach has

local and rangewide roles in contributing to the conservation of the

species. The loss of a single reach may not jeopardize the continued

existence of the species, but it could significantly reduce the

critical habitat's contribution to recovery of a species. In some

cases, the destruction of a reach proposed as critical habitat could

result in the loss of an entire population, thereby preculding any

recovery and reducing the likelihood of survival of the species. The

proposed critical habitat reaches in the Virgin River Fishes Recovery

Plan include areas important for recovery of these fishes.

Examples of Proposed Actions

Section 4(b)(8) requires for any proposed or final regulation;

designation of critical habitat, a brief description and evaluation of

those activities that may adversely modify or destroy such habitat or

those activities that may be affected by such designation. Destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as a direct or

indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of a listed species. Some

activities disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within

designated critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes

e activities that may be affected by such designation. Destruction

or adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as a direct or

indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical

habitat for the survival and recovery of a listed species. Some

activities disturb or remove the primary constituent elements within

designated critical habitat for the Virgin River fishes. These

activities include actions that reduce the volume and timing of water

flows, destroy or eliminate access to spawning and nursery habitat,

prevent recruitment, impact food sources, contaminate the river, or

increase predation and competition by nonnative fishes. In contrast,

other activities such as recreation (i.e., boating, hiking, hunting,

etc.), some types of farming and ranching, may not adversely modify

critical habitat.

Areas designated as critical habitat for the Virgin River listed

fishes support a number of proposed and existing commercial and

noncommercial activities. Some activities that will affect critical

habitat include construction and operation of hydroelectric facilities,

irrigation, flood control, bank stabilization, oil and gas drilling,

mining, grazing, stocking or introduction of nonnative fishes,

municipal water supplies, and resort facilities. Federal activities

include the Sandstone Reservoir, Pah Tempe Pipeline, Halfway Wash

Project, Lake Powell Pipeline, water wheeling, water leasing,

Washington Fields Pumpback, and dewatering of springs for municipal and

industrial purposes. Commercial activities that will not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include river float trips and guided

sport fishing. Noncommercial activities such as boating, fishing, and

various activities associated with nature appreciation are largely

associated with private recreation and most likely will not affect

critical habitat

ering of springs for municipal and

industrial purposes. Commercial activities that will not destroy or

adversely modify critical habitat include river float trips and guided

sport fishing. Noncommercial activities such as boating, fishing, and

various activities associated with nature appreciation are largely

associated with private recreation and most likely will not affect

critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act only applies to Federal actions

(i.e., projects, permits, loans, etc.) and each Federal action must be

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act considers economic and other relevant

impacts in determining whether to exclude any proposed areas from the

final designation of critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas

from critical habitat designation when the costs or impacts outweigh

the benefits, provided that exclusion will not result in extinction of

a species. An economic analysis was conducted on the costs of the

proposed critical habitat designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). The

study area for the economic analysis encompassed portions of the Virgin

River Basin in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada.

The biological requirements for the recovery of these listed fishes

and regional economic activities were assessed and form the basis of

the economic analysis. The biological requirements include adjustments

in water diversions in the Virgin River Basin and/or mitigation of

nonflow-related activities within the 100-year floodplain. The effects

of recovery efforts on future water depletions in the basin also were

taken into consideration. The impacts of these possible changes on

current and prospective economic activities were estimated using input-

output models for each county and region in the Virgin River Basin.

Direct and indirect impacts on employment, wages, and State and Federal

revenues derived from business and personal income taxes were also

factored into the exclusion process

sin also were

taken into consideration. The impacts of these possible changes on

current and prospective economic activities were estimated using input-

output models for each county and region in the Virgin River Basin.

Direct and indirect impacts on employment, wages, and State and Federal

revenues derived from business and personal income taxes were also

factored into the exclusion process. The results of these models are

found in the economic analysis document prepared for determining

critical habitat for these particular fish species (Brookshire et al.

1995). This complete economic analysis is part of the administrative

record which is available to the public upon request.

Economic Analysis Methodology

The economic analysis provides insights into the reallocation of

resources from the perspectives of both economic efficiency and

distribution or equity. The efficiency criterion determines whether

designating areas as critical habitat produces any net gains to

society. The equity criterion looks at the resulting distribution of

gains and losses. The study region for which the economic analysis was

conducted includes Washington and Iron Counties in Utah, Clark County

in Nevada, and the portion of Mohave County in Arizona located north of

the Colorado River. The time frame chosen for the study encompasses a

45-year period (1995 through 2040) projected to recover the listed

fishes.

Washington County, Utah, and Clark County, Nevada are two counties

that will be directly affected by any actions taken by the Service on

behalf of the listed fishes. Presently, these counties are among the

fastest growing areas in the United States. From 1980 to 1990,

Washington County's population grew by 52 percent, while Clark County's

grew by 62.5 percent. The Virgin River also flows through a portion of

Mohave County in Arizona. This area has a very small population and a

modest economic base

ions taken by the Service on

behalf of the listed fishes. Presently, these counties are among the

fastest growing areas in the United States. From 1980 to 1990,

Washington County's population grew by 52 percent, while Clark County's

grew by 62.5 percent. The Virgin River also flows through a portion of

Mohave County in Arizona. This area has a very small population and a

modest economic base. Iron County, Utah, (lies north of Washington

County) is a rapidly growing area that is economically closely linked

to Washington County. Although the Virgin River does not flow through

Iron County, any economic impacts on Washington County would be felt in

Iron County as well.

The linkage between the biological requirements for the survival

and recovery of the listed fishes and economic activities in the region

formed the basis for the economic analysis. As an index of these

biological requirements, adjustments made in the operations of the

Quail Creek Reservoir and agricultural diversions on the Virgin River

were included. The effects of recovery efforts on projected future

water development and delivery projects were taken into consideration.

The direct effects on the agencies responsible for water development

and delivery also were taken into consideration. The direct and

indirect impacts of these possible changes on current and prospective

economic activities were then estimated for each county and regional

economy.

One cannot predict the outcome of future section 7 consultations

involving listed fishes in the region. Economic impacts associated with

the critical habitat designation depends on the time required for the

recovery of the listed fishes. County and regional economic impacts are

of interest when considering the effects of critical habitat

designations. County economic impacts are the direct and indirect

impacts of the critical habitat designations on specific geographic

areas

hes in the region. Economic impacts associated with

the critical habitat designation depends on the time required for the

recovery of the listed fishes. County and regional economic impacts are

of interest when considering the effects of critical habitat

designations. County economic impacts are the direct and indirect

impacts of the critical habitat designations on specific geographic

areas. County economic impacts were analyzed using input-output (I-O)

models that organize the basic accounting relationships that describe

the production section of the economy (Brookshire et al. 1995). The I-O

model is based on the assumption that all sectors of the economy are

related, and the production of a good or service can be described by a

recipe whose ingredients are the outputs from other sectors of the

economy. The primary inputs are labor, capital, and other raw

resources. Through its multiplier analysis, the I-O model is capable of

generating estimates of the changes in output for economic sectors,

changes in employment, and changes in income due to the critical

habitat designation. The models report total impacts resulting from

interactions among the different sectors of the economy.

Regional economic efficiency impacts refer to the overall net

impacts on the regional economy after accounting for the effects of

intercounty transfers. The goal of a regional efficiency analysis is to

determine whether an action would have an overall positive or negative

impact on the regional economy.

A separate I-O model was developed for each county and focused on

the direct and indirect impacts generated by the critical habitat

designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). In most cases, impacts on a given

county generated impacts on neighboring counties. Thus, it was

necessary to investigate potential offsetting impacts. As a result, an

I-O model was constructed that investigated the impacts for an entire

region (all four counties)

ach county and focused on

the direct and indirect impacts generated by the critical habitat

designation (Brookshire et al. 1995). In most cases, impacts on a given

county generated impacts on neighboring counties. Thus, it was

necessary to investigate potential offsetting impacts. As a result, an

I-O model was constructed that investigated the impacts for an entire

region (all four counties).

Economic activity for the models was estimated using Impact

Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) 1990 data sets that were updated and

projected through the year 2040, using data from the Bureau of Economic

Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IMPLAN data set

contains 528 economic sectors that were aggregated to 16 sectors

(Brookshire et al. 1995).

The I-O models used in this study are essentially demand-side

models. The conventional way to introduce impacts into such models is

through a vector of changes in final demands. That is, the impacts

reduce the regional demand for the output of the sector that

experiences a direct impact. However, this method is not logical for

determining effects on the agricultural sector because these effects

are generated by converting agricultural sectors to municipal and

industrial (M&I) uses. This conversion effectively reduces the quantity

of output in the agricultural sectors by restricting the supply of a

key input. For this reason, a mixed modeling approach was used, in

which the agricultural impacts are represented as a supply-side shock

used to generate an exogenous level of output in the agricultural

sectors. The direct impacts in the remaining sectors are modeled as

more typical changes in final demand.

The study utilized three scenarios to explore the impacts of

preserving the listed fishes upon the water needs of the projected

human population

ed, in

which the agricultural impacts are represented as a supply-side shock

used to generate an exogenous level of output in the agricultural

sectors. The direct impacts in the remaining sectors are modeled as

more typical changes in final demand.

The study utilized three scenarios to explore the impacts of

preserving the listed fishes upon the water needs of the projected

human population. Projected economic activity to the

year 2040 in the Virgin River Basin, if no flows and habitat are

protected to preserve the listed fishes, is compared to projected

economic activity if flows and habitat are preserved for the fish. The

baseline scenario represents a ``without fish'' projection of economic

growth that is then compared to two ``with fish'' projections. All of

the scenarios used the same population projection.

The baseline ``without fish'' scenario (WOFBA) is based upon the

water development plans of water districts in the Virgin River Basin:

the Washington County Water Conservation District (WCWCD) and the Las

Vegas Valley Water District. The ``without fish'' scenario determines

how much water will be needed for municipal and industrial development

in order to satisfy the population projections. This scenario accepts

the Boyle (1994) water need projections under a limited conservation

assumption. Thus, the water needs of the expanding population base are

determined by a gallons-per-day-per-capita value, which assumes a level

of conservation above the existing consumption observed in the region.

The ``with fish'' structural scenario (WFST) asks the same

questions as in the baseline scenario

enario accepts

the Boyle (1994) water need projections under a limited conservation

assumption. Thus, the water needs of the expanding population base are

determined by a gallons-per-day-per-capita value, which assumes a level

of conservation above the existing consumption observed in the region.

The ``with fish'' structural scenario (WFST) asks the same

questions as in the baseline scenario. The fundamental differences

are--(1) Given the water needs associated with preserving the listed

fishes, the structural water development projects must be brought on

line at an earlier time, and (2) winter flows below Quail Creek

Diversion remain at 2.4 cubic meters per second (86 cubic feet per

second) rather than 1.4 cubic meters per second (50 cubic feet per

second) as in the ``without fish'' scenario. Generally, the volume of

water available from each new project is not directly affected by the

actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes. However, the maintenance

of the 86 cfs instream flow for the listed fishes results in less

available water for municipal use. Therefore, water projects are

required to come on line sooner to meet the projected demand. In

addition, the agricultural retirement program must begin earlier. In

this scenario, the per-capita consumption of water is the same as in

the baseline.

The ``with fish'' conservation scenario (WFCO) addresses the water

needs of the growing population and the listed fishes through a

combination of conservation and agricultural retirements. Conservation

requires that per-capita consumption should fall. This is achieved

through water-saving technologies incorporated into new homes and

industrial facilities.

All of the scenarios utilize the reallocation of agricultural water

to urban and industrial uses and/or to habitat preservation for the

listed fishes. Whether habitat is preserved for fish, water must be

reallocated as the human population continues to grow

apita consumption should fall. This is achieved

through water-saving technologies incorporated into new homes and

industrial facilities.

All of the scenarios utilize the reallocation of agricultural water

to urban and industrial uses and/or to habitat preservation for the

listed fishes. Whether habitat is preserved for fish, water must be

reallocated as the human population continues to grow. The impacts of

critical habitat designation affect the timing of the reallocation of

resources, and not the quantity of water that must be reallocated. The

``with fish'' agricultural scenario produces three sets of direct

impacts which are outlined below.

(1) Agriculture--The conversion of use will occur earlier than

under the baseline scenario, with the result that agricultural output

is projected to decline under the ``with fish'' scenario. The method if

incorporating this impact into the I-O models is to introduce a

reduction in the allocation of water to the affected agricultural

sectors. This translates directly into a specified reduction in the

dollar value of the output of the agriculture sector. This mechanism

was used to generate the decline in agricultural output in the baseline

(WOFBA) projection. Water was pulled from agriculture to meet the needs

of the growing M&I sectors. The growth in the nonagricultural sectors

of the economy, reported in the WOFBA projection, is predicated on the

conversion of water to M&I uses.

in the

dollar value of the output of the agriculture sector. This mechanism

was used to generate the decline in agricultural output in the baseline

(WOFBA) projection. Water was pulled from agriculture to meet the needs

of the growing M&I sectors. The growth in the nonagricultural sectors

of the economy, reported in the WOFBA projection, is predicated on the

conversion of water to M&I uses.

(2) Water Delivery Projects--To meet the baseline growth projection

for Washington County, several water delivery projects are under

consideration. Supplying instream water for the fishes will require

these projects to be built earlier than in the ``without fish''

baseline. This may result in an increased cost of water delivery. This

cost increase is driven by increased user cost of the funds devoted to

the projects. The increased cost of each accelerated project is

incorporated as an increase in the weighted average cost per acre-foot

of water delivered to the users. Thus, a new delivery project could

increase in the user's total ``water bill.'' A cost increase for a

basic input is incorporated into the I-O models as an equiproportionate

reduction in the level of expenditure in each sector of the economy.

(3) Electric Power--WCWCD runs two small hydroelectric power

facilities and sells the power to the local grid. As a result of

diversions that put water into the Virgin River to meet fish needs,

power production may decline. For electricity users in the area, there

is no impact as a result of this change because the amount of power

produced is small and seasonal and the decline will be made up through

load shifting. For the WCWCD, however, the change in the operation of

the river would result in loss of revenue that must be made up through

higher revenues from the sale of water. In this model, the impact is

treated as a cost increase across all sectors in proportion to their

level of economic activity. The motivation for the argument is

identical to that presented in the previous section

load shifting. For the WCWCD, however, the change in the operation of

the river would result in loss of revenue that must be made up through

higher revenues from the sale of water. In this model, the impact is

treated as a cost increase across all sectors in proportion to their

level of economic activity. The motivation for the argument is

identical to that presented in the previous section.

To these three direct impacts, the ``with fish'' conservation

scenario adds another class of direct impacts.

(1) Conservation Expenditures--Expenditures for low-water-using

appliances, landscaping changes, and other water-saving equipment

(i.e., timed sprinklers) in new structures only. These expenditures are

modeled as being offset by reductions elsewhere in the construction

sector. For example, costs due to the installation of low-water-using

appliances are offset through lower expenses elsewhere in the

construction budget. To ensure that the analysis errs on the side of

overstating the impacts, all conservation-related expenditures are

assumed to be made outside the region, and all offsetting reductions in

expenditures are assumed to be incurred by local suppliers. Thus,

conservation-related expenditures are introduced into the I-O models as

a negative impact for the region.

It should be emphasized that the water delivery projects mentioned

in these scenarios are necessary in any case to support the water needs

of the region's growing population. Actions taken to preserve and

restore the listed fish species in the Virgin River will affect only

the timing of these projects. They are not the primary reason for why

these projects must be built. The same is true for the agricultural

conversions that are required to satisfy the region's growing municipal

and industrial water needs. Using some Virgin River water to meet the

listed fishes' requirements may affect the timing of agricultural

retirements

in the Virgin River will affect only

the timing of these projects. They are not the primary reason for why

these projects must be built. The same is true for the agricultural

conversions that are required to satisfy the region's growing municipal

and industrial water needs. Using some Virgin River water to meet the

listed fishes' requirements may affect the timing of agricultural

retirements. However, it is not the root cause for the retirements nor

will it involve condemnation of any agricultural lands. Agricultural

conversions will continue to be voluntary market transactions.

Actions taken on behalf of the listed fishes result in two types of

direct impacts to the affected economies. The instream flows for the

fishes require that the conversion of agricultural water to M&I uses

take place earlier than without the fish consideration. It is important

to note that actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect only the

timing of this conversion.

Setting aside instream flows for the listed fishes requires the

timing of some planned water delivery projects to be

altered. Actions taken on behalf of the fishes affect

only the timing of water delivery projects that are required to support

the growing human population.

Results of the Economic Analysis

The Virgin River Basin has an economy that is service-oriented,

thus reflecting the popularity of the region as a retirement and

recreation area. Employment, earnings, and tax revenues are reported

for each of the sectors analyzed in the I-O models, as well as for the

regional economy. The three scenarios investigated in this study are

based on the assumption of sustained regional population growth rates

during the 45-year study period, even though a decline is expected as

desirable building sites become scarce. The growing population's water

needs will be met by constructing a series of dams to increase the

region's water supply for municipal and industrial uses. This will also

improve water quality in the Virgin River

re

based on the assumption of sustained regional population growth rates

during the 45-year study period, even though a decline is expected as

desirable building sites become scarce. The growing population's water

needs will be met by constructing a series of dams to increase the

region's water supply for municipal and industrial uses. This will also

improve water quality in the Virgin River. In addition, retirement of

agricultural land is expected when water and agricultural land are used

for other purposes.

The Act requires that the economic effects of designating critical

habitat be computed separately from the total economic effects of

listing and critical habitat designation. Table 3 summarizes the

effects of critical habitat designation under the WFST and WFCO impact

scenarios. These effects are reported for the entire Virgin River

region, including Washington County and Clark Counties.

Table 3.--County and Regional-Level Present Value and Annualized Incremental Critical Habitat Impacts (1990 $

Millions) (3 Percent Discount Rate)

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

Output Employment Earnings Tax revenues

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

WFST vs WOFBA:

Washington:

Present Value..................... -47.496......... ................ -13.617......... -6.182

Percent Deviation from WOFBA...... -0.0016......... -0.0019......... -0.0016......... -0.0016

Annualized Values................. -1.947.......... -26............. -0.558.......... -0.253

Clark:

Present Value..................... -10.63.......... ................ -0.827.......... -0.632

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

Annualized Values................. -0.428.......... -1.............. -0.034.......... -0.026

Region:

Present Value..................... -59.818......... ................ -14.961........

....... -0.253

Clark:

Present Value..................... -10.63.......... ................ -0.827.......... -0.632

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

Annualized Values................. -0.428.......... -1.............. -0.034.......... -0.026

Region:

Present Value..................... -59.818......... ................ -14.961......... -6.283

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

Annualized Values................. -2.453.......... -30............. -0.613.......... -0.258

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

Washington:

Present Value..................... -13.742......... ................ -2.065.......... -0.133

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

Annualized Values................. -0.563.......... 4............... -0.085.......... -0.005

Region:

Present Value..................... -20.938......... ................ -1.12........... -1.476

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

Annualized values................. -0.858.......... 4............... -0.046.......... -0.061

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

Under the WFST scenario, the present value of output changes in the

Washington County economy due to critical habitat designation is -$1.95

million annually. This constitutes 0.0016 percent of the present value

of the baseline stream of output (WOFBA). Employment and earnings

effects are presented in the report and are similar to that of the

output effects.

For Clark County, the output effects of the critical habitat

designation are -$0.43 million annually. The baseline economy of Clark

County is much larger than that of Washington County. Consequently, the

effects of the designation of critical habitat on the economy are

smaller

(WOFBA). Employment and earnings

effects are presented in the report and are similar to that of the

output effects.

For Clark County, the output effects of the critical habitat

designation are -$0.43 million annually. The baseline economy of Clark

County is much larger than that of Washington County. Consequently, the

effects of the designation of critical habitat on the economy are

smaller. The cumulative output effects represent only 0.00001 percent

of the baseline level of economic activity. Both the earnings and tax

revenue effects are too small to be reliably reported as deviations

from the baseline level of economic activity.

For the region as a whole, the output effect of designating

critical habitat is -$2.45 million annually (0.0001 percent). The other

aggregate effects are of similar relative magnitudes.

Water use conservation can significantly mitigate the effects of

designating critical habitat for these listed fishes. This is also true

for the critical habitat effects alone. Under the WFCO scenario, the

present value of the output changes in Washington County is -$13.7

million, 0.00046 percent of the baseline level of activity. For the

region as a whole, the output effects of designating critical habitat

are -$20.9 million, an amount too small to calculate as a percentage of

the baseline. There are no conservation scenario impacts for Clark

County for reasons discussed later.

National Efficiency Effects

of the output changes in Washington County is -$13.7

million, 0.00046 percent of the baseline level of activity. For the

region as a whole, the output effects of designating critical habitat

are -$20.9 million, an amount too small to calculate as a percentage of

the baseline. There are no conservation scenario impacts for Clark

County for reasons discussed later.

National Efficiency Effects

To obtain true measures of national efficiency impacts, exact

welfare changes must be computed. These are calculated as changes in

aggregate household utility. In general, I-O models are not capable of

producing such values because they lack a fully modeled household

sector. However, reasonable approximations may be obtained through

aggregate factor payments. These omit surplus measures (producer and

consumer) and hence understate the aggregate changes in national

efficiency. They do, however, provide a reasonable approximation under

certain assumptions.

In many applications of I-O analysis for use as inputs to a cost-

benefit analysis, aggregate factor payments (value added) are used to

represent the national efficiency effect of a policy change or action.

This measure is correct only for cases in which the value-added change

can be attributed solely to the policy change or action undertaken. In

the case of the listed fishes, this assumption is reasonable because

all changes in resource allocation can be attributed to actions taken

on behalf of the fishes by virtue of the methodology followed in this

study.

Including secondary effects in computing national efficiency

impacts is valid because these effects are technological in nature

rather than pure transfers. That is, the linkages in the

economy between productive sectors arise from the basic production

functions in the economy. Thus, a direct impact occurring in one sector

of the economy will generate ripple effects throughout the economy.

Such effects are solely attributable to the initial direct impact

mpacts is valid because these effects are technological in nature

rather than pure transfers. That is, the linkages in the

economy between productive sectors arise from the basic production

functions in the economy. Thus, a direct impact occurring in one sector

of the economy will generate ripple effects throughout the economy.

Such effects are solely attributable to the initial direct impact.

The I-O model permits computation of this factor income, and it may

be used to measure the national efficiency effects of various changes

in the economy, such as those introduced by actions taken on behalf of

the listed fishes. Aggregate factor payments are computed for the

baseline (WOFBA) scenario and for the ``with fish'' scenarios (WFST and

WFCO).

The factor payments capture the value added from the production

side of the local economy. Because some of the output change is

captured through leakages to the rest of the world (principally the

United States), the total factor payments changes will be smaller than

the total output changes.

Based on these results, it is not surprising that the effects of

the factor payments are small for the county-level and regional

analysis. Under the WFST scenario, the efficiency losses to the nation

are a $32.2 million reduction in value added. The annualized value of

this reduction is -$1.32 million. With water conservation measures, the

cumulative change (over the 45-year period) in value added is -$10.68

million (-$0.438 million as an annualized value). Water conservation

mitigates most of the impacts associated with the critical habitat

designation.

For Washington County, the present value of the cumulative changes

(over the 45-year period) in value added is -$24.62 million for the

WFST scenario. With the inclusion of water conservation measures, this

value falls to -$8.153 million (annualized value -$0.764 million)

s an annualized value). Water conservation

mitigates most of the impacts associated with the critical habitat

designation.

For Washington County, the present value of the cumulative changes

(over the 45-year period) in value added is -$24.62 million for the

WFST scenario. With the inclusion of water conservation measures, this

value falls to -$8.153 million (annualized value -$0.764 million).

For Clark County, the present value of the cumulative changes (over

the 45-year period) is -$4.649 million (annualized value is -$0.191

million).

Conclusions of the Economic Analysis

The three described impact scenarios were analyzed and it is useful

to distinguish them in summarizing the economic effects of actions

taken on behalf of the listed fishes. The baseline scenario (WOFBA)

represents the way in which the county-level and regional economies

would grow over the 45-year study period if no actions were taken to

protect the listed species. The entire region is projected to

experience population growth at rates well above the national average.

Projected population growth and economic development will lead to

shifts in resource use. Consequently, agricultural water will be

converted to M&I uses resulting in a decline in agricultural output. At

the same time, several required water delivery projects are planned to

provide water to sustain the projected growth levels.

The WFST scenario takes the baseline regional projection and

introduces measures designed to protect and recover the listed fishes.

These measures result in more rapid conversion of agricultural water

and the acceleration of some water delivery projects. Thus,

agricultural production declines more quickly under the WFST scenario.

Water costs also rise as a result of the earlier development of these

projects, and the effect is a reduced level of final demand in all

sectors

esigned to protect and recover the listed fishes.

These measures result in more rapid conversion of agricultural water

and the acceleration of some water delivery projects. Thus,

agricultural production declines more quickly under the WFST scenario.

Water costs also rise as a result of the earlier development of these

projects, and the effect is a reduced level of final demand in all

sectors.

In summary, all of the economic effects of the WFST scenario

indicate that preserving and recovering the listed fishes will have a

relatively small impact on the overall economy. Some sectors will

experience greater declines than others, but the overall decline in

economic activity is projected to be small.

Since water usage rates in Washington County are high compared to

other southwestern cities, a conservation scenario (WFCO) was analyzed.

In this scenario, consumption levels were reduced through the use of

water-conserving appliances, fixtures, and landscaping, applied to new

construction only. Conservation is not without some cost. These costs

were introduced into the models in the form of crowding-out other

expenditures. Thus, construction costs were projected to increase.

Offsetting this cost increase are the savings that will result from

delaying the planned construction of new water delivery facilities. A

further offset is provided because agricultural water is converted to

M&I uses at a slower pace.

The overall effect of conservation is an almost complete mitigation

of the economic effects associated with actions undertaken on behalf of

the listed fishes. In fact, by the latter part of the study period,

there are negative effects only in the agriculture and construction

sectors. However, latter effects are likely overstated in the analysis

due to the extreme nature of the complete crowding-out assumption.

The Service has prepared detailed documents further explaining the

biology of each fish species (Maddux et al

behalf of

the listed fishes. In fact, by the latter part of the study period,

there are negative effects only in the agriculture and construction

sectors. However, latter effects are likely overstated in the analysis

due to the extreme nature of the complete crowding-out assumption.

The Service has prepared detailed documents further explaining the

biology of each fish species (Maddux et al. 1995) and the economic

analysis process used to determine critical habitat (Brookshire et al.

1995). These documents are available to supplement this notice and for

public review. Copies may be obtained by contacting the field office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Available Conservation Measures

The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a

means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened

species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of listed

species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that ``* * * all Federal

departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and

threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance

of the purposes of this Act.''

The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through various

mechanisms, such as section 7 (requiring Federal agencies to further

the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs and

insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the continued

existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat), section 9 (prohibition of taking of

listed species), section 10 (research permits and habitat conservation

plans), section 6 (cooperative State and Federal grants), land

acquisition, and research

rvation programs and

insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the continued

existence of the listed species or result in the destruction or adverse

modification of critical habitat), section 9 (prohibition of taking of

listed species), section 10 (research permits and habitat conservation

plans), section 6 (cooperative State and Federal grants), land

acquisition, and research. The section 7 requirement that Federal

agencies consult with the Service if their actions may impact critical

habitat enables the Service to assess Federal activities that may

impair survival and recovery potential, thus ensuring that such actions

are considered in relation to the goals and recommendations of the

recovery plan.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service finds that any final action resulting from this

proposal be accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, the Service

requests comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned

government agencies, Indian Nations, the scientific community,

commercial interests, or any other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. Comments are particularly sought concerning:

(1) The location and reasons why any Federal or non-Federal lands

(either proposed critical habitat or additional areas) should or should

not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of

the Act;

(2) Current and planned activities in the vicinity of proposed

critical habitat areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical

habitat;

(3) Other physical and biological features that are essential to

the conservation of the species and in need of special management or

protection;

(4) Specific information on the scale, location, and distribution

of primary constituent elements on all ownership and land designations;

(5) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the

woundfin, Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace depend;

sical and biological features that are essential to

the conservation of the species and in need of special management or

protection;

(4) Specific information on the scale, location, and distribution

of primary constituent elements on all ownership and land designations;

(5) Information concerning health of the ecosystems on which the

woundfin, Virgin River chub, and Virgin spinedace depend;

(6) Information on the economic benefits and costs that would

result from this proposed designation of critical habitat;

(7) Data and information relevant to determining whether the

benefits of excluding a particular area from critical habitat outweigh

the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat;

(8) The methods and thresholds the Service might use in determining

whether the costs of designating an area outweigh the benefits of

designation;

(9) Methods of analysis useful in evaluating economic and other

relevant impacts;

(10) Information regarding the suitability or unsuitability of

critical habitat boundaries of the 100-year floodplain (as defined on

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(FIRMs));

(11) Information about areas of land or water located within the

outer boundaries of the proposed critical habitat, but that do not

provide primary constituent elements and thus can be excluded. Of

particular interest are means to describe these areas of land within

specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard

topographical maps.

The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information received by the Service,

and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

Public Hearings

ticular interest are means to describe these areas of land within

specific limits using reference points and lines as found on standard

topographical maps.

The final decision on this proposal will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information received by the Service,

and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs

from this proposal.

Public Hearings

The Act provides for at least one public hearing on this proposal,

if requested within 45 days from date of publication of this proposal

in the Federal Register. Requests for a hearing must be made in writing

and addressed to the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see

ADDRESSES section). The Service has arranged for a public hearing to be

held on May 8, 1995, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with registration beginning

at 4:30 p.m., at the St. George Hilton Inn, 1450 South Hilton Drive,

St. George, Utah.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment, as

defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A notice outlining the Service's

reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The

rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule

concerning public projects and private activities within the proposed

critical habitat, significant economic impacts will not result from

this action

as reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The

rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule

concerning public projects and private activities within the proposed

critical habitat, significant economic impacts will not result from

this action. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information

collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities

by this action, and the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements as

defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq.). This rule does not require a federalism assessment under

Executive Order 12612 because it would not have any significant

federalism effects as described in the order.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited is available upon request

from the Field Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposal are Henry R. Maddux and

Janet A. Mizzi of the Service's Salt Lake City Field Office; Selena

J. Werdon of the Service's Nevada State Office; and Lesley A.

Fitzpatrick of the Service's Arizona State Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.

4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the ``critical

habitat'' entry for ``Chub, Virgin River'' and ``Woundfin'' under

Fishes, to read ``17.95(e)''.

3. It is proposed to amend Sec. 17.95(e) by adding critical habitat

of the Virgin River chub (Gila robusta seminuda=G. seminuda) and

woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) in the same alphabetical order as

these species occur in 17.11(h).

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

Virgin River Chub (Gila seminuda)

Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield

(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle). Legal

descriptions for Overton (Nevada-Arizona) were obtained from the 1989

BLM maps (Surface Management Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle).

Critical habitat areas proposed for the Virgin River chub in each State

are as follows:

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from its confluence with

Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington

Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson

Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Arizona, Mohave County

in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Washington

Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the Johnson Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Johnson

Diversion in T.42S., R.15W., Sec. 27 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

the Arizona-Utah border in T.43S., R.17W., Sec. 36 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Arizona, Mohave County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Utah

border in T.42N., R. 13W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

Arizona-Nevada border in T.39N., R.16W., Sec. 2 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Nevada, Clark County. The Virgin River from the Arizona-Nevada

border in T.13S., R.71E., Sec. 15 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the

highwater level of Lake Mead in T.16S., R.68E., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian).

Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and

biological environment as required for each particular life stage for

each species.

Note: Map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

4. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18,

1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h)

is amended by revising the critical habitat entry for ``Spinedace,

Virgin'' to read ``17.95(e)''.

5. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18,

1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h)

is further amended by adding critical habitat of the Virgin spinedace

(Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) to Sec. 17.95(e) in the same

alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

7.95(e)''.

5. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register of May 18,

1994, pages 25875-25880, adding the Virgin spinedace to Sec. 17.11(h)

is further amended by adding critical habitat of the Virgin spinedace

(Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) to Sec. 17.95(e) in the same

alphabetical order as the species occurs in 17.11(h).

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat-fish and wildlife.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

* * * * *

Virgin Spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis)

Legal descriptions for St. George (Utah-Arizona) and Littlefield

(Arizona) were obtained from the 1987 BLM maps (Surface Management

Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Legal descriptions for Kanab

(Utah-Arizona) were obtained from the 1983 BLM maps (Surface Management

Status 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangles). Critical habitat areas proposed

for the Virgin spinedace in each State are as follows:

Arizona, Mohave County. Beaver Dam Wash from the confluence with

the Virgin River in T.40N., R.15W., Sec. 4 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) upstream 1.3 km (0.8 mi) in T.40N., R15W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake

Base and Meridian).

Utah, Kane County. The East Fork of the Virgin River from the falls

in Parunuweap Canyon in T.42S., R.9W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to its confluence with the North Fork of the Virgin River in

T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Kane County. Shunes Creek from the Second Creek confluence in

T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 11 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence

with the East Fork of the Virgin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 4 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from the Narrows in

T.39S., R.20W., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 0.4 km (0.25

mi) upstream of the confluence with East Bunker Peak Wash in T.40S.,

R.19W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from Horse Canyon in

T.41S., R.19W., Sec

gin River in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 4 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from the Narrows in

T.39S., R.20W., Sec. 1 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to 0.4 km (0.25

mi) upstream of the confluence with East Bunker Peak Wash in T.40S.,

R.19W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Beaver Dam Wash from Horse Canyon in

T.41S., R.19W., Sec. 31 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) downstream

through Lytle Ranch downstream to Iverson Ranch in T.42S., R.20W., Sec.

13 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Moody Wash from the lower end of Racer

Canyon in T.38S., R.17W. Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to just

below the Dixie National Forest Boundary in T.39S., R.17W., Sec. 26

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Mogatsu Creek from the falls downstream of

Bingham Ranch in T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian)

to its confluence with the Santa Clara River in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 14

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Uath, Washington County. Santa Clara River from Veyo Hot Springs in

T.39S., R.16W., Sec. 32 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to the upstream

end of Gunlock Reservoir in T.40S., R.17W., Sec. 29 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Santa Clara River from downstream of the

dam forming Gunlock Reservoir in T.41S., R.17W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base

and Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.43S.,

R.15W., Sec. 6 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. Ash Creek from Toquerville Springs in

T.40S., R.13W., Sec. 35 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence

with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. La Verkin Creek from Chute Falls in

T.40S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence

with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County

in

T.40S., R.13W., Sec. 35 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence

with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. La Verkin Creek from Chute Falls in

T.40S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to its confluence

with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. North Creek from the confluence of the

Left and Right Forks in T.40S., R.11W., Sec. 33 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to its confluence with the Virgin River in T.41S., R.12W.,

Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of

Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W., Sec. 23 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the Washington Fields Diversion in T.42S., R.14W., Sec. 21

(Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The North Fork of the Virgin River from

the Narrows in T.40S., R10W., Sec. 34 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

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

R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the confluence of

the East and North Forks in T.42S., R.10W., Sec. 5 (Salt Lake Base and

Meridian) to the Quail Creek Diversion in T.41S., R.14W., Sec. 36 (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Utah, Washington County. The Virgin River from the Quail Creek

Diversion in T.41S., R.12W., Sec. 30 (Salt Lake Base and Meridian) to

the confluence of Ash-La Verkin Creeks in T.41S., R.13W, Sec. 23) (Salt

Lake Base and Meridian).

Known constituent elements include water, physical habitat, and

biological environment as required for each particular life stage for

each species.

Note: Map follows.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP05AP95.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Dated: March 29, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

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

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M