DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
FOR ELEVEN MOBILE RIVER BASIN MUSSELS
June 2003
DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION
FOR ELEVEN MOBILE RIVER BASIN MUSSELS
Prepared for:
Division of Economics
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Prepared by:
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Send comments on the economic analysis to:
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A
Jackson, MS 39213
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1
1.1 Description of Species and Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.3 Framework and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-10
1.4 Information Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-22
2 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE AND BASELINE ELEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
2.2 Relevant Baseline Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
3 SECTION 7 ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MUSSEL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 Categories of Economic Impacts Associated with Section 7 Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1
3.2 Activities Potentially Affected by Critical Habitat
Designation for the Mussels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-4
4 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION. . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.1 Estimated Total Costs of Section 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Section 7 Activity Details Within Proposed Critical Habitat. . . . . . . . .4-11
4.3 Estimated Technical Assistance Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-38
4.4 Other Regulatory Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41
5 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT. . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 Categories of Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ref-1
APPENDIX A: State-level Baseline Protections to the Mussels and Habitat. .A-1
APPENDIX B: Other Regulatory Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C: Section 7 Costs for the Mussels Per Unit and Activity. . . . . . .C-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts that may result from the proposed critical habitat designation for the 11 Mobile River basin mussels (the mussels). This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Division of Economics, and was delivered on June 23, 2003.
2. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
Framework for the Analysis
3. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact
that will result from the designation of critical habitat for the mussels.
This
information is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether
the benefits of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the
benefits of including those areas in the designation.
This economic analysis
considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the designation and
addresses how the impacts of the designation are distributed, including an
assessment of any local or regional economic impacts of the designation and the
potential effects of the designation on small entities, the energy industry, or
governments. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess
whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector.
4. OMB guidelines for conducting economic analysis of environmental
regulation direct Federal agencies to measure the costs of a regulatory action
against a baseline.
The baseline includes the currently existing regulatory and
socio-economic burden imposed on landowners and managers potentially affected
by the designation of critical habitat including, for example, local zoning laws,
state natural resource laws, and enforceable management plans and best
management practices applied by other State and Federal agencies. Existing
laws, regulations, and policies that offer baseline protections to the mussels are
described in greater detail in Section 2 and Appendix A of this analysis.
5. This analysis describes impacts that are expected to occur above and beyond the baseline. In other words, it measures the costs of compliance with the Act that would not occur in the absence of the currently proposed critical habitat. Importantly, economic impacts associated with section 9 and 10 of the Act, with a few exceptions, are considered to be part of the regulatory baseline and thus are not addressed in this report. These costs are considered to be part of the baseline because they remain unaffected by the designation of critical habitat.
6. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat. Importantly, this analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from the listing of the species (i.e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result from the presence of critical habitat (i.e., the adverse modification standard).
7. The designation may, under certain circumstances, affect actions that do not have a Federal nexus or are otherwise not subject to the provisions of section 7 under the Act. For example, although technical assistance is not a direct cost of section 7 of the Act, these costs are incorporated into the cost analysis when they are explicitly propagated by consideration of species and habitat conservation. Similarly, a State agency may request technical assistance from the Service as a precaution to ensure that activities without a Federal nexus, such as the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, adequately provide for particular species and habitats. In this case, costs of Service review of such activities would be included as a cost of critical habitat designation.
8. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and adjacent to the proposed designation. It estimates impacts based on activities that are “reasonably foreseeable," including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten year time frame, beginning on the day that the current proposed rule becomes available to the public. The ten-year time frame was chosen for the analysis because, as the time horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which the projected numbers of projects are based become increasingly speculative.
9. This report relies on a sequential methodology and focuses on distilling the salient and relevant aspects of potential economic impacts of the proposed designation. The steps followed in this analysis consist of:
• Describing current and projected economic activity within and around the proposed critical habitat area;
• Identifying whether such activities are likely to involve a Federal nexus;
• For activities with a Federal nexus, evaluating the likelihood that these activities will require consultations under section 7 of the Act and, in turn, result in any modifications to projects.
• Estimating the direct costs of expected section 7 consultations, project modifications and other economic impacts associated with the designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that current or future activities may require additional compliance with other Federal, State, and local laws as a result of new information provided by the proposed designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that projects will be delayed by the consultation process or other regulatory requirements triggered by the designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that economic activity will be affected by regulatory uncertainty, and/or property values affected;
• Estimating the indirect costs of the designation, as reflected in the cost of compliance with State and local laws, project delays, regulatory uncertainty, and effects on property values;
• Assessing the extent to which critical habitat designation will create costs for small businesses as a result of modifications or delays to projects;
• Assessing the effects of administrative costs and project modifications on the supply, distribution, and use of energy; and
• Determining the benefits that may be associated with the designation of critical habitat.
Key Findings
10. Exhibit ES-1 provides an overview of the present value of total
section 7 costs associated with the listing and designation of critical habitat
for the mussels over a ten year period.
As the exhibit shows, estimates of
the costs associated with section 7 consultations for the mussels,
discounted to present value using a rate of seven percent, range from $6.42
million to $23.5 million over a ten year period. This present value range
equates to an annualized stream of costs of $914,000 to $3.35 million. This
cost range represents the costs of the designation associated with section
7 consultations and resulting project modifications, and technical assistance
efforts. The analysis did not identify any broader regional economic
impacts or constraints on commerce beyond these costs.
Exhibit ES-1
SECTION 7 AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LISTING AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MUSSELS |
|
|
Total Estimated Section 7 Costs |
Nominal value of total section 7 costs (ten years) |
$9.03 million to $33.3 million |
Present Value (7% discount rate) |
$6.42 million to $23.5 million |
Annualized over ten years |
$914,000 to $3.35 million |
Present Value (3% discount rate) |
$7.73 million to $28.5 million |
Annualized over ten years |
$907,000 to $3.34 million |
Notes: Estimates are rounded to three significant digits. Costs may not add up due to rounding. These estimates include all section 7 costs, including both those associated with the species listing and designation of critical habitat for the mussels. Consultations costs known to occur in specific years are discounted accordingly; all remaining consultations costs are assumed to be evenly spread across the ten years. |
|
11. The general distribution of these costs by activity, unit, and party bearing them is as follows:
•Costs by type of major activity. As detailed in Exhibit ES-2, a range of activities may be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the mussels. The majority of these costs, however, are expected to stem from consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and related project modifications concerning dredging activities. The primary area of uncertainty concerns water supply dam proposals in Alabama and Georgia. Any of these dam proposals may significantly affect critical habitat. If construction plans proceed on these dams, consultation will be required. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to the level of project modification that may be recommended with respect to the permitting and construction of these dams, particularly regarding minimum flow recommendations.
• Costs by unit. As detailed in Exhibit ES-3, Units 16 and 25 are likely to engender the highest costs on a unit-by-unit basis. Within Units 16 and 25, these high costs result from the relatively large project modification costs that are forecast to occur related to the restriction of in-stream activity and infrastructure construction associated with road and bridge maintenance projects (i.e., constructing bridges that span streams in place of using instream pilings). These project modifications add approximately $300,000 each to seven informal consultations in Unit 16 and three informal consultations within Unit 25.
• Costs by type of entity. Approximately, 56 percent of total section 7 costs will be borne by third parties (e.g., local and State governmental agencies). Of the remaining costs, approximately six percent will be borne by the Service, and 38 percent by other Federal agencies.
• Costs by category. Administrative costs of consultations will generate a high end estimate of approximately 24 percent of total designation costs. Resulting project modifications are anticipated to account for 73 percent, and technical assistance accounts for approximately three percent of the total costs.
Detail of Section 7 Costs
12. The following section first outlines costs by major activity affected by critical habitat designation, and then allocates these costs on a unit-by-unit basis. A detailed itemization of this cost information by activity, unit, type of entity, and category is provided in Appendix C.
Costs By Major Activity
13. The following discussion summarizes the activities anticipated to experience impacts due to designation of critical habitat for the mussels. Related consultations and project modification costs are summarized in Exhibit ES-2. Federal agencies that may consult with the Service concerning these activities include the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Federal Highway Administration (through State Departments of Transportation (DOT)), Farm Service Agency (FSA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).
• Road and bridge construction or maintenance. State DOTs and the USACE are expected to engage in 141 to 151 informal and 17 formal section 7 consultations regarding road/bridge construction and maintenance projects at a total cost of approximately $4.8 million to $10.1 million over the next ten years. Modifications to these projects may include such measures as increasing standards for erosion and sedimentation control, restricting in-stream construction, surveying for species, and relocating species for the duration of the project period. It is difficult to predict where these costs will occur throughout the designation. This analysis assumes that the third party (i.e., the local government) will absorb these increased costs.
• Hydropower. Operation of hydropower dams is anticipated to result in one informal and three formal consultations over the next ten years. Two of the formal consultations stem from the relicensing of hydro dams by FERC. One of these consultations is anticipated to bear project modification costs of approximately $484,000. The informal and remaining formal consultation will engage FERC and the USACE in discussion regarding the operation of a third hydropower dam. The total section 7 costs stemming from hydropower consultations may be up to $1.06 million over the next ten years.
• Water supply dams. Although it is unclear whether water supply dams will be permitted or constructed within the proposed critical habitat area within the next ten years, it is possible that the Service will consult formally on two proposals for such infrastructure. One of these dams was permitted through a past consultation. Designation of critical habitat within the dam footprint, however, is expected to result in reinitiation of this consultation. Costs for water supply dam consultations are anticipated to range from $515,000 to $546,000. Given the uncertainty concerning the level of project modification that may be recommended, both pertaining to critical habitat and other factors, this analysis does not quantify broader regional impacts associated with these consultations.
• Utilities Construction/Maintenance. Construction or maintenance of in-stream pipelines, transmission lines and other utility infrastructure is anticipated to result in ten informal and four formal consultations with the USACE and TVA, at a total cost of $358,000 to $3.2 million over the next ten years. This cost estimate is driven by the potential project modifications associated with USACE utility maintenance projects including potential costs for species surveys, mussel relocation, and habitat restoration.
• Activities in National Forests. This analysis anticipates that land disturbance activities in national forests, such as silviculture, or trail construction and maintenance, may result in 63 informal and four formal consultations over the next ten years. As consultations associated with such activities are not expected to result in project modifications, the total estimated costs of these consultations range from $238,000 to $965,000.
• Agriculture or Ranching-Related Activities. Agricultural or ranching activities that involve a Federal nexus will result in 35 to 38 informal and 6 formal consultations at a total cost of $239,000 to $748,000 over the next ten years.
• Water Quality Activities. EPA engages in section 7 consultation with the Service regarding water quality standards, to ensure that they are appropriately protective of endangered and threatened species. Specifically, this analysis anticipates 17 to 29 informal consultations and 20 formal consultations with the EPA related to water quality activities, at a total cost of $485,000 to $1,250,000 over the next ten years. Further, the Service may provide technical assistance for review of NPDES permits 400 to 460 times over the next ten years, adding $260,000 to $713,000 in administrative costs.
• Recreation and Conservation Activities. Recreation and conservation activities on private land may involve a Federal nexus through Federal funding from the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program or other beneficial activities, including funding of fish stocking programs. The USACE also anticipated accelerating it’s habitat restoration programs over the next ten years. This analysis accordingly anticipates 145 to 152 informal and one formal consultation with respect to conservation projects at a total cost of $506,000 to $2,500,000 over the next ten years. Although these activities are federally operated and therefore a cost of critical habitat due to the requirements of section 7, such activities are intended to be beneficial to the species and habitat in the long run.
• Dredging. The USACE anticipates engaging in eight formal and six informal consultations regarding dredging activities over the next ten years. Two of the formal consultations are associated with dredging of the Federal navigation channel on the Alabama River. One of these consultations may bear project modification costs of up to $8,245,000 dependant upon whether the Service will recommend purchase of upland disposal sites for dredge material. Due to potentially harmful geomorphic effects to mussels, however, the Service has stated that it does not intend to recommend upland disposal of dredge material in the Alabama River within the foreseeable future. In this case, project modification costs for dredging would be reduced by $8 million, and the nominal high-end cost of the proposed designation would be reduced to $25.3 million, a 24 percent reduction in total costs.
14. The mussel critical habitat area is characterized by mostly private rural, and some suburban, lands. Agriculture and ranching are common land uses in the region. Based on extensive review of the consultation history and interviews with Federal and State agencies, however, economic impacts to farmers and ranchers are anticipated to be minimal. Agricultural and ranching-related consultations primarily involve Federal assistance for conservation programs (i.e., the Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and are unlikely to result in project modifications. Similarly, although coal mining and silviculture occur within the designation, these activities are already expected to follow best management practices (BMPs) required by the Action agencies, independent of section 7. Additionally, in the geographic region considered in this analysis, these activities lack a Federal nexus. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not anticipated to impact these activities.
Exhibit ES-2
ESTIMATED TOTAL ECONOMIC COSTS OF ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES (ten years) |
|||||||
Activity |
No. of Consultations |
Costs (thousands) |
Approximate % of Total Cost |
||||
Informal |
Formal |
Informal Consultation |
Formal Consultation |
Project Modifications |
Total Costs |
||
Road and bridge construction/ maintenance |
141 - 151 |
17 |
$411 - $2,100 |
$238 - $388 |
$4,190 - $7,650 |
$4,800 - $10,100 |
30 |
Hydropower facilities |
1 |
3 |
$2.9 - $13.9 |
$43.4 - $75.4 |
$968 |
$1,010 - $1,060 |
3 |
Water supply dams |
0 |
2 |
$0 |
$31.2 - $61.6 |
$484 |
$515 - $546 |
2 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
10 |
4 |
$34.6 - $153 |
$62.4 - $123 |
$262 - $2,940 |
$359 - $3,220 |
10 |
Forest Service activities |
63 |
4 |
$183 - $876 |
$55.6 - $89.2 |
$0 |
$238 - $965 |
3 |
Agriculture and ranching |
35 - 38 |
6 |
$104 - $535 |
$90.2 - $168 |
$44.9 |
$239 - $748 |
2 |
Water Quality |
17 - 29 |
20 |
$50 - $405 |
$278 - $446 |
$127 - $395 |
$455 - $1,250 |
4 |
Conservation and Recreation |
145 - 152 |
1 |
$468 - $2,228 |
$15.6 - $30.8 |
$21.8 - $245 |
$506 - $2,500 |
8 |
Dredging |
6 |
8 |
$21.6 - $93.6 |
$125 - $246 |
$305 - $11,400 |
$452 - $11,800 |
35 |
Technical Assistance |
|
$409 - $1,100 |
3 |
||||
TOTAL |
418 - 450 |
65 |
$1,280 - $6,410 |
$939 - $1,630 |
$6,400 - $24,200 |
$9,030 - $33,300 |
100 |
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Percentages are calculated based on high-end estimate of cost range. Technical assistance efforts include private landowner assistance and interactions with non-Federal entities regarding designation of critical habitat, for example, Service review of state-issued NPDES permits. Source: Based on past consultation records and conversations with Federal agencies potentially affected by the proposed critical habitat designation. |
|||||||
Costs By Unit
15. Exhibit ES-3 provides a per unit summary of the consultation, technical assistance, and project modification costs likely to be associated with the proposed critical habitat over a ten year period. A more detailed exhibit of unit costs by activity, unit, type of entity, and category is provided in Appendix C of this report. Note that insufficient information currently exists to associate all costs with explicit units. In instances where certain costs cannot be associated with specific units, the exhibit aggregates these costs across the relevant set of units (e.g., costs attributable jointly to units 18, 19, 20, and 22), or states (e.g., certain costs projected to be incurred across all units in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, or Tennessee). The check marks in the exhibit indicate what category of cost (i.e., administrative consultation costs, project modifications, or technical assistance) is forecast to be incurred in each unit.
Exhibit ES-3
SUMMARY OF SECTION 7 AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COSTS FOR THE MUSSELS (over ten years) |
||||
Unit |
Consultations |
Project Modifications
|
Technical Assistance |
Estimated Range of Total Costs |
Allocated Costs |
||||
1 |
• |
• |
• |
$207,000 to $1,280,000 |
2 |
• |
• |
• |
$291,000 to $1,640,000 |
3 |
• |
|
• |
$119,000 to $295,000 |
4 |
• |
• |
|
$153,000 to $785,000 |
5 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
6 |
• |
|
|
$17,300 to $76,300 |
7 |
• |
• |
|
$42,700 to $337,000 |
8 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
9 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
10 |
• |
|
|
$76,200 to $318,000 |
11 |
• |
• |
|
$510,000 to $560,000 |
12 |
• |
• |
|
$63,300 to $350,000 |
13 |
• |
• |
|
$91,600 to $625,000 |
14 |
• |
• |
|
$269,000 to $10,200,000 |
15 |
• |
|
|
$20,200 to $90,200 |
16 |
• |
• |
• |
$2,240,000 to $2,800,000 |
17 |
• |
|
• |
$66,800 to $411,000 |
18 |
• |
• |
|
$610,000 to $1,600,000 |
19 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
20 |
• |
• |
|
$35,500 to $306,000 |
21 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
22 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
23 |
• |
• |
|
$35,500 to $306,000 |
24 |
• |
|
|
$10,100 to $45,100 |
25 |
• |
• |
• |
$1,870,000 to $3,200,000 |
26 |
• |
|
|
$24,000 to $67,400 |
Unallocated Costs |
||||
Units 18, 19, 20, 22 |
• |
|
|
$88,700 to $337,000 |
AL Units |
• |
• |
• |
$1,860,000 to $6,500,000 |
MS Units |
• |
|
• |
$57,500 to $277,000 |
GA Units |
• |
|
• |
$50,600 to $283,000 |
TN Units |
• |
|
|
$ 11,600 to $97,300 |
Multiple Units |
• |
• |
|
$147,000 to $217,000 |
TOTAL SECTION 7 COSTS (ALL UNITS) |
$9,030,000 to $33,300,000 |
|||
Notes: “Allocated Costs” are associated with projects anticipated to occur within specific units where as “Unallocated Costs” are anticipated to occur with a subset of units, though specific location is not available. Costs anticipated within “Multiple Units” refer to anticipated costs that may occur anywhere within the proposed designation. These estimates include all section 7 costs, including those associated with the species listing and designation of critical habitat for the mussels. Technical assistance efforts include private landowner assistance and interactions with non-Federal entities regarding designation of critical habitat, for example, Service review of state-issued NPDES permits. Totals are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. A more detailed outline of these section 7 costs is provided in Appendix C. |
||||
Benefits Associated with the Designation
16. Various categories of benefit may derive from the listing of the mussels and the designation of critical habitat. For example, survival and recovery of the species may lead to enhanced existence values. In addition, protection of mussel habitat may produce benefits such as preservation of habitat suitable for recreational uses, improved water quality, and habitat improvement for other species.
17. Insufficient information exists to quantify the benefits of habitat protection. Several studies published in the economics literature, however, have attempted to estimate the public’s willingness to pay for the designation of critical habitat for endangered species. While these studies do not predict the “willingness to pay” individuals would have for the protections afforded to the mussels’ habitat through critical habitat designation, they support the notion that preservation of mussel habitat may generate substantial benefits to the public.
Key Uncertainties
18. Exhibit ES-4 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction of bias introduced by the assumptions. In addition, issues regarding allocation of costs may change. For example, certain consultations are anticipated to occur within a range of units (i.e., critical habitat units within Alabama), but cannot be accurately applied to any one specific unit. This caveat does not have an effect on the total costs anticipated from the designation, but rather the allocation of that cost across units.
Exhibit ES-4
CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |
|
Key Assumption |
Effect on Cost Estimate |
Historic administrative consultation costs and specific project modifications are good predictors of future consultation costs. |
+/- |
The presence of other species (i.e., the tulotoma snail, etc.) has no effect upon the number of consultations or project modifications and, thus, all related costs are attributed to the mussels designation. |
+ |
Project modification costs resulting from the relicensing of Weiss dam in Alabama (Unit 18), and the operations at Carters Reregulation dam in Georgia (Unit 25) are estimated using average costs incurred by power utilities nationwide to address wildlife concerns during the relicensing process. |
+/- |
Project modification costs associated with construction of the Tom Bevill water supply dam (Unit 11) may be approximated using project modification costs for the relicensing of the hydropower dams as both activities involve the similar impacts of concern (i.e., minimum flows, water quality, etc.). |
+/- |
Action agency Best Management Practices are baseline protections that are practiced consistently and as such, do not introduce additional costs to section 7 consultations. |
- |
- : This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs. +/- : This assumption has an unknown effect on estimates. |
|
19. The above caveats describe factors that introduce uncertainty into the results of this analysis. The Service therefore solicits from the public further information on any of the issues presented above. Additionally, information pertaining to the following questions is requested.
• Are data available to develop more accurate estimates of the costs of project modifications related to the relicensing of Weiss dam and operations at Carters Reregulation Dam(See Sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.2 for further detail concerning this issue)?
• Are data available to discern the likelihood that the proposed water supply dams will be constructed within critical habitat (see Sections 3.2.3 and 4.2.3 for additional detail concerning these dams)? Further, is information available regarding the costs of potential project modifications for construction of these dams?
• Are data available on additional land use practices, or current or planned activities in proposed critical habitat areas, that are not specifically or adequately addressed in this analysis?
• Are data available detailing additional specific benefits of the species or habitat that may be incorporated qualitatively or quantitatively into the discussion of benefits?
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND SECTION 1
20. On March 26, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposed to designate 26 river and stream segments (units), totaling approximately 1,760 kilometers (km) (1,093 miles (mi)) as critical habitat for 11 mussels in the Mobile River basin in the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze potential economic impacts that may result from the proposed critical habitat designation. This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), under contract to the Service’s Division of Economics, and was delivered on June 23, 2003.
21. Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (the Act) requires the Service to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
22. Under the listing of a species, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Service defines jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species.
1.1 Description of Species and Habitat
23. The 11 mussels are in the family Unionidae, and are typically found
embedded in the bottom of rivers and streams within the Mobile River Basin.
These species siphon water into their shells and across their gills, which are
specialized for respiration and food collection. Mussel larvae (glochidia) require a
parasitic stage on the fins, gills, or skin of host fish species in order to change into
juvenile mussels.
The following list provides the common and scientific names of
the 11 mussels.
• Fine-lined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis)
• Orange-nacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis)
• Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus)
• Coosa moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus)
• Ovate clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum)
• Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum)
• Dark pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum)
• Southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum)
• Triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii)
• Upland combshell (Epioblasma metastriata)
• Southern acornshell (Epioblasma othcaloogensis)
24. Historically, the mussels were widespread and abundant throughout the Mobile River Basin. Available suitable habitat for the these species, however, has been substantially reduced. Three of the species were listed as threatened, and eight as endangered under the Act on March 17, 1993. The species now primarily exist in isolated populations due to impacts from habitat degradation and modification from dams, dredging, mining, pollution, and introduced predaceous fishes. Habitat fragmentation and modification resulting from siltation, reduced water quality, tributary impoundment, stream channelization, and changes in stream hydrology continue to threaten the species.
25. In determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, the Service must focus on those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management consideration or protection. These essential features are referred to as the species’ primary constituent elements (PCEs). The following are the PCEs that the Service has identified as essential to the conservation of the 11 mussels.
• Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks;
• A flow regime (i.e., the magnitude, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary for normal behavior, growth, and survival of all life stages of mussels and their fish hosts in the river environment;
• Water quality, including temperature, pH, hardness, turbidity, oxygen content, and other chemical characteristics, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
• Sand, gravel, and/or cobble substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment, low amounts of attached filamentous algae, and other physical and chemical characteristics necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages;
• Fish hosts with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas; and
• Few or no competitive nonnative species present.
The Service considers these PCEs to facilitate delineation of potential critical habitat units for the mussels. One or more of the primary constituent elements must exist in the proposed areas to ensure a potential for the species to exist within each portion of the designation.
1.2 Proposed Critical Habitat
26. The Service has proposed to designate 26 stream and river segments (units), representing approximately 1,760 kms (1,093 mi) of rivers and streams in the States of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee as critical habitat for the 11 mussels. The proposed designation includes portions of the Tombigbee River drainage in Mississippi and Alabama; Black Warrior River drainage in Alabama; Alabama River drainage in Alabama; Tallapoosa River drainage in Alabama and Georgia; and Coosa River drainage in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
27. Lands proposed as critical habitat are under Federal, State, local government, and private ownership. Approximately 897 miles (1,440 km), or 82 percent of the proposed critical habitat is bordered by privately-owned lands. The critical habitat units run through portions of 31 counties in the four states.
28. Within each unit, the Service proposes to designate the stream and river channels within the ordinary high water line. Background information on each critical habitat unit is provided in Exhibit 1-1, followed by further detailed information describing the units.
Exhibit 1-1 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR ELEVEN MOBILE RIVER BASIN MUSSELS: DESCRIPTIONS OF UNITS |
|||||
Unit |
Drainage and Region |
River Miles |
Counties |
Species for which Unit is Critical Habitat |
Unit Landscape |
|
Upper Tombigbee River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
1 |
East Fork Tombigbee River |
16 |
Monroe and Itawamba Counties, MS |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Mostly private, rural land. Approx. 25% of stream miles runs through federally-owned Canal Section Wildlife Management Area. Silviculture and agriculture present. |
2 |
Bull Mountain Creek |
21 |
Itawamba County, MS |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Entirely private, rural land. Silviculture present in immediate flood plain. |
3 |
Buttahatchee River and tributary |
68 |
Monroe and Lowndes Counties, MS; Lamar County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Private, rural land. |
4 |
Luxapalila Creek and tributary |
18 |
Columbus and Lowndes Counties, MS; Lamar County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Privately-owned. High human population density downstream. Rural, agricultural lands upstream. Power plants and mining for sand/gravel present. |
5 |
Coalfire Creek |
20 |
Pickens County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Privately-owned. 90% forest land. |
6 |
Lubbub Creek |
19 |
Pickens County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Transportation corridor. Several small communities, scattered agricultural lands. |
7 |
Sipsey River |
56 |
Green, Pickens, and Tuscaloosa Counties, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Privately-owned, except approx. 18% of stream miles, which runs through federally-owned Sipsey River Natural Area. Remote, sparsely populated wetlands. Limited commercial development. |
8 |
Trussels Creek |
13 |
Greene County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Private, remote forest lands. Portion runs through small community. |
9 |
Sucarnoochee River |
56 |
Sumter County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket,ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Remote, sparsely populated. Downstream from several communities. |
|
Black Warrior River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
10 |
Sipsey Fork Drainage |
91 |
Winston and Lawrence Counties, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket, dark pigtoe, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell |
Approx. 90% of unit is part of federally-owned William B. Bankhead National Forest. Agricultural lands located upstream. |
11 |
North River and tributary |
29 |
Tuscaloosa and Fayette Counties, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket, dark pigtoe, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell |
Mostly sparsely populated, privately-owned lands. Populated community downstream. Impoundment proposed upstream. |
12 |
Locust Fork and tributary |
63 |
Jefferson and Blount Counties, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket, dark pigtoe, ovate clubshell, triangular kidneyshell, upland combshell |
Subject to urbanization and industrialization in southern portion. Intensive agricultural lands and poultry farms in northern portion. |
|
Cahaba River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
13 |
Cahaba River and tributary |
77 |
Bibb and Jefferson Counties, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, fine-lined pocketbook, orange-nacre mucket, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Highly urbanized with significant residential and commercial development pressure. Small portions lie within federally-owned Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge and state-owned Cahaba River Wildlife Management Area. Listed on 303D as impaired waters due to sediment and nutrient overload. Portions designated as Outstanding Alabama Waters. |
|
Alabama River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
14 |
Alabama River |
45 |
Dallas and Lowndes Counties, AL |
orange-nacre mucket, southern clubshell |
Privately-owned. Runs through one community. Moderate recreational navigation and some hydro power damming present. |
15 |
Bogue Chitto Creek |
32 |
Dallas County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, orange-nacre mucket, southern clubshell |
Privately-owned, rural pasture and agricultural land with some forest land. |
|
Tallapoosa River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
16 |
Tallapoosa River and tributary |
100 |
Cleburne County, Alabama; Paulding County, GA |
fine-lined pocketbook |
Approx. 70% forest land with a few scattered communities. Reservoir proposed for Beech Creek., including extensive withdrawal from the Tallapoosa River. |
17 |
Uphapee/Choctafaula/Chewacla Creeks |
46 |
Macon and Lee Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell |
Approx. 31% lies within federally-owned Tuskegee National Forest. Subject to suburbanization. Two cities downstream. Limestone quarries and coal mining present. Turf farms border the designation. |
|
Coosa River Drainage |
|
|
|
|
18 |
Coosa River (Old River Channel) and tributary |
48 |
Cherokee and Cleburne Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Runs through medium-sized town, otherwise forest lands. Approx. 19% of stream miles runs through federally-owned Talladega National Forest. Agriculture downstream. Hydro power dam present on river. |
19 |
Hatchet Creek |
41 |
Coosa and Clay Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Mostly forest lands. Approx. 17% lies within Talladega National Forest. Designated as Outstanding Alabama Waters. Habitat for endangered Tulotoma snail. |
20 |
Shoal Creek |
16 |
Calhoun and Cleburne Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell |
Entirely within Talladega National Forest. Isolated forest land with some recreational use (horse trails and off road vehicle access). |
21 |
Kelly Creek and tributary |
21 |
St. Claire and Shelby Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Entirely privately-owned, forest land. Close proximity to major city. Subject to suburbanization. Turf farms border the southern portion of designation. Habitat for endangered Tulotoma snail. |
22 |
Cheaha Creek |
17 |
Talladega and Clay Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell |
Approx. 41% runs through Talladega National Forest. Major transportation corridor, croplands, fallow pasture in southern portion. Habitat for endangered Tulotoma snail. |
23 |
Yellowleaf Creek and tributary |
24 |
Shelby County, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell |
In vicinity of major city. Subject to modernization. Impounded water and one power plant present. Habitat for endangered Tulotoma snail. |
24 |
Big Canoe Creek |
18 |
St. Claire and Etowah Counties, AL |
fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Rural, privately-owned lands with some small communities. |
25 |
Oostanaula River/Coosawattee River/ Conasauga River/ Holly Creek |
128 |
Floyd, Murray and Gordon Counties, GA; Bradley and Polk Counties, TN |
Alabama moccasinshell, fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Approx. 9% runs through federally-owned Chattanoochee National Forest (GA)/ Cherokee National Forest (TN). Mostly agricultural land. Subject to some development pressure. |
26 |
Lower Coosa River |
8 |
Elmore County, AL |
Alabama moccasinshell, fine-lined pocketbook, Coosa moccasinshell, ovate clubshell, southern clubshell, southern pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, southern acornshell, upland combshell |
Unoccupied habitat, but among the species’ historical ranges. Considered an appropriate area for reintroduction. Also habitat for endangered Tulotoma snail. |
Source: Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin, March 26, 2003 (68 FR 14752). |
|||||
1.3 Framework and Methodology
29. The primary purpose of this analysis is to estimate the economic impact that
will result from the designation of critical habitat for the mussels.
This information
is intended to assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits
of excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including
those areas in the designation.
In addition, this information allows the Service to
address the requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13211, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
30. This chapter provides the framework for this analysis. First, it defines the economic effects considered in the analysis. Second, it establishes the baseline against which these effects are measured. Third, it describes the measurement of direct compliance costs, which include costs associated with, and generated as a result of, section 7 consultations. Fourth, it identifies potential indirect economic effects of the rule resulting from (1) compliance with other parts of the Act potentially triggered by critical habitat, (2) compliance with other laws, and (3) time delays and regulatory uncertainty. Fifth, it discusses the need for an economic assessment of the benefits of critical habitat designation. Finally, the section concludes by discussing the time frame for the analysis and the general steps followed in the analysis.
1.3.1 Types of Economic Effects Considered
31. This economic analysis considers both the economic efficiency and distributional effects that may result from the designation. In the case of critical habitat designation, economic efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources required to comply with the Act. For example, if activities on private land are limited as a result of a designation, and thus the market value of the land reduced, this reduction in value represents one measure of opportunity cost or change in economic efficiency. Similarly, the costs incurred by a Federal Action agency to consult with the Service under section 7 represent opportunity costs of the designation.
32. This analysis also addresses how the impacts of the designation are distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional economic impacts of the designation and the potential effects of the designation on small entities, the energy industry, or governments. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector.
33. For example, while the designation may have a relatively small impact when measured in terms of changes in economic efficiency, individuals employed in a particular sector of the economy in the geographic area of the designation may experience relatively greater effects. The difference between economic efficiency effects and distributional effects, as well as their application in this analysis, are discussed in greater detail below.
Efficiency Effects
34. At the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and in
compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” Federal
agencies measure changes in economic efficiency in order to understand how
society, as a whole, will be affected by a regulatory action.
In the context of this
regulatory action, these efficiency effects represent the opportunity cost of
resources used or benefits foregone by society as a result of critical habitat
designation. Economists generally characterize opportunity costs in terms of
changes in producer and consumer surpluses in affected markets.
35. In some instances, compliance costs may provide a reasonable approximation for the efficiency effects associated with a regulatory action. For example, a landowner or manager may need to enter into a consultation with the Service to ensure that a particular activity will not adversely modify critical habitat. The effort required for the consultation represents an economic opportunity cost, because the landowner or manager’s time and effort would have been spent in an alternative activity had the parcel not been included in the designation. When compliance activity is not expected to significantly affect markets -- that is, not result in a shift in the quantity of a good or service provided at a given price, or in the quantity of a good or service demanded given a change in price -- the measurement of compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of the change in economic efficiency.
36. Where a designation is expected to significantly impact a market, it may be necessary to estimate changes in producer and consumer surpluses. For example, a designation that precludes the development of large areas of land may shift the price and quantity of housing supplied in a region. In this case, changes in economic efficiency can be measured by considering changes in producer and consumer surplus in the real estate market.
37. This analysis begins by measuring reasonably foreseeable compliance costs resulting from the designation. As noted above, in some cases, compliance costs can provide a reasonable estimate of changes in economic efficiency. However, if the designation is expected to significantly impact markets, the analysis will consider potential changes in consumer and/or producer surplus in affected markets.
Distributional and Regional Economic Effects
38. Measurements of changes in economic efficiency focus on the net impact of
the regulation, without consideration for how certain economic sectors or groups of
people are affected. Thus, a discussion of efficiency effects alone may miss
important distributional considerations concerning groups that may be
disproportionately affected. OMB encourages Federal agencies to consider
distributional effects separately from efficiency effects.
This analysis considers
several types of distributional effects, including impacts on small entities; impacts
on energy supply distribution and use; impacts on governments; and regional
economic impacts. It is important to note that these are fundamentally different
measures of economic impact than efficiency effects, and thus cannot be added to
or compared with estimates of changes in economic efficiency.
Impacts on Small Entities, Energy Supply, Distribution and Use, and Governments
39. This analysis considers how small entities, including small businesses,
organizations, and governments, as defined by the RFA, might be affected by
critical habitat designation.
In addition, in response to Executive Order 13211
“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,” this analysis considers the impacts of critical habitat on the
energy industry and its customers.
Finally, in accordance with UMRA, this
analysis considers the effects of the regulatory action on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.
Regional Economic Effects
40. Regional economic impact analysis provides an assessment of the potential localized effects of critical habitat designation. Specifically, regional economic impact analysis produces a quantitative estimate of the potential magnitude of the initial change in the regional economy resulting from a regulatory action. Regional economic impacts are commonly measured using regional input/output models. These models rely on multipliers that mathematically represent the relationship between a change in one sector of the economy (e.g., hydroelectric power generation) and the effect of that change on economic output, income, or employment in other local industries (e.g., manufacturers relying on the electricity generated). These economic data provide a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of shifts of jobs and revenues in the local economy.
41. The use of regional input/output models in an analysis of the impacts of critical habitat can overstate the long-term impacts of a regulatory change. Most importantly, these models provide a static view of the economy of a region. That is, they measure the initial impact of a regulatory change on an economy but do not consider long-term adjustments that the economy will make in response to this change. For example, these models provide estimates of the number of jobs lost as a result of a regulatory change, but do not consider re-employment of these individuals over time. In addition, the flow of goods and services across the regional boundaries defined in the model may change as a result of the designation, compensating for a potential decrease in economic activity within the region.
42. Despite these and other limitations, in certain circumstances regional economic impact analysis may provide useful information about the scale and scope of localized impacts. It is important to remember that measures of regional economic effects generally reflect shifts in resource use rather than efficiency losses. These types of distributional effects, therefore, should be reported separately from efficiency effects (i.e., not summed). In addition, measures of regional economic impact cannot be compared with estimates of efficiency effects.
1.3.2 Defining the Baseline
43. OMB guidelines for conducting economic analysis of environmental
regulation direct Federal agencies to measure the costs of a regulatory action
against a baseline.
In its guidance, OMB states, the "baseline should be the best
assessment of the way the world would look absent the proposed action" (i.e.,
absent the designation of critical habitat). In other words, the baseline includes the
currently existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on landowners
and managers potentially affected by the designation of critical habitat. The
baseline burden may include, for example:
• Local zoning laws;
• State natural resource laws;
• Enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by other State and Federal agencies;
• Federal, State, and local protections already in place in the same
geographic area for other (Federal and State) listed species;
and/or
• Statutory protections provided for the species by the Act that exist in the absence of designated critical habitat.
Existing baseline laws, regulations, and policies are described in greater detail in Section 2 and Appendix A of this analysis.
44. This analysis describes impacts that are expected to occur above and beyond the baseline. In other words, it measures the costs of compliance with the Act that would not occur in the absence of the currently proposed critical habitat. Importantly, economic impacts associated with section 9 and 10 of the Act, with a few exceptions, are considered to be part of the regulatory baseline and thus are not addressed in this report. These costs are considered to be part of the baseline because they remain unaffected by the designation of critical habitat.
1.3.3 Direct Compliance Costs Associated With Section 7 of the Act
45. The measurement of direct compliance costs focuses on the implementation of section 7 of the Act. This section requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The administrative costs of these consultations, along with the costs of project modifications resulting from these consultations, represent the direct compliance costs of designating critical habitat.
46. This analysis does not differentiate between consultations that result from
the listing of the species (i.e., the jeopardy standard) and consultations that result
from the presence of critical habitat (i.e., the adverse modification standard).
Consultations resulting from the listing of the species, or project modifications
meant specifically to protect the species as opposed to its habitat, may occur even
in the absence of critical habitat. However, in 2001, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals instructed the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic
impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those impacts are
attributable co-extensively to other causes.
Given the similarity in regulatory
definitions between the terms “jeopardy” and “adverse modification,” in practice it
can be difficult to pre-determine the standard that drives a section 7 consultation.
Consequently, in an effort to ensure that this economic analysis complies with the
instructions of the 10th Circuit as well as to ensure that no costs of the proposed
designation are omitted, the potential effects associated with all section 7 impacts
in or near proposed critical habitat are fully considered. In doing so, the analysis
ensures that any critical habitat impacts that are co-extensive with the listing of the
species are not overlooked. As a result, this analysis likely overstates the
regulatory effects under section 7 attributable to the proposed designation of critical
habitat.
1.3.4 Indirect Costs
47. The designation may, under certain circumstances, affect actions that do not have a Federal nexus or are otherwise not subject to the provisions of section 7 under the Act. The potential exists for several types of such indirect effects: three examples are discussed in this section. First, some landowners may voluntarily elect to complete a habitat conservation plan (HCP) in response to having their land designated as critical habitat. Second, some State laws may require landowners and managers to consider the effects of their actions on sensitive species and habitat. Thus, designation of critical habitat could trigger additional regulatory burden due to new information provided by the designation. Third, the consultation process may result in time delays for upcoming or ongoing projects, and the designation may foster regulatory uncertainty for prospective projects. If such additional efforts would not have occurred in the absence of critical habitat (i.e., “but for” critical habitat), then they are considered by this analysis to be an impact of the designation. The three most common categories of indirect effects are discussed further below.
Creation of Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
48. Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, a non-Federal entity (i.e., a landowner
or local government) may develop an HCP for an endangered animal species in
order to meet the conditions for issuance of an incidental take permit in connection
with the development and management of a property.
The HCP intends to
counterbalance potential harmful effects that a proposed activity may have on a
species, while allowing the otherwise lawful activity to proceed. As such, the
purpose of the habitat conservation planning process is to ensure that the effects
of incidental take are adequately minimized and mitigated. Thus, HCPs are
developed to ensure compliance with section 9 of the Act and to meet the
requirements of section 10 of the Act. HCPs are not necessarily precipitated by a
critical habitat designation.
49. However, a connection may exist between the creation of HCPs and the
costs these plans impose and the designation of critical habitat. The Service, being
a Federal entity, must formally consider whether an HCP will jeopardize a listed
species or adversely modify its designated critical habitat before approving the
plan. This review process may be a direct impact under section 7 of the Act.
However, in certain circumstances, the effort involved in creating the HCP and
associated conservation actions may also generate indirect effects associated with
the designation of critical habitat. For example, in one past instance, landowners
preemptively developed HCPs in an effort to avoid having their property designated
as critical habitat.
In this case, the effort involved in creating the HCP and
undertaking associated conservation actions were considered to be an effect of
designation
.
50. The following scenarios regarding HCP creation provide general guidance regarding the degree to which associated costs should be considered within the context of a critical habitat economic analysis:
• In cases in which an HCP existed prior to a proposed designation, the costs of developing the HCP and the added costs of management imposed by the HCP should not be considered in the analysis of the effects of the designation. These costs are appropriately considered to be part of the regulatory baseline, because their creation was driven by the listing of the species and the need to avoid take, which is prohibited under section 9 of the Act. However, in cases where designated critical habitat overlaps with completed HCPs, the economic analysis will need to consider the cost to the Service to re-consult on the plan’s impact to critical habitat and whether or not this process may result in additional conservation actions.
• In cases in which an HCP is proposed, or reasonably foreseeable
absent the designation of critical habitat, the administrative costs
associated with the required internal section 7 consultation should be
included in the economic analysis of total section 7 costs, because
the Service will need to consider the effects of the plan on designated
critical habitat. In addition, if as a result of the designation additional
project modifications will be recommended by the Service and
incorporated into the HCP in order to avoid adversely modifying
critical habitat, the costs of these project modifications should also be
included in the economic analysis of critical habitat.
• In cases in which development of one or more HCPs can be documented as being precipitated by critical habitat designation (i.e., to avoid designation or to reduce the costs of the designation), the costs of development of the HCP and the added costs of management imposed by the HCP should be included in the critical habitat economic analysis. In such cases the analysis should be presented with appropriate caveats as to the uncertainty regarding the extent to which the HCP would have existed absent critical habitat designation.
Other State and Local Laws
51. Under certain circumstances, the designation of critical habitat may provide new information to a community about the sensitive ecological nature of a geographic region, potentially triggering additional economic impacts under other State or local laws. In cases where these costs would not have been triggered “but for” the designation of critical habitat, they are included in this economic analysis.
52. For example, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that
lead agencies -- public agencies responsible for project approval -- consider the
environmental effects of proposed projects that are considered discretionary in
nature and not categorically or statutorily exempt. Among other effects, the CEQA
statutes specifically require lead agencies to consider a project’s effects on rare or
endangered plant and animal communities. To approve qualifying projects, lead
agencies must require applicants, who are not “categorically exempt,” to mitigate
effects to less than significant levels for projects that are not granted a “statement
of overriding considerations.”
53. In some instances, the designation of critical habitat can have an indirect effect on CEQA- related requirements. This is most likely to occur in areas where the Federal designation provides clearer information on the importance of particular areas as habitat for a listed species. In addition, applicants who were “categorically exempt” from preparing an Environmental Impact Report under CEQA may no longer be exempt once critical habitat is designated. In cases where the designation triggers the CEQA significance test or results in a reduction of categorically exempt activities, associated costs are considered to be an indirect effect of the designation.
54. In these and other cases in which costs are incurred by landowners and managers above and beyond what would be required under State or local law and policy in the absence of the designation, these costs are considered to be an indirect effect of the designation. As such, these economic effects are reported in the analysis.
Time Delays and Regulatory Uncertainty
55. In addition to the indirect effects of compliance with other laws triggered by the designation, project proponents, land managers and landowners may face additional indirect impacts. These can include costs due to project delays associated with the consultation process or compliance with other regulations, or, in the case of land location within or adjacent to the designation, loss in property values due to regulatory uncertainty, and loss (or gain) in property values resulting from public perceptions regarding the effects of critical habitat. These categories of potential effects are described in greater detail below.
Time Delays
56. Both public and private entities may experience incremental time delays for projects and other activities due to requirements associated with the section 7 consultation process and/or compliance with other laws triggered by the designation. The need to conduct a section 7 consultation will not necessarily delay a project, as often the consultation may be coordinated with the existing baseline regulatory approval process. However, depending on the schedule of the consultation, a project may experience additional delays, resulting in an unanticipated extension in the time needed to fully realize returns from the planned activity. To the extent that delays result from the designation, they are considered in the analysis. Specifically, the analysis considers costs associated with any incremental time delays associated with section 7 consultation or other requirements triggered by the designation above and beyond project delays resulting from baseline regulatory processes.
Regulatory Uncertainty
57. The Service conducts each section 7 consultation on a case-by-case basis
and issues a Biological Opinion on formal consultations based on species-specific
and site-specific information. As a result, government agencies and affiliated
private parties who need to consult with the Service under section 7 may face
uncertainty concerning whether project modifications will be recommended by the
Service and what the nature of these modifications will be. This uncertainty may
diminish as consultations are completed and additional information becomes
available on the effects of critical habitat on specific activities. However, a degree
of regulatory uncertainty may persist. In some cases, this uncertainty may be
incorporated by the project proponent into the costs of completing a proposed
activity. For example, mining companies uncertain about potential restrictions to
their activities in designated areas of critical habitat may lease mining rights at a
reduced rate. Additionally, landowners may incur costs determining whether their
property constitutes critical habitat.
They may retain outside experts or legal
counsel to better understand their responsibilities with regard to critical habitat.
Where appropriate, the analysis considers the potential costs associated with
regulatory uncertainty.
Stigma
58. In some cases, the public may perceive that critical habitat designation may result in incremental changes to private property values, above and beyond those associated with anticipated project modifications and regulatory uncertainty described above. That is, the public may perceive that, all else being equal, a property that is designated as critical habitat will have lower market value than an identical property that is not within the boundaries of critical habitat. Public attitudes about the limits and costs that critical habitat may impose can cause real economic effects to the owners of property, regardless of whether such limits are actually imposed.
59. Conversely, the direction of property value effects resulting from critical habitat may be positive rather than negative. For example, property owners may believe that critical habitat designation will increase property values, if they believe that such designation will slow sprawling development in a given community (i.e., protect the rural character of an area) or increase water quality of neighborhood streams and rivers. This perception alone may result in real increases in land values, even in cases where the economic analysis predicts no additional requirements on activities taking place in the area. In either case, as the public becomes aware of the true regulatory burden imposed by critical habitat, the impact of the designation on property markets should decrease. This analysis considers the implications of public perceptions related to critical habitat on private property values within the proposed designation.
1.3.5 Benefits
60. The published economics literature has documented that real social welfare benefits can result from the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Such benefits have also been ascribed to preservation of open space and biodiversity, both of which are associated with species conservation. Likewise, regional economies and communities can benefit from the preservation of healthy populations of endangered and threatened species, and the habitat on which these species depend.
61. In Executive Order 12866, OMB directs Federal agencies to provide an
assessment of costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory actions.
However, in
its guidance for implementing Executive Order 12866, OMB acknowledges that
often, it may not be feasible to monetize, or even quantify, the benefits of
environmental regulations.
Where benefits cannot be quantified, OMB directs
agencies to describe the benefits of a proposed regulation qualitatively. This report
provides insight into the potential economic benefits of critical habitat designation
based on information obtained in the course of developing the economic analysis.
It is not intended to provide a complete analysis of all of the benefits that could
result from the designation. Given these limitations, the Service believes that the
benefits of critical habitat designation are best expressed in biological terms that can
be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
1.3.6 Analytic Time Frame
62. The analysis examines activities taking place both within and adjacent to the proposed designation. It estimates impacts based on activities that are “reasonably foreseeable," including, but not limited to, activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Accordingly, the analysis bases estimates on activities that are likely to occur within a ten year time frame, beginning on the day that the current proposed rule becomes available to the public. The ten-year time frame was chosen for the analysis because, as the time horizon for an economic analysis is expanded, the assumptions on which the projected numbers of projects are based become increasingly speculative. As a result, it is difficult to predict not only the numbers of projects, but also the cost estimates for the associated consultations, beyond a ten-year window. Consequently, any attempt to extend the economic analysis beyond the ten-year time window would be speculative.
1.3.7 General Analytic Steps
63. This report relies on a sequential methodology and focuses on distilling the salient and relevant aspects of potential economic impacts of the proposed designation. The steps followed in this analysis consist of:
• Describing current and projected economic activity within and around the proposed critical habitat area;
• Identifying whether such activities are likely to involve a Federal nexus;
• For activities with a Federal nexus, evaluating the likelihood that these activities will require consultations under section 7 of the Act and, in turn, result in any modifications to projects.
• Estimating the direct costs of expected section 7 consultations, project modifications and other economic impacts associated with the designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that current or future activities may require additional compliance with other Federal, State, and local laws as a result of new information provided by the proposed designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that projects will be delayed by the consultation process or other regulatory requirements triggered by the designation;
• Estimating the likelihood that economic activity will be affected by regulatory uncertainty, and/or property values affected;
• Estimating the indirect costs of the designation, as reflected in the cost of compliance with State and local laws, project delays, regulatory uncertainty, and effects on property values;
• Assessing the extent to which critical habitat designation will create costs for small businesses as a result of modifications or delays to projects;
• Assessing the effects of administrative costs and project modifications on the supply, distribution, and use of energy; and
• Determining the benefits that may be associated with the designation of critical habitat.
64. As noted above, this analysis considers both the efficiency effects and distributional effects that could result from this designation. It begins by considering direct compliance costs associated with the designation, as well as potential indirect effects, such as those effects associated with compliance with other Federal, State, and local laws, project delays, and impacts to property values. As necessary, regional economic impacts are described, as are impacts on significantly affected markets. Impacts on small entities and energy production and consumption are discussed separately, in Appendix B of this analysis. Potential benefits of critical habitat are discussed qualitatively in Section 5.
1.4 Information Sources
65. The primary sources of information for this report were communications with personnel from the Service, affected Federal agencies, State agencies and counties. Specifically, communication with personnel from the following entities.
• Departments of Transportation (DOT);
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS);
• Farm Services Agency (FSA);
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC);
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• The Nature Conservancy;
• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA);
• United States Forest Service (USFS);
• Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM);
• Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA);
• Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources;
• Alabama Forestry Commission;
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR);
• Mississippi Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP);
• and Columbus Air Force Base.
Publicly available data were also used to augment the analysis. Please refer to the reference section at the end of this document for a full reference list.
SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE AND BASELINE ELEMENTS SECTION 2
66. This section provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of areas proposed as critical habitat for the mussels. In addition, this section provides relevant information about regulations and requirements that exist in the baseline (i.e., the "without section 7" scenario).
2.1 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Area
67. This sub-section summarizes key economic and demographic information for the counties containing proposed critical habitat for the mussels, including population characteristics and general economic activity. County level data are presented to provide context for the discussion of potential economic impacts, and to illuminate trends that may influence these impacts. Although county level data may not precisely reflect the socioeconomic characteristics of the areas immediately surrounding the proposed critical habitat for the mussels, as the units comprise rivers and creeks that cross county barriers, these data provide context for the broader analysis.
2.1.1Population Characteristics
68. The critical habitat designation spans a diverse array of urban and rural areas within the Mobile River Basin. Exhibit 2-1 lists the population size, per capita income, and population density for all the counties that have critical habitat designated within their boundaries and for the states as a whole. With the exception of Jefferson County, Alabama which represents nearly 15 percent of the state’s population, each county containing critical habitat represents no more than four percent of its respective statewide populations. Of the 31 counties, 27 have a lower per capita income and 20 have fewer persons per square mile than their respective statewide averages. Although these measures vary considerably across states, the data suggest that overall the counties are less densely populated, and have a lower than average income per capita, than respective statewide averages.
Exhibit 2-1 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF COUNTIES CONTAINING CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MUSSELS (2000) |
||||||
State |
County |
Population* |
Percent of State |
Percent change 1990-2000 |
Per Capita Income |
Persons per square mile |
Alabama |
State Total |
4,450,000 |
100% |
10.1% |
$23,500 |
87.6 |
Bibb |
20,800 |
0.5% |
25.5% |
$18,000 |
33.4 |
|
Blount |
51,000 |
1.2% |
30.0% |
$20,100 |
79 |
|
Calhoun |
112,000 |
2.5% |
-3.3% |
$21,200 |
184.5 |
|
Cherokee |
24,000 |
0.5% |
22.7% |
$17,300 |
43.4 |
|
Cleburne14,49226.3659,74318,32025.28,383,915 |
14,100 |
0.3% |
10.9% |
$19,100 |
25.2 |
|
Coosa |
12,200 |
0.3% |
10.3% |
$17,600 |
18.7 |
|
Dallas |
46,400 |
1.0% |
-3.7% |
$20,000 |
47.3 |
|
Fayette |
18,500 |
0.4% |
3.0% |
$18,900 |
29.5 |
|
Greene |
9,970 |
0.2% |
-1.8% |
$16,000 |
15.4 |
|
Jefferson |
662,000 |
14.9% |
1.6% |
$29,900 |
595 |
|
Lamar |
15,900 |
0.4% |
1.2% |
$18,800 |
26.3 |
|
Lawrence |
34,800 |
0.8% |
10.4% |
$19,700 |
50.2 |
|
Macon |
24,100 |
0.5% |
-3.3% |
$15,700 |
39.5 |
|
Pickens |
21,000 |
0.5% |
1.2% |
$18,500 |
23.8 |
|
Shelby |
143,000 |
3.2% |
44.2% |
$32,000 |
180.3 |
|
St. Clair |
64,700 |
1.5% |
30.0% |
$21,100 |
102.2 |
|
Sumter |
14,800 |
0.3% |
-8.5% |
$17,200 |
16.4 |
|
Talladega |
80,300 |
1.8% |
8.4% |
$18,800 |
108.6 |
|
Tuscaloosa |
165,000 |
3.7% |
9.6% |
$23,700 |
124.5 |
|
Winston |
24,800 |
0.6% |
12.7% |
$18,600 |
40.4 |
|
Georgia |
State Total |
8,187,000 |
100% |
26.4% |
$27,800 |
141.4 |
Floyd |
90,600 |
1.1% |
11.5% |
$23,900 |
176.5 |
|
Gordon |
44,100 |
0.5% |
25.8% |
$21,800 |
124 |
|
Haralson |
25,700 |
0.3% |
17.0% |
$20,600 |
91.1 |
|
Murray |
36,500 |
0.5% |
39.6% |
$18,000 |
106 |
|
Paulding |
81,700 |
1.0% |
96.3% |
$17,500 |
260.6 |
|
Whitfield |
83,500 |
1.0% |
15.3% |
$27,600 |
288 |
|
Mississippi |
State Total |
2,840,000 |
100% |
10.5% |
$20,900 |
60.6 |
Itawamba |
44,100 |
1.6% |
13.8% |
$20,000 |
42.8 |
|
Lowndes |
61,600 |
2.2% |
3.8% |
$21,300 |
122.6 |
|
Monroe |
38,000 |
1.3% |
3.9% |
$18,300 |
49.7 |
|
Tennessee |
State Total |
5,690,000 |
100% |
16.7% |
$25,900 |
138 |
Bradley |
88,900 |
1.56% |
19.3% |
$24,000 |
267.6 |
|
Polk |
16,200 |
0.29% |
17.6% |
$18,700 |
36.9 |
|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and State & County QuickFacts, accessed at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd on December 10, 2002. * Census 2000 figures reflect 1999 estimates. |
||||||
2.1.2 Economic Activity
69. The predominant land-use activities occurring within the vicinity of the
mussel critical habitat are agriculture, water-related commerce and recreation, and
development-related activity. Understanding the extent of the various land-use
activities in areas in or around critical habitat underscores the activities most likely
to experience section 7 impacts. Exhibit 2-2 highlights the annual payroll for
various industries in the 31 counties containing critical habitat. In all four states,
manufacturing and services sectors maintain the largest payroll.
Exhibit 2-2 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WITHIN COUNTIES CONTAINING MUSSEL CRITICAL HABITAT: ANNUAL PAYROLL BY INDUSTRY (2000) |
||||
Industry |
Annual Payroll (Thousands) |
|||
Alabama |
Georgia |
Mississippi |
Tennessee |
|
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing |
$46,600 |
$4,630 |
$2,030 |
$714 |
Mining |
$200,000 |
n/a |
$2,750 |
$1,380 |
Utilities |
$36,200 |
n/a |
$7,660 |
n/a |
Construction |
$1,420,000 |
$146,000 |
$97,700 |
$45,500 |
Manufacturing |
$3,310,000 |
$1,500,000 |
$371,000 |
$413,000 |
Wholesale Trade |
$1,620,000 |
$250,000 |
$41,700 |
$63,800 |
Retail Trade |
$1,510,000 |
$360,000 |
$304,000 |
$90,400 |
Transportation and Warehousing |
$537,000 |
$116,000 |
$29,700 |
$18,900 |
Information |
$867,000 |
$62,000 |
$12,100 |
$12,500 |
Finance and Insurance |
$1,550,000 |
$91,600 |
$26,900 |
$35,600 |
Real Estate |
$229,000 |
$22,600 |
$5,690 |
$6,470 |
Services |
$6,430,000 |
$832,000 |
$226,000 |
$354,000 |
Auxiliaries |
$19,700 |
$26,700 |
$1,980 |
n/a |
Unclassified |
$2,530 |
$686 |
$36 |
$11 |
TOTAL |
$17,800,000 |
$3,410,000 |
$1,130,000 |
$1,040,000 |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County Business Patterns, accessed at http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml on December 11, 2002. Notes: Payroll estimates are in 2000 dollars. These values reflect the combined value of the counties containing critical habitat within these states, and are not statewide totals. “N/a” represents data not reported in the census County Business Patterns. |
||||
70. Exhibit 2-3 provides industry and employment data for all 31 counties that contain portions of the designation. The “Number of Establishments” column displays the total number of physical locations at which business activities are conducted with one or more paid employee in the year 2000. Over 60,000 business establishments operate and employ nearly 900,000 individuals in the 31 counties containing proposed critical habitat for the mussels. These figures provide a measure of the average density of commercial and industrial establishments in the region.
71. Despite the fact that manufacturing and services account for the greatest economic activity, these industries are not as likely to be directly affected by critical habitat for the mussels as those industries dependent upon or limited by water resources. These industries interact more directly with the stream segments proposed for critical habitat and include agriculture, development, hydropower, and recreational fishing.
Exhibit 2-3 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY WITHIN COUNTIES CONTAINING MUSSEL CRITICAL HABITAT: NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS AND EMPLOYEES BY INDUSTRY (2000) |
||||||||
|
Alabama |
Georgia |
Mississippi |
Tennessee |
||||
Employees |
Establish-ments |
Employees |
Establish-ments |
Employees |
Establish-ments |
Employees |
Establish-ments |
|
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting, and Fishing |
2,670 |
299 |
338 |
33 |
196 |
19 |
37 |
9 |
Mining |
6,030 |
108 |
485 |
9 |
280 |
12 |
55 |
5 |
Utilities |
10,000 |
168 |
904 |
19 |
235 |
21 |
198 |
6 |
Construction |
46,700 |
3,500 |
5,280 |
825 |
3,740 |
280 |
1,600 |
165 |
Manufacturing |
102,000 |
1,780 |
51,100 |
751 |
12,000 |
166 |
13,300 |
146 |
Wholesale Trade |
37,300 |
2,470 |
7,780 |
582 |
1,380 |
126 |
2,430 |
90 |
Retail Trade |
83,800 |
6,560 |
17,600 |
1,540 |
6,240 |
594 |
4,890 |
442 |
Transportation and Warehousing |
18,800 |
992 |
5,030 |
212 |
978 |
110 |
722 |
71 |
Information |
20,600 |
596 |
2,030 |
89 |
494 |
43 |
557 |
27 |
Finance and Insurance |
39,000 |
2,150 |
2,950 |
396 |
932 |
194 |
1,300 |
146 |
Real Estate |
9,730 |
2,330 |
1,030 |
209 |
317 |
81 |
299 |
74 |
Services |
277,000 |
14,600 |
42,200 |
2,400 |
13,000 |
1,000 |
17,500 |
930 |
Auxiliaries |
2,800 |
13,200 |
1,430 |
18 |
169 |
10 |
99 |
2 |
Unclassified |
892 |
352 |
121 |
336 |
22 |
15 |
19 |
18 |
TOTAL |
657,000 |
49,100 |
138,000 |
7,420 |
40,000 |
2,670 |
43,000 |
2,130 |
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County Business Patterns, accessed at http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml on December 11, 2002. Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Payroll estimates are in 2000 dollars. These values reflect the combined value of the counties containing critical habitat within these states, and are not statewide totals. |
||||||||
(a) Agriculture
72. Agriculture, including livestock raising, grazing, aquaculture, and
rowcropping accounts for over 25 percent of the land use in the Mobile River
Basin.
The primary crops cultivated in the region include corn, soybeans, cotton,
wheat, and sorghum. Soybeans and cotton, with over 2.6 and 4.3 million acres
harvested respectively in 2001, are the highest acreage crops in the region.
Livestock (including poultry, cattle, and swine), horticulture, (including sod and turf
farming), and silviculture also constitute a significant level of agricultural activity in
the region.
73. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the market value of all agricultural products sold within the counties containing proposed critical habitat for the mussels.
Exhibit 2-4 VALUE OF AGRICULTURE IN COUNTIES CONTAINING MUSSEL CRITICAL HABITAT (1997) |
||||
State |
County |
Market Value |
Crops (share of Market Value) |
Livestock (share of Market Value) |
Alabama |
State Total |
$3,100,000,000 |
20% |
80% |
Bibb |
$2,150,000 |
11% |
89% |
|
Blount |
$138,000,000 |
4% |
96% |
|
Calhoun |
$53,900,000 |
12% |
88% |
|
Cherokee |
$49,300,000 |
48% |
52% |
|
Cleburne |
$45,900,000 |
4% |
96% |
|
Coosa |
$1,320,000 |
20% |
80% |
|
Dallas |
$29,800,000 |
52% |
48% |
|
Fayette |
$8,150,000 |
24% |
76% |
|
Greene |
$11,500,000 |
13% |
87% |
|
Jefferson |
$16,100,000 |
19% |
81% |
|
Lamar |
$5,390,000 |
20% |
80% |
|
Lawrence |
$79,900,000 |
19% |
81% |
|
Macon |
$9,580,000 |
70% |
30% |
|
Pickens |
$60,600,000 |
5% |
95% |
|
Shelby |
$11,200,000 |
67% |
33% |
|
St. Clair |
$51,700,000 |
12% |
88% |
|
Sumter |
$11,200,000 |
8% |
92% |
|
Talladega |
$40,300,000 |
15% |
85% |
|
Tuscaloosa |
n/a |
30% |
70% |
|
Winston |
$59,100,000 |
0% |
100% |
|
Georgia |
State Total |
$5,000,000,000 |
38% |
62% |
Floyd |
$31,000,000 |
10% |
90% |
|
Gordon |
$88,300,000 |
5% |
95% |
|
Haralson |
$16,600,000 |
3% |
97% |
|
Murray |
$43,700,000 |
3% |
97% |
|
Paulding |
$11,200,000 |
6% |
94% |
|
Whitfield |
$46,000,000 |
2% |
98% |
|
Mississippi |
State Total |
$3,130,000,000 |
41% |
59% |
Itawamba |
$14,500,000 |
20% |
80% |
|
Lowndes |
$45,300,000 |
21% |
79% |
|
Monroe |
$16,900,000 |
61% |
39% |
|
Tennessee |
State Total |
$2,180,000,000 |
53% |
47% |
Bradley |
$54,900,000 |
5% |
95% |
|
Polk |
$22,200,000 |
10% |
90% |
|
Source: USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, 1997, accessed at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/ on December 10, 2002. Notes: Numbers may not sum due to adding. “N/a” indicates data not reported in the 1997 Census of Agriculture. |
||||
74. As over 80 percent of the critical habitat designation falls within Alabama, detailed current data on agricultural production within Alabama are provided below. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the production value of major agricultural commodities in the 20 Alabama counties containing critical habitat. Forestry alone was valued at over $800 million total in all counties for the year 2000. Livestock, aquaculture, and poultry production accounted for the second most productive activity at over $500 million. Further, greenhouse, sod, nursery, and cotton production generated approximately $70 million in revenue in 2000.
Exhibit 2-5 MAJOR AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES WITHIN MUSSELS CRITICAL HABITAT IN ALABAMA (2000) |
||||||
|
Value of Cash Receipts from Farm Marketings (Thousands) |
|||||
County |
Livestock, Aquaculture, & Poultry |
Greenhouse, Sod, Nursery |
Cotton |
Fruit, Pecans, & Vegetables |
Soybeans |
Forestry |
Bibb |
$2,830 |
n/a |
n/a |
$72 |
n/a |
$16,400 |
Blount |
$123,000 |
$718 |
$485 |
$2,910 |
$96 |
$14,600 |
Calhoun |
$22,500 |
$8,050 |
n/a |
$168 |
$96 |
$41,800 |
Cherokee |
$13,200 |
$15,100 |
$5,650 |
$148 |
$282 |
$48,500 |
Cleburne |
$32,900 |
n/a |
n/a |
$11 |
n/a |
$45,800 |
Coosa |
$2,030 |
$88 |
n/a |
$58 |
n/a |
$14,600 |
Dallas |
$21,900 |
n/a |
$3,120 |
$623 |
$220 |
$55,800 |
Fayette |
$6,440 |
$53 |
$404 |
$133 |
$86 |
$18,700 |
Greene |
$18,000 |
n/a |
n/a |
$47 |
n/a |
$36,700 |
Jefferson |
$2,500 |
$2,950 |
n/a |
$383 |
n/a |
$22,200 |
Lamar |
$5,100 |
n/a |
n/a |
$124 |
n/a |
$16,600 |
Lawrence |
$67,000 |
$153 |
$12,400 |
$527 |
n/a |
$104,000 |
Macon |
$3,630 |
$4,170 |
$781 |
$151 |
n/a |
$17,300 |
Pickens |
$66,000 |
$401 |
$485 |
$93 |
n/a |
$93,900 |
Shelby |
$5,030 |
$4,770 |
$1,160 |
$97 |
n/a |
$18,800 |
St. Clair |
$31,200 |
$3,540 |
n/a |
$1,490 |
n/a |
$49,700 |
Sumter |
$15,900 |
n/a |
n/a |
$69 |
$77 |
$38,600 |
Talladega |
$20,100 |
$665 |
$2,640 |
$279 |
n/a |
$36,700 |
Tuscaloosa |
$15,500 |
$2,060 |
$1,100 |
$124 |
$62 |
$43,100 |
Winston |
$72,100 |
$33 |
n/a |
$45 |
n/a |
$88,200 |
Counties Total |
$547,000 |
$42,700 |
$28,200 |
$7,550 |
$919 |
$822,000 |
Source: Alabama Agricultural Statistics, accessed at http://www.aces.edu/department/nass/bulletin/2000/pg04.htm on December 11, 2002. Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. “N/a” indicates data not reported in Alabama Agricultural Statistics. |
||||||
75. In 2001, the major agricultural commodities produced within the six Georgia counties containing mussel critical habitat included livestock, horticulture, row/forage crops, and forestry. Livestock, aquaculture, poultry, and egg production were valued at over $4.6 billion, constituting nearly seven percent of total statewide livestock production. Horticulture production, including greenhouse, sod, and nursery products, represented over four percent (over $500 million) of total statewide production
76. While county-level data are not readily available for current market and farm gate agricultural values within Mississippi and Tennessee, production figures highlight the major commodities within the five counties containing critical habitat in those states. Rowcropping, livestock raising, and forest-related activities dominate agricultural activity within the relevant counties.
77. Among the four states, Mississippi is the number one producer of soybeans,
with over one million acres harvested in 2001. Collectively, Itawamba, Lowndes,
and Monroe Counties, Mississippi produced over 36,000 units of livestock
(including cattle, swine, chicken, broilers, and eggs), approximately 22.4 million
bushels of corn, and 592,000 bushels of soybeans. Within Tennessee, Bradley and
Polk Counties produced 40,000 units of livestock, 300,000 bushels of corn, 97,000
bushels of cotton, and harvested over two million acres of forest-related goods.
(b) Development
78. Commercial and residential growth characterizes recent development activity within a number of counties containing proposed critical habitat, particularly within Alabama and Georgia. Population increases in the past decade have driven economic growth tied to growing real estate markets and infrastructure-related activities, including industrial and water development and road and bridge construction.
79. The Birmingham Metropolitan area within Jefferson County, in which the Cahaba River and the Locust Fork Creek flow, is characterized by concentrated commercial and residential activity (Units 12 and 13). While commercial activities are clustered along highways closer to Birmingham, residential communities are expanding in areas away from the city. In 2000, approximately 288,162 housing units existed in the county and constituted nearly 15 percent of Alabama’s total housing units. In 2000, 3,060 additional housing units were authorized by building permits. Construction payroll in Jefferson County amounted to $950,000,000 in 2000, accounting for 8.4 percent of total county annual payroll.
80. Counties within the Georgia portion of the designation have experienced
population growth and suburbanization as metropolitan Atlanta expands outwards.
Paulding County, which contains the Tallapoosa River within Unit 16, is considered
one of metropolitan Atlanta’s hottest growth spots. The county’s population and
number of housing units constructed nearly doubled in size during the 1990s. In
2000, construction alone accounted for 21.8 percent of Paulding County earnings.
Projections indicate that periods of growth still lie ahead, as the county’s population
is anticipated to increase by 69 percent by 2010.
81. Murray County, which contains portions of the Conasauga River within Unit 25, also experienced rapid development in the past decade, with both population and the number of housing units constructed growing by 40 percent. The county’s population is anticipated to increase an additional 25 percent by 2010. Development pressure also exists within Floyd County within and adjacent to the city of Rome up to the border of Chattooga County.
(c) Water-related Economic Activity
82. Rivers and tributaries within the Mobile River Basin supply a variety of municipal, industrial, and rural water uses, and facilitate hydropower generation, sportfishing, and other water-based recreational activity. This section describes and provides economic data on water-related activities based in and around the waters proposed for critical habitat designation for the mussels.
Hydropower
83. A network of 36 dams and associated reservoirs and locks regulate the
surface-water system in all six river drainages within the greater Mobile River Basin.
The majority of surface water withdrawn from the basin is used for hydroelectric
power generation. While coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear sources fuel the
majority of the region’s energy needs, the four states within the Mobile River Basin
derive a small portion of their overall power supply from hydropower. In 1999, an
estimated 80.3 million kilowatthours of hydroelectric energy accounted for 6.4
percent of all electric power generated in Alabama. In Georgia, 27 million
kilowatthours of hydroelectric power represented 2.3 percent of total electric power
generated that year. Tennessee’s hydropower generation, estimated at 97.2 million
kilowatthours, constituted 7.4 percent of all electric utilities. Mississippi relied
minimally on hydropower generation, which accounted for less than one percent of
total electric energy produced.
Recreational Fishing
84. The rivers, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs within the Mobile River Basin
support a thriving sportfishing and recreational boating industry. These activities,
in turn, contribute significantly to the economic and social well-being of the Mobile
River basin community. In 2001, over two million anglers participated in
recreational fishing in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Sportfishing
also supports various industries that provide goods and services to anglers. In
2001, sportfishing-related expenses, including trip and equipment costs, generated
over $1.9 billion in revenue in all four states.
2.2 Relevant Baseline Elements
85. “Baseline elements” consist of regulations, guidelines, and/or policies that may afford protection for the mussels in the absence of section 7 implementation. Baseline protections for the mussels include Federal and State laws, including the prohibition against take of the species contained within section 9 of the Act, as well as voluntary environmental programs that provide protection to the mussels in the absence of the protection afforded by the listing and any anticipated additional protection afforded by the proposed critical habitat designation. This discussion focuses on several important regulatory elements that have bearing on this analysis.
86. The following regulations provide environmental protection in the proposed critical habitat areas. Most of these regulations specifically address the maintenance or improvement of water quality. Because the mussels are aquatic species, they benefit from these protections. Although section 7 consultations will take place on activities involving a Federal nexus, measures required to protect the mussels and their habitat are complemented by regulations that serve to protect water quality. Provided these regulations are properly implemented and effective, the presence of mussels’ critical habitat would not be expected to result in incremental project modifications.
2.2.1 Federal Protections
87. This section highlights pertinent information on Federal regulations and policies that may offer protection to the mussels and their habitat absent designation of critical habitat for the species.
88. An important component of the regulatory baseline is the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. The plan establishes a recovery strategy to protect the Basin’s native aquatic fauna and flora through ecosystem management. Implemented recovery actions include host fish identification research, laboratory propagation, limited population augmentation, monitoring, watershed planning, encouraging voluntary stewardship, and protection of occupied habitat. The Recovery Plan does not include objectives to enable the mussels to recover to the point of delisting due to the extent of their decline, population isolation, sensitivity to common pollutants, and continued impacts upon their habitat. While the Recovery Plan does not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and provides no regulatory power over landowners or managers, it serves as an important information source and incentive tool for conservation initiatives.
Clean Water Act
89. The purpose of the CWA is to restore the physical, biological, and chemical
integrity of the waters of the United States using two basic mechanisms: 1) direct
regulation of discharges pursuant to permits issued under the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Section 404 (discharge of dredge or
fill materials); and 2) the Title III water quality program.
90. Under the NPDES program, EPA sets pollutant-specific limits on the point
source discharges for major industries and provides permits to individual point
sources that apply to these limits. EPA has delegated responsibility for the NPDES
permitting program to most states.
State-issued NPDES permits are treated as
non-Federal actions. As such, the issuance of NPDES permits by State agencies
are not subject to the consultation requirements of the Act. The Service consults
with the EPA on the triennial review to ensure that endangered species impacts are
contemplated in the development of standards.
91. Under the water quality standards program (WQS), EPA has issued water
quality criteria to establish limits on the ambient concentration of pollutants in
surface waters that will still protect the health of the water body. States issue water
quality standards that reflect the Federal water quality criteria and submit the
standards to EPA for review. State water quality standards are subject to review
every three years (triennial review). States apply the standards to NPDES
discharge permits to ensure that discharges do not violate the water quality
standards.
92. Under section 401 of the CWA, all applicants for a Federal license or permit
to conduct activity that may result in discharge to navigable waters are required to
submit a State certification to the licensing or permitting agency. The State
certification must ensure that the discharge complies with the requirements of
sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA
prescribes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
navigable waters. Specifically, pursuant to section 404, permit applicants are
required to show that they have “taken steps to avoid wetland impacts, where
practicable, minimized potential impacts to wetlands, and provided compensation
for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or recreate
wetlands.”
93. The CWA will influence activities on or near all 26 of the critical habitat units for the mussels, due to the existence of road/bridge construction, residential development, and hydropower relicensing activities on or near all units. Since water quality is important to the recovery of the mussels, this statute will likely impact the extent, location, and nature of future activities on or near the proposed critical habitat units over the next ten years. As such, the CWA is likely to provide substantial baseline protection to the mussels as limitations to water pollution present more favorable living conditions for the mussels. The development of State water quality standards pursuant to the CWA, however, are subject to consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
94. The purpose of this act is to ensure that fish and wildlife resources are
equally considered with other resources during the planning of water resources
development projects by: 1) authorizing the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Commerce to provide assistance to Federal and State agencies in protecting game
species and studying the effects of pollution on wildlife; and 2) requiring
consultation with the Service for water impoundment or diversion projects with a
Federal nexus.
Federal Power Act
95. The Federal Power Act (FPA) was established in 1920.
The purpose of the
FPA was to establish a regulatory agency, the Federal Power Commission (FPC),
for non-federal hydropower generation and to require non-Federal hydropower
owners/operators to obtain a license for the operation of the facility. Over the
years, the FPC took responsibility for additional national regulatory issues and
evolved into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent
Federal agency governing approximately 2,500 licenses for non-Federal
hydropower facilities.
In 1986 the FPA was amended to, among other things,
require FERC to give equal consideration to fish and wildlife concerns affected by
hydropower facilities during the relicensing process.
96. Specifically, section 10(j) of the FPA was promulgated to ensure that FERC
considers both power and non-power resources during the licensing process. As
such, section 10(j) instructs FERC to actively solicit input regarding “adequate and
equitable” fish and wildlife measures from Federal and State resource agencies.
FERC must consider these recommendations during the licensing process but does
not have to incorporate the recommendations into the license if they “may be
inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA” or if the
recommendations are not supported by substantial evidence.
97. Furthermore, section 18 of the FPA states that FERC shall require the
construction, operation and maintenance by a licensee at its own expense of a
fishway prescribed by the Secretaries of Interior (delegated to the Service) and
Commerce (NOAA Fisheries).
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (NWSRA)
98. The NWRSA requires that "In all planning for the use and development of
water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal
agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas."
It also requires that "the Secretary of the Interior shall make specific studies and
investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river
areas.....shall be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential
alternative uses of water and related land resources involved."
In partial
fulfillment of this requirement, the National Parks Service (NPS) maintains a
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), a register of river segments that potentially
qualify as national wild, scenic or recreational river areas.
A presidential directive
requires Federal agencies to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified
in the NRI. In additional, agencies are required to consult with the NPS on actions
which could affect the wild, scenic or recreational status of a river on the inventory.
99. The NWRSA will provide baseline protection to one of the 26 critical habitat units for the mussels, the Sipsey Fork drainage in proposed Unit 10. Since Federal agencies are required to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on National Wild and Scenic Rivers and those on the NRI, this statute will likely affect the extent, location, and nature of future activities on or near these proposed critical habitat units over the next ten years. As such, the NWRSA is likely to provide baseline protection to the mussels.
Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977
100. This Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act provides for a continuing
appraisal of the Nation’s soil, water and related resources, including fish and
wildlife habitats, and a soil and water conservation program to assist landowners
and land users in furthering soil and water conservation. Specifically, this Act
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a cooperative conservation
program with Federal, State, and local stakeholders for the management of private
grazing land to conserve and enhance private grazing land resources.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
101. This Act authorizes Federal assistance to local organizations for
conservation projects in watershed areas. Specifically, the Secretary of Agriculture
is authorized to enter into agreements with local organizations and landowners to
provide financial and other assistance in the development of plans to conserve and
develop the land's soil, water, woodland, wildlife, energy and recreation resources,
and enhance water quality.
Private Stewardship Grants Program
102. The Private Stewardship Program provides grants and other assistance on
a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and
voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate
species, or other at-risk species.
Diverse panels of representatives from State and
Federal government, conservation organizations, agriculture and development
interests, and the science community will assess applications and make
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior, who will award the grants.
Typical projects may include managing nonnative, competing species; implementing
measures to minimize risk from disease; restoring streams that support imperiled
species; or planting native vegetation to restore a rare plant community.
2.2.2 State Statutes and Regulations and Other Voluntary Protection Measures
103. Additional State and other baseline regulatory elements potentially relevant to this analysis are described in Appendix A. As the Appendix shows, a considerable number of State and other regulatory initiatives may provide the mussels with some measure of protection absent section 7 consultation.
2.2.3 Overlap with Other Listed Species
104. Several other Federally listed endangered species may be found within the proposed critical habitat area for the mussels. Further, critical habitat exists for two fish species within the Conasauga River portion of the proposed critical habitat for the mussels. Generally, if a consultation is triggered for any listed species, the consultation process will also take into account all other listed species known or thought to occupy areas on or near the project lands. As such, listing or critical habitat-related protections for other threatened or endangered species may benefit the mussels as well (i.e., provide baseline protection). However, due to the difficulty in apportioning the costs of consultations between various species as well as awareness that a consultation for the mussels would need to be conducted absent consultations for or involving other species, this analysis does not attempt to apportion the consultations and related costs reported by Action agencies between the mussels and other listed species, and assumes that all future section 7 consultations within the extant boundaries of the proposed critical habitat are fully attributable to the presence of the mussels and their habitat. While this may lead to an overestimate of costs, it is likely that adding consideration of mussel critical habitat to a consultation regarding other species or habitats will add an incremental cost to that consultation. The Service has conducted consultations on the mussels in combination with numerous species, as indicated in Exhibit 2-6.
Exhibit 2-6 THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT MAY BE PRESENT IN MOBILE RIVER BASIN MUSSELS CRITICAL HABITAT AREA |
||||
Area of Potential Overlap |
Category |
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
Status |
Mobile River system, in AL and GA |
Fish |
Alabama sturgeon |
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi |
Endangered |
Conasauga River, Etowah River, Shoal Creek |
Fish |
Amber darter |
Percina antesella |
Endangered |
Cahaba River, Coosa River and tributaries |
Fish |
Blue shiner |
Cyprinella caerulea |
Threatened |
Cahaba River in Bibb and Shelby Counties, AL |
Fish |
Cahaba shiner |
Notropis cahabae |
Endangered |
Upper Conasauga River, TN and GA |
Fish |
Conasauga logperch |
Percina jenkinsi |
Endangered |
Cahaba and Coosa River Drainage; including Little Cahaba and Coosawatte |
Fish |
Goldline darter |
Percina aurolineata |
Threatened |
Tombigbee, Black Warrior, and Coosa Rivers, AL |
Mussel |
Inflated heelsplitter |
Potamilus inflatus |
Threatened |
Tombigbee River |
Mussel |
Black clubshell |
Pleurobema curtum |
Endangered |
Tombigbee River |
Mussel |
Flat pigtoe |
Pleurobema marshalli |
Endangered |
Tombigbee River, AL and Cahaba and Coosa Rivers, AL and MS |
Mussel |
Heavy pigtoe |
Pleurobema taitianum |
Endangered |
Alabama, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers, AL, Tombigbee River Basin, MS and AL, Black Warrior River, AL |
Mussel |
Southern combshell |
Epioblasma penita |
Endangered |
Tombigbee River, AL and Black Warrior River, AL and MS |
Mussel |
Stirrupshell |
Quadrula stapes |
Endangered |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, and Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Cylindrical lioplax |
Lioplaz cyclostomaformis |
Endangered |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Flat pebblesnail |
Lepyrium showalteri |
Endangered |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Lacy elimia |
Elimia crenatella |
Threatened |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Painted rockshell |
Leptoxis taeniata |
Threatened |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Plicate rocksnail |
Leptoxis plicata |
Endangered |
Black Warrior, Cahaba, Alabama, Coosa Rivers, AL |
Snail |
Round rocksnail |
Leptoxis ampla |
Threatened |
Coosa River Basin, AL |
Snail |
Tulotoma snail |
Tulotoma magnifica |
Endangered |
Locust Fork, Sipsey Fork of Black Warrior River, AL |
Turtle |
Flattened musk turtle |
Sternotherus edpressus |
Threatened |
Sipsey Fork of Black Warior River, AL |
Plants |
Kral’s water-plantain |
Sagittaria secundifolia |
Threatened |
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Geological Survey, Environmental Setting and Water-Quality Issues of the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, 2002. |
||||
SECTION 7 ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MUSSEL
CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 3
105. The previous two sections introduced the geographic areas in which the Service is proposing to designate critical habitat for the mussels, the socioeconomic profile of these areas, and general trends associated with population, economic, and urban growth. These sections also outlined the baseline level of protection afforded the mussels and their habitat. This section identifies the current land and water uses in or near proposed critical habitat that may be affected by section 7 implementation for the mussels. Importantly, these estimates include the effects of section 7 implementation for all activities associated with the proposed critical habitat area. As such, this section does not distinguish impacts that may be attributable co-extensively to the listing of the mussels from those impacts attributable solely to the critical habitat designation.
106. This section begins with a summary of the categories of economic impact associated with section 7 implementation for the mussels. It then provides a general description of the activities and potential Federal nexus affecting the area proposed as critical habitat for the mussels.
3.1 Categories of Economic Impacts Associated with Section 7 Implementation
107. The following discussion provides an overview of the categories of economic impacts that are likely to arise due to the implementation of section 7 in the area proposed as critical habitat.
3.1.1 Technical Assistance
108. The Service may respond to requests for technical assistance from Federal or State agencies, local municipalities, and private landowners and developers with questions regarding whether specific activities may affect a listed species or its critical habitat. Technical assistance costs represent the estimated costs of informational conversations between stakeholders and the Service regarding such potential effects. These technical assistance activities are characteristically low effort voluntary actions between two parties, the Service and the stakeholder. The stakeholder may or may not be a Federal agency, as opposed to section 7 consultation which by definition involves a Federal nexus with or without private third party involvement.
109. In some instances, technical assistance may involve a request for general review of a project or activity that is not subject to section 7 requirements (e.g., activity on private land without a Federal nexus) as a safeguard to ensure adequate protection for species and habitats of concern. For example, although development of water quality standards within a state requires a section 7 consultation, a State agency may request technical assistance from the Service as an additional precaution to ensure that individual NPDES permits conforming to these standards adequately provide for relevant species and habitat. Although technical assistance is not a direct cost of section 7 of the Act, these costs are incorporated into the cost analysis when they are explicitly propagated by consideration of species and habitat conservation.
3.1.2 Section 7 Consultations
110. Under the listing of a species, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The Service defines jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. For designated critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) also requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, permit, or carry out do not result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is currently construed as any direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for conservation of a listed species.
111. In some cases, consultations will involve the Service and another Federal agency only, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, they may also include a third party, such as State agencies or private landowners involved in projects on non-Federal lands with a Federal nexus.
112. During a consultation, the Service, the Action agency, and the landowner applying for Federal funding or permitting (if applicable) communicate in an effort to minimize potential adverse effects to the species and/or to the proposed critical habitat. Communication between these parties may occur via written letters, phone calls, in-person meetings, or any combination of these. The duration and complexity of these interactions depends on a number of variables, including the type of consultation, the species, the activity of concern, the region where critical habitat has been proposed, and the involved parties.
113. Section 7 consultations with the Service may be either informal or formal. Informal consultation, which consists of discussions between the Service, the Action agency, and the applicant concerning an action that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat, is designed to identify and resolve potential concerns at an early stage in the planning process. By contrast, a formal consultation is required if the Action agency determines that its proposed action may or will adversely affect the listed species or designated critical habitat in ways that cannot be resolved through informal consultation. The formal consultation process results in the Service’s determination in its Biological Opinion of whether the action is likely to jeopardize a species or adversely modify critical habitat, and recommendations to minimize those impacts. Regardless of the type of consultation or proposed project, section 7 consultations can require substantial administrative effort on the part of all participants.
3.1.3 Project Modifications
114. The section 7 consultation process may involve some modifications to a
proposed project. Projects may be modified in response to voluntary conservation
measures suggested by the Service during the informal consultation process in
order to avoid or minimize impact to a species and/or its habitat, thereby removing
the need for formal consultation. Alternatively, formal consultations may involve
modifications that are agreed upon by the Action agency and the third party and
included in the project description as avoidance and minimization measures, or
included in the Service’s biological opinion on the proposed action as reasonable
and prudent measures (RPMs) and/or discretionary conservation recommendations
to assist the Action agency in meeting its obligations under section 7(a)(1) of the
Act.
115. In some cases, the Service may determine that the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and/or destroy or adversely modify its designated critical habitat. In these cases the Service will provide the Action agency with reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) that will keep the action below the thresholds of jeopardy and/or adverse modification. An RPA is an alternative that: (1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; (2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Action agency’s legal authority and jurisdiction; and (3) is economically and technologically feasible. These RPAs are typically developed by the Service in cooperation with the Action agency and, when applicable, the third party. Alternatively, the Action agency can develop its own RPAs, or seek an exemption for the project. All of these project modifications have the potential to represent some cost to the Action agency and/or the third party. In certain instances, these modifications can lead to broader regional economic impacts.
116. Because of the difficulty generating estimates of potential modifications to specific projects on a case-by-case basis, this analysis models modifications for average or "typical" projects likely to affect the proposed critical habitat of the mussels. Actual modification costs are likely to vary according to the specific characteristics of individual projects and consultation outcomes. Estimated costs of project modifications are detailed following the descriptions of the related activities in Section 4 of this analysis.
3.1.4 Regional Economic Impacts
117. The consultation process and related project modifications may potentially affect the operations of entities in certain industries (e.g., agriculture producers or residential developers), with secondary impacts on the suppliers of goods and services to these industries, as well as purchasers of production from these industries. For example, modified or decreased grazing and crop harvesting activities may affect businesses providing agricultural equipment and supplies. Thus, project modifications or other restrictions that engender cost and revenue impacts involving commercial enterprises may subsequently effect other sectors of the local economy, particularly where the affected industry is central to the local economy. Industries within a geographic area are interdependent in that they purchase output from other industries and sectors while supplying inputs to other businesses. Direct economic effects on a particular enterprise can therefore affect regional output and employment in multiple industries.
118. Many methods are available for conducting economic impact assessments, depending on the particular policy interests and goals of the economic analysis. Use of an input-output (I-O) model, such as IMPLAN, to gauge the direction and magnitude of regional economic impacts is useful in situations where the critical habitat designation may affect the commercial economy of a specific geographic area. However, I-O modeling is not appropriate for all economic impact analyses associated with critical habitat areas and can result in misinterpretations and biased conclusions if used inappropriately. I-O models are appropriate when the following factors are present: (1) economic impacts of the proposed designation are substantial and clearly defined in the analysis; (2) impacts have a clear effect on one industry or groups of industries prevalent in the geographic region; and (3) substitution possibilities for the focal economic input or activity are not widely available.
3.2 Activities Potentially Affected by Critical Habitat Designation for the Mussels
119. Numerous Action agencies permit and conduct activities and projects in or adjacent to proposed critical habitat areas. These activities may lead to section 7 consultations with the Service, and in some cases specific projects may require modification in order to protect the mussels and/or their habitat. This section provides a list of activities likely to engender section 7 consultation.
∙ Road/bridge construction and maintenance;
∙ Hydropower facilities;
∙ Water supply dams;
∙ Utilities construction/maintenance;
∙ Activities in National Forests;
∙ Agriculture and ranching-related activities;
∙ Water quality activities;
∙ Conservation and recreation; and
∙ Dredging.
120. The following list identifies land use activities that occur within the proposed critical habitat designation but are unlikely to incur section 7 impacts.
∙ Silviculture;
∙ Coal Mining; and
∙ Residential and Related Development.
121. The following discussion explores each of these land activities. For activities likely to be affected by section 7 activity, the potential impact on critical habitat and the Federal nexus (i.e., Action agency) involved are described. For activities unlikely to be affected by section 7, justification for the determination of the lack of impact is provided. Specific information on section 7 consultations, project modifications, and related costs anticipated with respect to each activity is detailed in Section 4 of this analysis.
122. The USACE is the primary Action agency conducting activity in the mussel critical habitat area. This agency is responsible for carrying out and permitting a majority of the activities with the potential to affect riverine, estuarine, and marine areas. USACE civil works divisions undertake projects to maintain navigation channels and water infrastructure, conduct environmental restoration, and maintain flood control. USACE regulatory divisions grant permits for private activities in navigable waterways under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Details of these proposed USACE activities, including the number of anticipated consultations associated with each activity per state are described by activity in Section 4 of this analysis.
3.2.1 Road/Bridge Construction and Maintenance
123. Road and bridge construction activities may pose a risk to the mussels and their habitat as a result of: increased sedimentation from erosion; construction of instream pilings; alteration of channel morphology; elimination of streambank vegetation to filter runoff; and resulting loss of suitable habitat. Thus, major road and bridge construction, maintenance, and improvement projects in areas proposed as critical habitat for the mussels are likely to require section 7 consultations where a Federal nexus exists. The lead Action agency for road and bridge construction projects may be the USACE, as it has jurisdiction over construction in navigable waterways. The Federal nexus for many DOT activities is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) due to its funding of the State DOT projects, though it is the DOT that typically communicates with the Service throughout the consultation process as the designated representative of the FHWA. For non-FHWA funded road projects, the USACE constitutes a Federal nexus if a CWA 404 permit/authorization is required.
3.2.2 Hydropower facilities
124. Four hydropower dams exist within the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels species. The Alabama Power Company (APC) owns and operates two hydropower facilities within the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels, Jordan Dam in Unit 26 and Weiss Dam in Unit 18. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC issues licenses for privately owned hydropower facilities. The Federal permitting of each relicensing therefore requires a section 7 consultation to ensure these actions adequately consider listed species and habitat.
125. FERC hydropower licenses are valid for 30, 40, or 50 years, depending on
the extent of proposed new development or environmental mitigation and
enhancement measures. The licenses under which Jordan Dam and Weiss Dam
operate expire in 2007, and applications for relicensing of both hydroelectric dams
must be filed by July 31, 2005.
Jordan Dam’s hydropower facility has a capacity
of 100 megawatts while Weiss Dam’s generating capacity is 87.75 megawatts.
Collectively, the developments represent about 12 percent of APC’s hydroelectric
generation capacity.
In September 2000, APC requested approval for use of
FERC’s alternative licensing process (ALP) for both hydroelectric development
relicensings. This request was approved in January 2001.
The ALP is intended
to facilitate greater collaboration with FERC, the public, and other stakeholders and
resource agencies including the Service.
126. The Service's primary concern regarding the relicensing of the dams with
respect to the mussels is implementation and maintenance of minimum flows.
Upstream of the dams, the increased depth of water, buildup of sediment,
decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, and alteration of host fish populations
threaten the survival of the mussels. Downstream of the dams, decreased flow,
reduced water temperatures, changes in fish assemblage, and isolation of species,
further affect the state of the mussels habitat.
Water quality impacts and
impingement and entrainment of fish hosts as a result of damming activities may
also affect the mussel species.
127. A third hydropower facility is located at Carters Reregulation Dam, on the Coosawattee River in Murray County, Georgia. In 2001, Fall Line Hydro Company was licensed by FERC to construct a powerhouse facility at the existing dam with a total installed generating capacity of 4.5 MW. Dam flow and releases at this site are under jurisdiction of the Mobile District USACE. Proposed changes to dam operations, for example with regard to minimum flows and water quality issues, may result in future section 7 consultations with the Service.
128. The fourth hydropower dam, the Robert F. Henry lock and dam located in
Autauga County in proposed critical habitat Unit 14, is overseen by USACE. The
Mobile District’s Black Warrior and Tombigbee/Alabama-Coosa Rivers Project
Management Office maintains and operates the dam while the Southeastern Power
Administration, an agency within the Department of Energy, markets hydropower
generated from the affiliated R. E. “Bob” Woodruff Lake. The Bob Woodruff Lake
has a hydro generating capacity of 68 megawatts and produces electricity to serve
approximately 45,000 homes.
As both the dam and hydropower generating
facilities are federally operated, the R. F. Henry Dam is not subject to FERC
jurisdiction and relicensing, although it is subject to the requirements of section 7.
3.2.3 Water supply dams
129. Construction of water supply dams in or adjacent to critical habitat for the
mussels is a direct threat to the species. None of the 11 mussels are known to
survive in impounded waters. Construction of impoundments has historically
resulted in fragmentation of species habitat, and induces the accretion of sediment
behind the dam that may result in direct habitat alteration and potential suffocation
of the species. Fish species that serve as hosts for the glochidia may also be
affected by the introduction of dams into habitat.
Pumping of water from
designated streams to fill water supply reservoirs may also negatively affect the
species by decreasing duration, magnitude, and timing of high and low flows.
Parties such as county governments intending to develop on channel water supply
dams must apply for an individual 404 permit from the USACE pursuant to the
Clean Water Act.
3.2.4 Utilities Construction/Maintenance
130. Construction or maintenance of in-stream pipelines may result in direct
disturbance of the sediment habitat for the species or increased siltation from
upstream construction. FERC regulates the rates and transport of natural gas, oil,
and electricity under the Department of Energy Organization Act.
Such activity
may also require a 404 Clean Water Act permit from the USACE. As such, either
FERC or USACE may be the lead Action agency throughout the section 7
consultation with the Service. Further, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) owns
and operates transmission systems within the northern Georgia and southern
Tennessee portions of the proposed critical habitat and may also consult with the
Service.
3.2.5 Activities in National Forests
131. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) engages in consultation with the Service regarding activities that occur adjacent to or within the drainages of rivers and creeks that provide habitat for the mussels. Five National Forests are located within the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels: Tuskeegee, Talladega, and Bankhead National Forests in Alabama, and Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in Georgia and Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. These forests are managed for multiple uses including recreation, wildlife habitat, and timber harvest. Future activities that on which the USFS may initiate section 7 consultation regarding the mussels and habitat include recreation facility construction, trail building, and timber harvest.
3.2.6 Agriculture and Ranching-Related Activities
132. Much of the lands adjacent to the critical habitat area for the mussels are privately-owned and devoted to agriculture, principally rowcropping of cotton and soybeans. Such activities on private land generally do not involve a Federal nexus. In some instances however, agricultural activities on private lands may be supported by voluntary landowner participation in any of a number of programs sponsored by Federal agencies including the NRCS, and the FSA. Additionally, certain agricultural activities are regulated and/or permitted by Federal agencies, such as USACE permitting of water diversion activities. These agencies provide funding or technical assistance for agriculture-related initiatives.
133. The FSA provides technical and financial assistance to farmers under the Farm Bill. Initiatives typically involve agricultural operation improvements to assist in conserving land and water resources, providing credit to new or disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, helping farmers and ranchers recover from disasters, or stabilizing farm income. The NRCS provides cost-share and other Federal assistance to private ranchers and farmers for the establishment of environmentally sustainable land use practices. Typical conservation activities in the proposed critical habitat area include streambank stabilizations and fencing of livestock. The NRCS may provide funding through voluntary partnership with private landowners under conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) which provides technical and financial assistance for the installation or implementation of structural and management conservation practices on agricultural land to farmers and ranchers who face particular land and water quality threats.
3.2.7 Water Quality Activities
134. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may engage in section 7 consultations with the Service regarding water quality standards to ensure that they are appropriately protective of endangered and threatened species. EPA typically considers listed species when consulting with the Service on the following categories of water quality program activities:
• Total maximum daily load (TMDL) approvals. Assignment of TMDL
levels falls under section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act.
Consultations on TMDLs arise when the combination of point and non-point source pollutants causes a noncompliance in a body of water,
which is then listed in the state's section 303d list of impaired waters.
The EPA consults with the Service regarding TMDLs on 303 (d)
streams that are listed due to aquatic life criteria impairments.
Impairments that effect the mussel habitat streams include: nutrients,
sediments, low dissolved oxygen, and pesticides.
Six 303 (d) listed
streams occur in the mussels proposed critical habitat area that are
listed for such impairments.
• State 303 (d) lists. State agencies must provide EPA with a proposed list of 303 (d) river segments for approval. Historically, the EPA has consulted with the Service every other year regarding review of these lists. In July of 1991, however, the EPA engaged in a programmatic consultation to streamline review of 303 (d) lists for all Region 4 States, including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The new process contemplates potential impact to endangered species and habitat and therefore avoids consulting as frequently as in the past regarding 303 (d) list review.
• State Water Quality Standards. The EPA reviews water quality standards within each state approximately every three years.
• Special Appropriation Projects (SPAPs). The EPA funds water
improvement projects such as increasing capacity of drinking water
facilities, or construction or improvement of wastewater facilities .
135. EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program regulates point source pollution. Although development and
implementation of State water quality standards are subject to a section 7
consultation between the Service and the EPA, as an added precaution, the Service
may review each individual NPDES permit application to confirm that listed species
are not adversely affected by water quality impacts. If the proposed permit does not
appear to meet State water quality standards, the Service may object to issuance
of the permit, and the State may ask the applicant to alter the permit to meet the
standards. According to a 2001 Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Service, the EPA has provided
States and tribes authority over their Clean Water Act permitting when
appropriate.
Accordingly, NPDES permitting may generate a technical assistance
effort between the Service and the designated representative of the EPA (i.e., the
respective State agencies) for review of the permit to ensure it appropriately
considers the mussels and their habitat.
3.2.8 Conservation and Recreation
136. PFW is a voluntary partnership program between the Service and
landowners interested in restoring streamlands, wetlands and other important fish
and wildlife habitats on their own lands. The program provides various types of
support ranging from technical assistance to private landowners through voluntary
cooperative agreements, to funding restoration projects on private lands. Voluntary
habitat restoration on private lands usually involves dollar-for-dollar cost share
through working with private landowners and Federal, State, and local entities.
Landowners sign agreements to keep the restoration projects for the life of the
agreement and otherwise retain full control of their land.
As the projects are
funded and/or carried out by the Service, internal consultation may take place for
each project.
137. The USACE may engage in habitat restoration projects as well. Section 206
of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 provides authority for the USACE
to undertake restoration projects in aquatic ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and
wetlands. These projects are intended to benefit the environment through restoring,
improving, or protecting aquatic habitat for plants, fish and wildlife.
Further,
Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act provides authority for the
USACE to to plan, design and construct fish and wildlife habitat restoration
measures through modification of USACE structures or operations, or modification
of an off-project site when it is found that a USACE project has contributed to
habitat degradation.
The USACE must consult with the Service when these
projects directly impact mussel habitat. The consultations, however are anticipated
to be informal in nature as the projects are intended to benefit the species and
habitat.
138. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks oversees an
active fish stocking program within the State. Under the Sport Fishing Restoration
Act, the Service assists with funding for this program.
The game fish raised for
stocking, including the Alabama walleye and the Florida Bass, are grown in
federally-funded hatcheries. Due to Service funding, the fish stocking program in
Mississippi is subject to statewide internal section 7 consultation to ensure that the
stocking of the fish does not jeopardize present endangered species such as the
mussels, or adversely modify their habitat.
3.2.9 Dredging
139. Gravel dredging and excavating activities require a section 404 CWA permit
from the USACE when there will be a discharge of dredge materials. Gravel
dredging and excavation also requires State permitting and State water quality/401
certification before the activities can proceed. Further, the Alabama River and
Conasauga River, are designated as section 10 waters under the Rivers and
Harbors Act and consequently require a section 10 permit from the USACE for
dredging.
3.2.10 Silviculture
140. Alabama’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Forestry and the Master
Logger Program provide guidelines and education on timber harvesting near
streams. The BMPs are intended to maintain and protect water quality. Examples
of protections afforded the mussels include the establishment of streamside
management zones, implementation of erosion control measures, and prohibitions
of skid trails, logging roads, and logging landings in streams and streamside
management zones. These guidelines are not mandated by law, with the exception
of restrictions on road and stream crossing construction and maintenance within
wetlands and other waters of the United States, as outlined in the USACE baseline
BMPs. These guidelines are mandatory in order to retain exemption status from
404 permits.
141. As stated in Alabama’s BMPs for Forestry, silviculture operations are exempt
from Section 404 Corps of Engineers permit requirements when the activities meet
certain conditions.
The Alabama Forestry Commission reported that the majority
of timber harvesters and landowners follow BMPs. Thus, they meet the above
specified conditions, and are exempt from 404 permit requirements. Further,
according to the Forest Statistics for Alabama, 2000, over seventy-five percent of
the timberland in Alabama is non-industrial private land. Because no federal nexus
exists and implementation of BMPs minimizes impacts on the mussels and habitat,
consultations associated with silviculture are not foreseeable.
142. Similarly, Mississippi Forestry BMPs and the logger certification program
provide guidelines and education on timber harvesting near streams. The main
focus of the MS Forestry BMPs is to protect water quality. Examples of baseline
protections afforded the mussels include the establishment of streamside
management zones, implementation of erosion control measures, and restrictions
on stream crossings, skid trails, logger loading decks, and road and recreational
trail construction.
Although BMPs are not mandated by law, a recent survey
reported a ninety percent participation rate in BMPs statewide.
143. Although silviculture occurs within portions of the proposed critical habitat
for the mussels, the Mississippi Forestry Commission contends that silviculture will
not result in section 7 activities as the majority of the silviculture practiced in the
areas surrounding the proposed critical habitat designation is on private non-industrial land, and does not constitute a federal nexus.
3.2.11 Coal Mining
144. Coal mining, while not a prevalent activity within the proposed critical habitat
for the mussels, may occasionally occur in areas adjacent to the critical habitat
units. All coal mines require a surface coal mining permit issued under authority of
the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Under
SMCRA, states with Office of Surface Mining (OSM) approved programs act as
“Primacy States”, or designated Federal representatives, for regulating surface coal
mining.
This analysis does not anticipate any section 7 activity regarding the
mussels or their habitat with respect to coal mining for the following reasons.
145. The OSM has granted the States of Alabama and Mississippi the regulatory
authority (“primacy”) to issue surface coal mining permits. Because these states
maintain regulatory authority, there is no Federal nexus and no section 7
consultations are anticipated regarding coal mining activities within these states.
The State of Tennessee does not have primacy, and OSM issues all surface mining
permits in this State. The OSM issued permit is the nexus for a section 7
consultation with the Service.
The proposed critical habitat designation within the
State of Tennessee, however, is comprised of only 17 miles (27 km) of stream that
largely flows through National Forest and no coal mining consultations are
anticipated. In 1983 the State of Georgia relinquished primacy to OSM to regulate
its coal mining industry. Although coal mining did exist in the northeastern portion
of the State in the late 1970's and early 1980's, there is currently no active coal
mining within the State. As such, no consultations are expected regarding coal
mining in Georgia.
3.2.12 Residential and Related Development
146. Development activities with the greatest potential to affect the mussels and habitat revolve around the increased construction of pipelines, water supply and wastewater infrastructure, and roads and bridges within the proposed critical habitat. Increased costs of these activities due to the presence of species and habitat is captured through the anticipated consultations and project modifications as quantified within this analysis.
147. Reductions in property value may occur through public perception that the designation will restrict land uses, inhibit private development, or cause project delays. Such loss in property value can be experienced for as long as such perception persists. Thus, any potential reduction in property value would primarily be due to the regulatory uncertainty, engendered by critical habitat designation, concerning land use within critical habitat areas. No additional, significant, development-related effects are anticipated, however, for the following reasons:
• While uncertainties about the impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and the perception that the designation will impose land use restrictions can cause reduction in property value, this effect is likely to be temporary in nature as the uncertainties and perceptions dissipate and/or become clarified over time;
• Consultation under section 7 only applies to activities that are carried out, permitted, or funded by a Federal agency. As such, the designation of critical habitat will not afford any additional protections for species with respect to strictly private activities; and
• Some or all of the units may additionally experience increases in property value due to the same perceptions of restricted development activities as preservation of open space often has a positive effect on property value.
148. Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, a non-Federal entity (i.e., a landowner
or local government) may develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in order to
meet the conditions for issuance of an incidental take permit from the Service in
connection with the development and management of a property.
Development
of such a plan within critical habitat would require an internal section 7 consultation
in the Service. It is rare, however, to develop a HCP for aquatic species.
No
HCPs have been developed regarding these 11 species in the past and the Service
does not anticipate that any will be developed in the future.
3.3 Summary of Results
149. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the potential level of consultation and technical assistance activity affected by the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels with respect to each activity in each proposed critical habitat unit. These estimates reflect the total consultation and technical assistance profiles associated with the proposed designation, regardless of whether these consultations or assistance efforts can be attributed co-extensively to the listing of these species. As a result, these estimates reflect an upper-bound measure of impact likely to be associated with this designation.
The costs for these consults and the project modifications they engender are discussed in Section 4.
Exhibit 3-1 CONSULTATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EFFORTS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MUSSELS (TEN YEARS) |
|||||
Unit |
Anticipated Activity |
Federal Nexus |
Technical Assistance |
Formal Consults |
Informal Consults |
1 |
Road and bridge construction |
MS DOT |
|
2 |
3 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
USACE |
|
4 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
|
FWS |
|
|
2 |
||
Private landowner assistance |
None |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
Road and bridge construction |
MS DOT |
|
2 |
4 |
Road and bridge construction |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
TMDL reviews |
EPA |
|
4 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
|
FWS |
|
|
2 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
4 |
|
|
Private landowner assistance |
None |
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
Road and bridge construction |
MS DOT |
|
2 |
3 |
TMDL review |
EPA |
|
4 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
|
FWS |
|
|
4 |
||
Private landowner assistance |
None |
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
Road and bridge construction |
MS DOT |
|
|
4 |
TMDL review |
EPA |
|
4 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
1 |
4 |
|
FWS |
|
|
3 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
6 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
7 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
8 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
9 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
10 |
Activities in Bankhead National Forest |
USFS |
|
1 |
18 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
11 |
Water supply dams |
USACE |
|
1 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
12 |
TMDL review |
EPA |
|
2 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
13 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
TMDL review |
EPA |
|
2 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
2 |
||
14 |
Road and bridge construction |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
4 |
2 |
|
15 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
FWS |
|
|
2 |
||
16 |
Road and bridge construction |
GA DOT |
|
|
20-30 |
Water supply dam |
USACE |
|
1 |
|
|
Utilities construction/maintenance |
TVA |
|
|
1 |
|
Agriculture and ranching activities |
NRCS |
|
|
2 |
|
FSA |
|
|
1 |
||
TMDL review |
EPA |
|
1 |
|
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
4-6 |
||
Private landowner assistance |
None |
30-40 |
|
|
|
17 |
Tuskeegee National Forest activities |
USFS |
|
1 |
6 |
Water Quality Activities |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
18 |
Hydropower dam relicensing |
FERC |
|
1 |
|
Utilities construction/maintenance |
USACE |
|
|
4 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
19 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
20 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
21 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
22 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
23 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
Dredging |
USACE |
|
|
1 |
|
24 |
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
25 |
Road and bridge construction |
GA DOT |
|
|
10 |
TN DOT |
|
|
4 |
||
USACE |
|
1 |
1 |
||
Hydropower |
USACE |
|
1 |
|
|
FERC |
|
|
1 |
||
Utility construction |
TVA |
|
|
1 |
|
Chattahoochee National Forest activities |
USFS |
20 |
|
13 |
|
Cherokee National Forest activities |
USFS |
20 |
|
5 |
|
Agriculture and ranching activities |
NRCS |
|
1 |
21 |
|
FSA |
|
|
1 |
||
USACE |
|
4 |
4 |
||
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
30-35 |
|
|
Private landowner assistance |
None |
30-40 |
|
|
26 |
Hydropower dam relicensing |
FERC |
|
1 |
|
Conservation and recreation activities |
USACE |
|
|
2 |
|
FWS |
|
|
1 |
||
Units 18 19, 20, 22 |
Talladega National Forest activites |
USFS |
|
2 |
21 |
AL Units |
Road and bridge construction |
AL DOT |
|
10 |
90 |
Agriculture and ranching activities |
NRCS |
|
1 |
6-9 |
|
Review of statewide 303(d) lists and water quality standards |
EPA |
|
|
4-7 |
|
Review of NPDES permits |
EPA |
320 |
|
|
|
Private landowner assistance |
None |
120 |
|
|
|
MS Units |
Review of statewide 303(d) lists and water qualitystandards |
EPA |
|
|
4-7 |
Fish stocking activities |
FWS |
|
|
10 |
|
Review of NPDES permits |
EPA |
20 |
|
|
|
Power Company certifications |
None |
6 |
|
|
|
GA Units |
Review of statewide 303(d) lists and water quality standards atBS |
EPA |
|
|
4-7 |
Review of NPDES permits |
EPA |
60-120 |
|
|
|
TN Units |
Review of statewide 303(d) lists and water quality standards |
EPA |
|
|
4-7 |
Multiple Units(unknown) |
EPA Special Appropriation Projects |
EPA |
|
3 |
|
TOTAL EFFORTS |
629-709 |
65 |
418-450 |
||
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRITICAL
HABITAT DESIGNATION SECTION 4
150. Section 3 of this analysis described the variety of activities likely to take place within the boundaries of this proposed designation that will require technical assistance or consultation with the Service, and then provides an overview of the frequency of consultations regarding these activities. This section of the analysis details the specific impact species listing and designation of critical habitat for the mussels is anticipated to have on these activities, including project modifications that may result from consultation.
151. First, this section quantifies the costs of the anticipated consultations, associated project modifications, and technical assistance by activity. Importantly, these estimates include all section 7-related consultations and technical assistance efforts associated with the proposed critical habitat area. As such, this analysis does not distinguish impacts that may be attributable co-extensively to the listing of the mussels from those impacts attributable solely to the designation. This section also provides a detailed description of each anticipated consultation and technical assistance effort by activity. Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the resulting total costs associated with section 7 activity by activity in the geographic area proposed for critical habitat designation for the mussels. Further detailed costs of each activity according to unit and activity are provided in Appendix C. Exhibit 4-6 highlights the major assumptions made throughout this analysis, and offers information on the potential direction of cost bias generated by these assumptions.
4.1 Estimated Total Costs of Section 7
152. This section quantifies low and high end cost estimates of the total technical assistance efforts, informal and formal consultations, and project modifications based on the section 7 efforts characterized in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of this analysis. Estimates of the costs of individual consultations were developed from a review and analysis of historical section 7 files from a number of Service field offices around the country. These files addressed consultations conducted for both listings and critical habitat designations. The resulting estimates are based on an average level of effort for consultations of low, medium, or high complexity, multiplied by the appropriate labor rates for staff from the Service and other Federal agencies.
153. Estimates take into consideration the level of effort of the Service, the Action agency, and the applicant during both formal and informal consultations, as well as the varying complexity of consultations. Informal consultations are assumed to involve a low to medium level of complexity. Formal consultations are assumed to involve a medium to high level of complexity. Costs associated with these consultations include the administrative costs associated with conducting the consultation, such as the cost of time spent in meetings, preparing letters, and the development of a biological opinion.
154. Per-effort costs associated with formal consultations, informal consultations, and technical assistance efforts are presented in Exhibit 4-1. The low and the high scenarios represent a range of costs for each type of interaction. The Action agency or the third party may bear the costs of biological assessment, depending on the specifics of the consultation. For consultations with the USACE, administrative costs of the biological assessment are assumed to be borne by that agency. This exhibit is used to develop total administrative costs for consultations associated with activities within proposed critical habitat for the mussels.
Exhibit 4-1 ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF CONSULTATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EFFORTS FOR THE MUSSELS (per effort) |
|||||
Critical Habitat Impact |
Scenario |
Service |
Action Agency |
Third Partya |
Biological Assessmentc |
Technical Assistance Effort |
Low |
$50 |
N/A |
$600 |
$0 |
High |
$50 |
N/A |
$1,500 |
$0 |
|
Informal Consultationb |
Low |
$400 |
$1,500 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
High |
$3,100 |
$4,200 |
$2,900 |
$4,000 |
|
Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$4,500 |
$2,900 |
$4,000 |
High |
$6,100 |
$9,200 |
$4,100 |
$5,600 |
|
Sources: IEc analysis based on data from the Federal Government General Schedule Rates, Office of Personnel Management, 2002, a review of consultation records from several Service field offices across the country, and communications with Biologists in the Daphne, AL FWS Field Office and the Mobile District USACE. Notes: Low and high estimates primarily reflect variations in staff wages and time involvement by staff reported in 2002 dollars. The high-end estimate for informal consultations, and all formal consultation estimates, include the cost of a biological assessment. a Third parties may be State agencies. b Internal consultations are approximately the same cost as informal consultations, unless indicated otherwise. For internal consultations, the Service bears the costs normally borne by both the Service and the Action Agency. c A third party is assumed to bear the cost of a biological assessment. When no third party is involved, the Action Agency bears the cost, and the bearing of this cost varies from agency to agency. |
|||||
155. Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the administrative costs of the consultations and technical assistance efforts involving the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels. The administrative cost estimates in Exhibit 4-2 were calculated by multiplying the number of expected consultations or technical assistance calls (Exhibit 3-1) by the per effort cost of these actions (Exhibit 4-1). Based on this analysis, the estimated total section 7 administrative costs for the mussels range from $2.62 million to $9.13 million. The high end estimate of administrative costs represents approximately 27 percent of the total section 7 costs associated with proposed critical habitat for the mussels. Third parties are anticipated to bear the majority of the administrative costs, approximately 41 percent, with the Service and Action agencies bearing approximately 24 and 35 percent respectively. This is largely due to the assumption that third partied are expected to bear the costs of a biological assessment for informal consultations with third party involvement. Where no third party is involved, the Action agency bears the cost of a biological assessment.
156. The majority, 27 percent, of costs presented in Exhibit 4-2 represent administrative costs associated with consultations for road and bridge construction and maintenance projects. These administrative costs will primarily be borne by the State DOTs. Conservation and recreation activities account for another 25 percent of the total administrative costs.
Exhibit 4-2 ESTIMATED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSULTATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MUSSELS (over ten years) |
|||||
Action |
Range |
Costs to the Service |
Costs to Action Agencies |
Costs to Third Parties |
Total Costs |
Technical Assistance |
Low |
$31,500 |
$24,000 |
$353,000 |
$409,000 |
High |
$35,500 |
$60,000 |
$1,004,000 |
$1,100,000 |
|
Informal Consultation |
Low |
$267,000 |
$582,000 |
$426,000 |
$1,280,000 |
High |
$1,720,000 |
$2,380,000 |
$2,310,000 |
$6,410,000 |
|
Formal Consultation |
Low |
$202,000 |
$401,000 |
$337,000 |
$939,000 |
High |
$397,000 |
$757,000 |
$474,000 |
$1,630,000 |
|
Total |
Low |
$500,000 |
$1,010,000 |
$1,120,000 |
$2,620,000 |
High |
$2,150,000 |
$3,190,000 |
$3,790,000 |
$9,130,000 |
|
Sources: IEc analysis based on data from the Federal Government General Schedule Rates, Office of Personnel Management, 2002, a review of consultation records from several Service field offices across the country, and communications with Biologists in the Daphne, AL FWS Field Office.
Note: Third parties are defined as State agencies, local municipalities, and private parties. Estimates are reported in 2003 dollars. Estimates are rounded to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. |
|||||
157. Exhibit 4-3 presents estimates of per effort and total project modification costs associated with activities affecting proposed critical habitat for the mussels. The cost estimates were calculated by multiplying the number of anticipated consultations likely to require modifications as detailed in Section 4.2 of this analysis by the per effort cost of these actions. Based on this analysis, the upper-bound total cost of modifications for projects affecting the mussels is estimated to be approximately $24.2 million over ten years. Approximately 47 percent of the project modification costs are related to dredging activities. More specifically, $8,250,000 (34 percent) of the total project modification costs are estimated to stem from formal consultation regarding USACE dredging of the Federal navigation channel on the Alabama River (Unit 14).
Exhibit 4-3 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ANTICIPATED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS (per effort and total over ten years) |
||||
Affected Activity (Action agency) |
Possible Project Modifications |
Per Effort |
No. of Consults |
Total Cost |
Road and bridge construction (AL DOT) |
• Project timing restrictions • Restricting construction of in-stream infrastructure • Survey for species • Relocating species |
$113,000 - $409,000 |
10 |
$1,130,000 - $4,090,000 |
Road and bridge construction (GA DOT) |
• Restricting construction of in-stream infrastructure • Avoiding in-stream work |
$300,000 |
10 |
$3,000,000 |
Road and bridge construction (TN DOT) |
• Relocating species |
$1,800 - $15,000 |
4 |
$7,200 - $60,000 |
Road and Bridge Construction (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
2 |
$436,000 - $490,000 |
Road and bridge construction (USACE) |
• Increased sedimentation measures |
$100 |
1 |
$100 |
Road and bridge construction (USACE) |
• Construction of coffer dam |
$10,000 |
1 |
$10,000 |
Hydropower relicensing (FERC) |
• Establishing minimum flows • Erosion and sediment control measures |
$484,000 |
1 |
$484,000 |
Hydropower operations (USACE) |
• Establishing minimum flows • Water quality improvements |
$484,000 |
1 |
$484,000 |
Water Supply Dams (USACE) |
• Establishing minimum flows • Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration • Dam Relocation |
$484,000 |
1 |
$484,000 |
Utilities construction/maintenance (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
12 |
$262,000 - $2,940,000 |
Agriculture and Ranching (NRCS) |
• Restrict in-stream construction |
$4,460 |
1 |
$4,460 |
Agriculture and Ranching (USACE) |
• Increased sedimentation measures |
$100 |
4 |
$400 |
Agriculture and Ranching (USACE) |
• Species surveying • Increased sedimentations measures |
$10,000 |
4 |
$40,000 |
Water Quality Activities (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
1 |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
EPA Special Appropriation Projects (SPAPs) (EPA) |
• Species surveying • Project redesign |
$35,000 - $50,000 |
3 |
$105,000 - $150,000 |
Conservation and Recreation (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
1 |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
Dredging (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration |
$21,800 - $245,000 |
13 |
$283,000 - $3,190,000 |
Dredging (USACE) |
• Implementing BMPs • Pre-construction surveys • Mussel relocation • Habitat restoration • Acquiring and operating upland disposal sites |
$21,800 - $8,250,000* |
1 |
$21,800 - $8,250,000 |
TOTAL PROJECT MODIFICATION COSTS |
$6,400,000 - $24,200,000 |
|||
Note: Estimates are reported to three significant digits and may not sum due to rounding. *The high end cost estimate for project modifications to dredging activities includes an $8 million cost of purchasing upland disposal sites for dredge material as estimated by the USACE. The Service has stated that it does not intend to recommend upland disposal of dredge material. |
||||
158. Based on this analysis, the total section 7 costs associated with the proposed critical habitat designation for the mussels (i.e., administrative costs as quantified in Exhibit 4-2 plus project modification costs as quantified in Exhibit 4-3) are likely to range from $9.03 million to $33.3 million over the next ten years. Exhibit 4-4 describes the contribution of the various land use activities to this total. More detailed unit and activity-specific cost estimates are presented in Appendix C of this analysis.
Exhibit 4-4 ESTIMATED TOTAL ECONOMIC COSTS OF ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES (ten years) |
|||||||
Activity |
No. of Consultations |
Costs (thousands) |
Approximate % of Total Cost |
||||
Informal |
Formal |
Informal Consultation |
Formal Consultation |
Project Modifications |
Total Costs |
||
Road and bridge construction/ maintenance |
141 - 151 |
17 |
$411 - $2,100 |
$238 - $388 |
$4,190 - $7,650 |
$4,800 - $10,100 |
30 |
Hydropower facilities |
1 |
3 |
$2.9 - $13.9 |
$43.4 - $75.4 |
$968 |
$1,010 - $1,060 |
3 |
Water supply dams |
0 |
2 |
$0 |
$31.2 - $61.6 |
$484 |
$515 - $546 |
2 |
Utilities construction/maintenance |
10 |
4 |
$34.6 - $153 |
$62.4 - $123 |
$262 - $2,940 |
$359 - $3,220 |
10 |
Forest Service activities |
63 |
4 |
$183 - $876 |
$55.6 - $89.2 |
$0 |
$238 - $965 |
3 |
Agriculture and ranching |
35 - 38 |
6 |
$104 - $535 |
$90.2 - $168 |
$44.9 |
$239 - $748 |
2 |
Water Quality |
17 - 29 |
20 |
$50 - $405 |
$278 - $446 |
$127 - $395 |
$455 - $1,250 |
4 |
Conservation and Recreation |
145 - 152 |
1 |
$468 - $2,228 |
$15.6 - $30.8 |
$21.8 - $245 |
$506 - $2,500 |
8 |
Dredging |
6 |
8 |
$21.6 - $93.6 |
$125 - $246 |
$305 - $11,400 |
$452 - $11,800 |
35 |
Technical Assistance |
|
$409 - $1,100 |
3 |
||||
TOTAL |
418 - 450 |
65 |
$1,280 - $6,410 |
$939 - $1,630 |
$6,400 - $24,200 |
$9,030 - $33,300 |
100 |
Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Percentages are calculated based on high-end estimate of cost range. Technical assistance efforts include private landowner assistance and interactions with non-Federal entities regarding designation of critical habitat, for example, Service review of state-issued NPDES permits. Source: Based on past consultation records and conversations with Federal agencies potentially affected by the proposed critical habitat designation. |
|||||||
159. Exhibit 4-5 provides an overview of the present value of total section 7 costs
associated with the listing and designation of critical habitat for the mussels over
a ten year period. To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) specifies the use of a real rate of seven
percent. In addition, OMB recommends sensitivity analysis using other discount
rates. One commonly applied rate is three percent, which some economists believe
better reflects the social rate of time preference.
This analysis presents results
using both of these rates.
Exhibit 4-5
SECTION 7 AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LISTING AND DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE MUSSELS |
|
|
Total Estimated Section 7 Costs |
Nominal value of total section 7 costs (ten years) |
$9.03 million to $33.3 million |
Present Value (7% discount rate) |
$6.42 million to $23.5 million |
Annualized over ten years |
$914,000 to $3.35 million |
Present Value (3% discount rate) |
$7.73 million to $28.5 million |
Annualized over ten years |
$907,000 to $3.34 million |
Notes: Estimates are rounded to three significant digits. Costs may not add up due to rounding. These estimates include all section 7 costs, including both those associated with the species listing and designation of critical habitat for the mussels. Consultations costs known to occur in specific years are discounted accordingly; all remaining consultations costs are assumed to be evenly spread across the ten years. |
|
160. Approximately 56 percent of total section 7-related costs will be borne by third parties (i.e., local and State government agencies). Further, six percent will be borne by the Service, and 38 percent by other Federal agencies. The driving factor in this expected allocation of costs is the fact that third parties are most likely to bear the cost of project modifications, which constitute about 73 percent of the total section 7 costs. In only three instances are project modification costs expected to be absorbed by the Action agency as opposed to the third party: 1) for USACE habitat restoration projects; 2) for USACE dredging of the Federal navigation channel and small boat access channels on the Alabama River; and 3) for EPA SPAP projects. The most cost-intensive activity is dredging, which, at $11.8 million, comprises 35 percent of the total costs. Road and bridge construction and maintenance follows accounting for approximately $10.1 million, or 30 percent, of the total section 7 costs. The remaining costs break down among the other identified activity categories, with each generating ten percent or less of the total anticipated costs.
161. Exhibit 4-6 presents the key assumptions of this economic analysis, as well as the potential direction of bias introduced by the assumption.
Exhibit 4-6
CAVEATS TO THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS |
|
Key Assumption |
Effect on Cost Estimate |
Historic administrative consultation costs and specific project modifications are good predictors of future consultation costs. |
+/- |
The presence of other species (i.e., the tulotoma snail, etc.) has no effect upon the number of consultations or project modifications and, thus, all related costs are attributed to the mussels designation. |
+ |
Project modification costs resulting from the relicensing of Weiss dam in Alabama (Unit 18), and the operations at Carters Reregulation dam in Georgia (Unit 25) are estimated using average costs incurred by power utilities nationwide to address wildlife concerns during the relicensing process. |
+/- |
Project modification costs associated with construction of the Tom Bevill water supply dam (Unit 11) may be approximated using project modification costs for the relicensing of the hydropower dams as both activities involve the similar impacts of concern (i.e., minimum flows, water quality, etc.). |
+/- |
Action agency Best Management Practices are baseline protections that are practiced consistently and as such, do not introduce additional costs to section 7 consultations. |
- |
- : This assumption may result in an underestimate of real costs. + : This assumption may result in an overestimate of real costs. +/- : This assumption has an unknown effect on estimates. |
|
4.2 Section 7 Activity Details Within Proposed Critical Habitat
162. This section provides context to the results presented in Section 4.1. Each land use activity is discussed with reference to: the particular baseline protections that commonly benefit the mussels in carrying out these activities; the number and specifics of each anticipated consultation effort; and the project modification types and costs that may result from each consultation.
4.2.1 Road/Bridge Construction and Maintenance
Baseline
163. In addition to CWA regulations and FHWA best management practices
(BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, road and bridge projects are bound by
various State regulations that may provide baseline protections to the mussels.
164. The best management practices (BMPs) applied to Alabama Department of
Transportation (ALDOT) projects are based on those outlined by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), and the Alabama Forestry
Commission.
Relevant practices that provide baseline protections to the mussels
include:
• Implementation of streamside management zones of at least 35 feet (11 meters) from the streambank;
• Revegetation and restoration of impacted area to minimize erosion; and
• Avoiding discharge into areas of concentrated shellfish production.
165. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) tailors “Special
Conditions” for each road and bridge project to ensure that it adequately provides
for potential environmental impacts, including threatened and endangered species.
Examples of such conditions include erosion control measures, limitations on in
stream equipment, and frequent monitoring of water quality.
166. Prior to construction, the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT)
typically works closely with the Service in implementing best management practices
including sediment control, installation of stormwater diversion structures to keep
runoff from entering stream channels, and shifting locations of proposed bridges to
avoid impact on aquatic species.
167. The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is currently drafting
BMPs that will consider environmental impacts, including endangered species and
habitat concerns. In the past, TDOT has worked with the Service to tailor special
conditions to each project, including sediment and erosion control.
Future Consultations
168. ALDOT anticipates engaging in approximately 100 section 7 consultations
with the Service over the next ten years on bridge construction, replacement, and
maintenance projects. Ninety informal consultation are estimated for road or
bridge maintenance, and ten formal consultations regarding road or bridge
construction and replacement.
These consultation costs are applied broadly to
all Alabama units within the designation as ALDOT is unable to determine in which
stream segments the consultations may occur.
169. GDOT anticipates participating in approximately 30 to 40 informal
consultations regarding bridge construction and maintenance along the
Conasauga and Tallapoosa Rivers within or adjacent to mussel habitat over the
next ten years. These consultations may stem from bridge maintenance such as
the widening of existing structures. All future consultations are expected to remain
informal due to the current level of protection afforded to the mussels by clean
water regulations and the presence of other listed species (i.e. the Conasauga
logperch and amber darter). Ten of the 40 consultations are likely to occur in
proposed critical habitat Unit 25 along the Conasauga River, and the remaining 20
to 30 consultations are expected to occur in Unit 16 along the Tallapoosa River.
170. The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) anticipates
approximately 14 informal and six formal section 7 consultations in
consideration of road and bridge construction and maintenance along the East Fork
Tombigbee River, Bull Mountain Creek, Buttahatchee River, and Luxapalila Creek
over the next ten years. As no past consultations have occurred with MDOT in past
years, the increased rate in expected consultation activity may be attributable to
increased awareness of the species or their habitat boundaries brought about by
designation of critical habitat. The majority of these consultations are anticipated
to remain informal due to the current level of protection afforded to the mussels
because of the presence of other listed aquatic species as well as MDOT's
implementation of BMPs. A major project that will likely result in a formal
consultation is the bridging of Bull Mountain Creek in proposed critical habitat Unit
2.
171. As a relatively small portion of the critical habitat designation for the mussels
lies within Tennessee, TDOT anticipates that no more than four informal
consultations will take place in the Tennessee portion of Unit 25. These projects
are expected to involve small bridge maintenance or road repair activities.
172. The Mobile District USACE foresees two informal consultations over the
next ten years associated with issuance of 404 permits for the placement of
abutment fill for bridge and road crossings.
173. Also in the Tennessee portion of Unit 25, the USACE anticipates engaging
in one informal consultation regarding bridge maintenance and one formal
consultation regarding bridge replacement activity over the next ten years.
Project Modifications
174. ALDOT informal consultations are not anticipated to result in project
modifications due to the implementation of the aforementioned BMPs.
For the ten
anticipated formal consultations for bridge construction activities, ALDOT
anticipates that the Service will request the following project modifications.
• Timing Restrictions. ALDOT may be restricted from in-stream construction from April to October 1st. The ALDOT does not anticipate additional project costs associated with timing restrictions.
• Restriction on In-Stream Infrastructure. ALDOT anticipates being
restricted from constructing culverts because these projects are likely
to negatively impact the mussels and their habitat. The Service has
stated that it is unlikely that culverts would be an issue in the streams
proposed for critical habitat.
Bridge construction, however, may
require that the bridge span the river and avoid in-stream pilings
which may result in an incremental cost. This modification may cost
$100,000 per project.
• Surveys. The ALDOT anticipates conducting surveys for the presence of the mussels, typically ranging from $3,000 to $9,000 per project.
• Relocating Mussels. Costs associated with relocating mussels
range from $10,000 to $300,000 depending on the size of the project
and the amount of habitat affected.
175. Accordingly, this analysis ascribes an additional cost of $113,000 to $409,000 to all ten formal consultations related ALDOT projects.
176. GDOT anticipates that the Service will request the following project modifications for road/bridge construction and maintenance projects to avoid/minimize impact on the mussels and their habitat.
• Restriction on In-Stream Infrastructure. Avoidance of in-stream
infrastructure necessitates the construction of bridges that span
streams, which may pose additional costs of up to $300,000 per
project. Approximately 25 percent, or ten, of the anticipated
consultations are anticipated to require the avoidance of in-stream
infrastructure.
• Avoiding In-Stream Work. GDOT anticipates being required to keep all equipment out of streams and on platforms during construction to avoid the entrance of waste into the stream channel. No additional significant costs are expected due to this project modification.
177. Accordingly, this analysis attributes an additional cost of $300,000 per project for ten GDOT projects, three within proposed critical habitat Unit 25, and seven within Unit 16.
178. As MDOT has not consulted with the Service regarding the mussels in the past, it is unsure what types of project modifications may be recommended. Due to the communication with the Service regarding development and implementation of BMPs, however, MDOT does not anticipate there will be significant additional costs due to project modification recommendations on road and bridge projects within the mussel habitat.
179. TDOT is currently drafting a list of BMPs to apply to all projects that will be
tailored to minimize impacts to any endangered species and habitat. Projects can
usually be planned in the early stages to avoid species impacts. TDOT anticipates
that it will need to relocate mussels on each of the four informal consultations.
This may result in an additional cost of $1,800 to $15,000 to each consultation.
180. The USACE in Alabama anticipates the following project modification
recommendations associated with the two section 7 consultations regarding
issuance of 404 permits.
• Implementation of BMPs. This is typically done on every project and is not expected to result in an incremental cost to the project.
• Pre-construction species surveys. Species surveys may add an
additional cost of $20,000 to $30,000 depending on the scope of the
project.
• Mussel relocation. Relocation of mussels for the project construction period may result in a cost of $1,800 to $15,000 to each project.
• Habitat restoration. Habitat protection, restoration, and
enhancement projects may be conducted to help offset the impact to
habitat associated with the project construction. The Service
estimates that these modifications may cost from $0 to $200,000 per
project.
181. Accordingly, this analysis ascribes a cost of $21,800 to $245,000 to project modifications regarding issuance of USACE 404 permit for road and bridge projects.
182. The USACE in Tennessee expects a broad range of potential modification
costs regarding bridge maintenance activities. The informal consultation
anticipated in proposed critical habitat Unit 25 is expected to bear additional project
modification costs of approximately $100 to ensure that correct sedimentation
measures and restrictions on construction take place. The formal consultation
regarding bridge replacement, however, may bear an additional cost of up to
$10,000 in the case that the recommendation is made to construct a coffer dam, a
temporary watertight enclosure that is pumped dry in order to expose the bottom of
a body of water and facilitate construction, in order to avoid deposition of waste into
the stream.
4.2.2 Hydropower facilities
Baseline
183. The operations of three hydropower dams may affect critical habitat. These
are Jordan Dam (Unit 26), Weiss Dam (Unit 18), and Carters Reregulation Dam
(Unit 25). Section 3.2.2 of this analysis details the current state of operations at
each of these dams. Each hydropower dam within proposed critical habitat is
subject to the requirements of the Federal Power Act, the Clean Water Act, the Dam
Safety Control Act. Pursuant to the Federal Power Act, relicensing projects will
include proposing protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures that will give
consideration to recreation, fisheries, wildlife, water quality, wetlands, cultural
resources, as well as threatened and endangered species.
For the relicensing
of both Weiss and Jordan Dams, APC intends to submit an environmental
assessment under FERC’s Alternative Licensing Procedure, thereby presenting any
issues encountered, including an analysis of cumulative environmental affects of
the projects in 2005.
184. The mussel critical habitat area adjacent to Jordan Dam also provides
habitat for other endangered species, including the Tulotoma snail. As a result, the
hydropower facility owners/operators have modified operations in the past in
consideration of dam impacts on endangered species. The success of the
Tulotoma snail in the area around Jordan Dam signals that the current operations
at Jordan Dam may provide for favorable habitat conditions for the mussels in this
area.
185. The draft Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) Allocation Formula Agreement
between Alabama and Georgia stipulates that the Carters Reservoir and
Reregulation Dam must operate in a manner necessary to provide a flow at the
Coosa River near Rome, Georgia (Mayo’s Bar) that equals or exceeds 1,500 cfs on
a Weekly Average basis or 1,000 cfs on a Daily Average basis. Currently, both
USACE and Fall Line Hydro operate under a minimum flow requirement of 240
cfs.
Future Consultations
186. As FERC relicensing of both Jordan Dam and Weiss Dam will occur by 2007, two formal section 7 consultations are anticipated over the next ten years related to hydropower activities within proposed critical habitat for the mussels.
187. Operations at Carters Reregulation Dam on the Coosawattee are anticipated
to incur one informal and one formal section 7 consultation over ten years. The
consultations will be propagated by review of the draft ACT Allocation Formula
Agreement. If the hourly water quality monitoring at the site detects possible low
DO levels that violate State water quality standards, FERC will informally consult
with the Service regarding the measures taken in order to comply with the State
standards.
Additionally, the Service may potentially consult formally with USACE
regarding implementing flow requirements at Carters Reservoir and Reregulation
Dam as stipulated by the ACT Basin Commission in the May, 1, 2003 ACT
Allocation Formula Agreement draft.
188. The R. F. Henry Dam is not subject to FERC jurisdiction and relicensing as
both the dam and hydropower generating facilities are federally operated by the
USACE.
Further, the Service has not engaged in any section 7 activity regarding
this dam in the past and does not foresee any issues with its operation that may
result in section 7 activity in the future.
Project Modifications
189. APC has not proposed any changes in operation to either Jordan or Weiss
Dam for the 2005 relicensing proposals. Further, the Service has stated that it does
not anticipate recommending any changes to the operations strategy at Jordan
Dam, as it currently provides favorable habitat conditions for the mussels.
This
analysis therefore does not estimate any project modification costs associated with
the formal consultation for the relicensing of Jordan Dam.
Unit 18: Weiss Dam
190. Operations at Weiss Dam, however, are currently being reviewed and the
Service anticipates potential recommendations, particularly with regard to minimum
flows, for the relicensing consultation. In past FERC hydro relicensing projects, the
Service has recommended the following project modifications for freshwater
mussels.
• Establishing Minimum Flows. Minimum flows were previously
established in Jordan Dam for the protection and enhancement of the
Coosa River fish populations. FERC anticipates that flow criteria at
Jordan dam will be reevaluated during the relicensing process.
The Service asserts, however, that it is unlikely they will request
additional minimum flows for the mussels as the area appears to
provide exceptional habitat for the mussels under the current flow
regime.
For the Weiss development, which currently does not operate under
minimum flow criteria, the Service anticipates requesting increased
flows through the dam’s bypass channel to improve fish habitat, the
recreational fishery, and habitat for listed mussels. Current monthly
average flows at Weiss Dam are 50 cubic feet per second (cfs). In
comparison, Jordan Dam releases between 2000 and 8000 cfs.
Further complicating the flow issues at Weiss Dam is the location of
release. Two flow outlets exist at Weiss Dam, one through the
powerhouse and one that lies midway across the reservoir and marks
the historical stream channel. The latter outlet currently only allows
leakage flows and is the outlet at which the Service would request
increased flows. Methods for establishing minimum flows have not
been determined but may be achieved by releasing water via the
bypass channel’s trash gate.
The Service is unable to foresee the
level of minimum flow it will request, though it may be in the range of
200 cfs to 2,000 cfs.
As the potential change in operations due to
this modification is unclear, it is difficult to calculate the potential
decrease in Weiss Dam’s hydroelectric generation associated with
establishing minimum flows. At this early stage of relicensing and
study, the Service is unsure what level of minimum flow will be
requested.
• Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Alabama Power Company will likely need to implement erosion and sediment controls to aid in protection of the mussels.
191. Potential costs of specific project modifications for the relicensing of Weiss
Dam are uncertain at this early stage of the process. In a review of past hydro
relicensing projects, however, FERC analyzed average costs of implementing
protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures. FERC concludes that
on average, the cost per kilowatt of installed capacity for PM&E measures on
relicensing projects using the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP) is $58. This
figure incorporates costs associated with fish protection measures, minimum flows,
wildlife, recreation, erosion control, and wetlands, aesthetics, cultural resources,
and water quality control.
As Weiss Dam has a generating capacity of 87.75
megawatts (87,750 kW), applying the average cost of PM&E measures associated
with ALP relicensing results in a cost of about $5.09 million for the relicensing of
Weiss Dam.
Further, FERC has indicated that in the past, using traditional
relicensing procedures, wildlife protection measures (not including provisions made
specifically for fisheries) have accounted for approximately 9.5 percent of the total
costs of PM&E measures. Consequently, this analysis estimates a cost of $484,000
(9.5 percent of $5.09 million) for project modifications associated with hydropower
relicensing that address provisions for the mussels and their habitat.
192. It is important to note that these PM&E measures consider costs associated with compliance of the Clean Water Act, the Dam Safety Control Act, the Federal Power Act, and other concerns of the Service (including restoration of recreational fisheries), along with consideration of section 7 with respect to the mussels. As it is difficult to separate the economic impacts associated with these issues from the requirement of section 7, this analysis employs the estimate of $484,000 in the cost assessment.
Unit 25: Carters Reregulation Dam
193. Inadequate dissolved oxygen levels and flow levels are the two issues of concern with respect to federally-listed aquatic species, including the mussels, at this site. The Service has reviewed Fall Line Hydro’s Operations and Water Quality Management Plan and determined that while the proposed plan is adequate, increased water sampling is necessary to detect potential low oxygen levels. Additionally, the Service has recommended that FERC and the licensee further discuss the implementation of higher minimum flows with USACE.
194. This analysis does not anticipate any project modifications will be requested with respect to the informal consultation at Carters Dam as this consultation will focus on compliance with State water quality standards which should provide adequate protections for the mussels.
195. It is unclear at this time what recommendations the Service may make for
project modification associated with the formal consultation. The Service has
indicated that it will likely request increased flows. A target flow rate that will
provide for the protection of the mussels and their habitat, however, has not been
identified at this time and more biological data would be required to determine an
appropriate flow regime.
This analysis, therefore applies the project
modifications costs of $484,000 associated with dam relicensing consultations (as
calculated above) as an approximation of the potential project modification costs
associated with the formal consultation regarding operations at Carters
Reregulation Dam.
4.2.3 Water SupplyDams
Baseline
196. One proposed water supply dam (Beech Creek) and one permitted but not
yet constructed water supply dam (Tom Bevill Reservoir) may affect the critical
habitat area. Potential construction of water supply dams in Alabama and Georgia
is bound by the USACE 404 permit special conditions. Prior even to considering
listed species and critical habitat impacts, the USACE considers potential impacts
to wetlands and other waters of the United States. Reservoir construction in
Georgia is subject to State quality standards as outlined in EPD 401 certification,
the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975, and guidelines
contained within Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission’s “Manual for
Erosion and Sediment Control”.
Future Consultations
197. Although the proposal for the Beech Creek reservoir in Georgia is in initial stages and the likelihood of construction within ten years is uncertain, this analysis assumes that the USACE permitting process concerning the proposed water supply dam at Beech Creek and the permitted water supply dam on the North River in Alabama will trigger two formal section 7 consultations on the mussels within the next ten years (see Section 3.2.3 for more information).
198. No consultation are anticipated regarding a proposed water supply dam at
Armuchee Creek in Floyd County, Georgia as this dam is outside of critical habitat
and the Service does not anticipate that it’s construction or operation will impact the
mussels or their habitat.
199. Proposed water supply dams may affect the following areas proposed as critical habitat for the mussels.
Unit 11: North River, Fayette County, AL
200. The Tom Bevill Reservoir Management Authority (TBRMA) and the Fayette
County Commission proposed to construct a 2,800 foot (853 meters) earthen dam
on the North River which would inundate approximately 1,994 acres. The dam is
designed such that water may be spilled or released from the reservoir by
incorporating a spillway weir and a system of release gates and valves. A formal
section 7 consultation regarding the impact of the reservoir construction on two of
the endangered mussels resulted in a biological opinion which concluded on
October 3, 1994.
The Reservoir was subsequently permitted but has not yet
been constructed. Construction of this structure would result in destruction of the
primary constituent elements of mussel habitat within the footprint of the dam. The
USACE consequently anticipates reinitiating consultation associated with the
issuance of a 404 permit for the placement of fill material in wetlands for the
construction of the dam.
The Service believes it is likely that this consultation
would be formal to address potential adverse modification issues associated with
the designation of critical habitat.
Unit 16: Beech Creek, Haralson County, GA
201. The West Georgia Regional Water Authority has proposed constructing a
pump-diversion reservoir wherein water will be pumped from the Tallapoosa River
into a 2,300-acre lake on Beech Creek. Within the Tallapoosa basin, total municipal
and industrial water demand is projected to increase from 16.7 millions of gallons
per day (MGD) in 1995 to 25.3 MGD in 2050, with residential water demand
comprising 50 percent of total projected demand.
Demand projections are
anticipated to surpass regional surface water withdrawal capabilities and new
methods for securing water resources have been evaluated. The West Georgia
Regional Water Authority has performed an alternative water supply analysis and
determined that the Beech Creek reservoir is the preferred water supply source.
In addition, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources has approved the
issuance of bonds to finance reservoir construction. If constructed, the reservoir
is anticipated to supply water to Haralson, Carroll, and portions of Paulding and
Polk Counties until 2050.
202. The applicant submitted an application for a 404 permit from USACE in 2002
and USACE is currently awaiting additional information prior to proceeding. The
permitting process may be complicated or impeded for reasons other than the
presence of proposed critical habitat. West Georgia Regional Water Authority is
currently seeking opportunities for mitigation land purchases to present in
coordination with the Beech Creek water supply dam proposal. The USACE has
stated that the need for mitigation lands is not directly related to potential impacts
on mussels but instead to mitigate for impacts to wetlands, streamlands, fisheries,
and recreation. Because of the various issues surrounding the disparate potential
impacts, it is unclear whether the water supply dam will be constructed at this
location.
This analysis assumes that permit will be issued for construction at this
location, thereby triggering one formal section 7 consultation with the Service on
the mussels.
Project Modifications
203. The formal consultation associated with the construction of the Tom Bevill
Reservoir is likely to be subject to significant project modification. The Service may
recommend the following project modifications with respect to the mussels:
• Implementation and maintenance of minimum flows to protect mussel species.
• Adherence to USACE Best Management Practices.
• Pre-construction species surveys.
• Mussel relocation.
• Habitat restoration activities such as mussel bed development.
204. The level of minimum flow that would required to protect the mussels and
their habitat has not been established. The Service anticipates, however, that it
may request increases in minimum flows, though to what extent is uncertain.
As
a result, costs associated specifically with changes in flow regime cannot be
estimated with a reasonable level of confidence.
205. Water supply allocation in the region is the subject of considerable public interest. In the worst case scenario, upstream water supply, and water-dependent recreation and tourism could experience secondary effects due to increased flows through the reservoir. Water stored in the reservoir may serve as public water supply and support recreational uses. If downstream flow releases reduce reservoir levels, the possibility exists that less water would be available for water supply and water-based recreational activities. If increased flow requirements for mussel habitat lead to such reductions in water supply or recreational uses, increased costs to water suppliers and the recreation and tourism industry would represent secondary economic effects of section 7. As the level of flows the Service will request is still unclear, it is not possible to estimate the level of secondary impact that may result.
206. Because sufficient information does not exist at this time to delineate the costs anticipated to occur due to each of these project modifications, this analysis estimates that the potential project modification costs associated with the construction of the Tom Bevill reservoir may be represented by the estimated costs associated with the relicensing of hydropower dams (see Section 4.2.2). Recommended provisions for the mussels associated with the construction of water supply dams, and relicensing of hydropower dams are similar in that they require surveying, and maintenance of minimum flows. This analysis accordingly ascribes an incremental cost of $484,000 for project modifications associated with the construction of the Tom Bevill Reservoir on the North River.
207. The proposed West Georgia Regional Reservoir will require the
impoundment of Beech Creek. Because the Beech Creek Reservoir is not within
critical habitat, the impact to mussels habitat is associated with the pumping of
water from the Tallapoosa River during high flow periods into a 27 billion gallon
lake. The Service has stated that as long as the timing of the construction, water
withdrawal, and water releases considers the sensitive spawning periods for the
mussels, that this will not be a concern. It is unlikely that these timing
considerations will add an incremental cost to the design, construction and
operation of the dam.
This analysis, therefore, does not anticipate any project
modification costs associated with the permitting of the Beech Creek Reservoir.
4.2.4 Utilities construction/maintenance
Baseline
208. USACE 404 permit special conditions apply to the permitting of any pipeline
construction or maintenance permits as outlined in Section 2.2.1 of this analysis.
FERC complies with USACE 404 permit guidelines and also encourages erosion
and sediment control measures and post-construction restoration activities.
209. TVA policy concerning environmental impacts revolves around the
minimization of effects of operations on the environment, and compliance with all
relevant environmental laws and regulations.
TVA standard procedures for
transmission line construction and maintenance activities include erosion and
sediment control measures including planning considerations, site revegetation,
equipment use limitations, slope restrictions, and herbicide use restrictions.
State water quality standards also provide some baseline protection. For example,
the Tennessee Water Control Board requires permit applicants to evaluate practical
alternatives and conduct avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation for activities
impacting water.
Future Consultations
210. The Mobile District USACE expects eight informal and four formal
consultations over the next ten years associated with issuance of 404 permits for
pipeline crossing and intake structures. The four formal consultations are
associated with excavation and backfill for a pipeline/intake structure for water
withdrawal for the City of Tupelo, Mississippi.
211. Based on current and proposed transmission lines in the region, the TVA
anticipates a maximum of two informal section 7 consultations over the next ten
years regarding the mussels and their habitat.
As TVA only has jurisdiction over
projects within proposed critical habitat Units 16 and 25 in Georgia and Tennessee,
this analysis assumes that one formal consultation will occur in each of these units.
Project Modifications
212. The USACE in Alabama anticipates the same project modification
recommendations associated with each of the informal and formal consultations as
for the 404 permits regarding road and bridge projects as described in Section 4.2.1
of this analysis. These project modifications include implementation of BMPs, pre-construction species surveys, mussel relocation, and habitat restoration and are
estimated to add an incremental cost of $21,800 to $245,000 to each of the eight
informal and four formal consultations.
213. The TVA typically follows environmental quality protection specifications for
transmission line construction and works with project engineers to avoid and
minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species. As a result, future
consultations with respect to the mussels are expected to remain informal with no
project modifications.
4.2.5 Activities in National Forests
Baseline
214. Amendment 14 of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of the
National Forests in Alabama (1986) provides guideline standards specifically
related to the protection of aquatic species and habitats for activities within the
National Forests. Protections afforded the mussels include the establishment of
streamside management zones (SMZ) and riparian buffer areas with provisions for
logging and woody debris removal requirements; mineral soil exposure limitations;
restrictions on stream crossings and mechanical equipment use in streams;
silviculture guidelines; plowed firel-lines; and limited applications of pesticides and
fertilizers.
215. Further, the USFS is currently engaged in a programmatic consultation with the Service regarding the 2003 revision of the Alabama Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The draft revised Plan incorporates Amendment 14 of the previous plan and further strengthens provisions for aquatic and riparian habitat and threatened and endangered species. Accordingly, the estimates of anticipated consultations within Alabama National Forests considers that the implementation of mutually agreed upon standards will reduce the number of programmatic and project related consultations, particularly for routine Forest management activities, such as establishment of appropriate project buffer zones related to prescribed burning, silviculture, recreation, and construction and other maintenance projects within the forests. The National Forests, however, have a back log of projects that have been delayed while waiting on the Plan revision and also due to budgetary constraints. Consequently, within the next ten years, overall numbers of project consultations will likely remain stable or slightly increase over the numbers of the previous decade.
Future Consultations
216. Portions of two districts of the Talladega National Forest lie within the
proposed critical habitat Units 18, 19, 20, and 22 in Alabama, the Talladega District
and Shoal Creek District.
The two districts of the Talladega National Forest
together anticipate up to 21 informal and two formal section 7 consultations
associated with forest service activities over the next ten years. These
consultations are expected to correlate with the following activities taking place
within the forests.
• Prescribed burnings. The USFS anticipates one informal consultations regarding prescribed burnings over the next ten years.
• Special uses. Special uses include projects that improve or establish access to private land or facilitate the construction of utilities, such as powerlines. Approximately six informal consultations associated with special uses are likely to occur over the next ten years.
• Recreation. Recreational activities at Talladega that lead to section 7 consultations are campground maintenance and re-routing of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails. The USFS expects six informal consultations regarding campground maintenance and re-routing of ATV trails over the next ten years.
• Bridge construction or maintenance. The USFS anticipates two informal consultations regarding bridge construction or maintenance projects over the next ten years.
• Watershed protection. Additionally, two informal consultations regarding watershed protection are expected over the next ten years.
• Wildlife management plans. The implementation of wildlife habitat
management practices, such as the installation of forest openings,
are likely to require an informal section 7 consultation. The USFS
expects four informal consultations regarding wildlife management
plans over the next ten years.
• Forest health and restoration. The USFS foresees two formal
consultations regarding forest health and restoration projects over the
next ten years, one in each district of the National Forest.
217. Activities in Bankhead National Forest in Unit 10 of the proposed critical habitat in Alabama are expected to result in 18 informal and one formal section 7 consultation over the next ten years in the following expected activities.
• Prescribed burnings. The USFS anticipates one informal consultation regarding prescribed burnings over the next ten years.
• Special uses. Special uses include projects that improve or establish access to private land or facilitate the construction of utilities, such as powerlines. Ten informal consultations associated with special uses are likely to occur over the next ten years.
• Recreation. Four informal consultations are expected to occur over the next ten years on projects involving trail heads and parking lot construction.
• Bridge construction or maintenance. The USFS anticipates one informal consultations regarding bridge construction or maintenance projects over the next ten years.
• Forest and wildlife management plans. The USFS anticipates two
informal consultations regarding forest management plans, and
wildlife management plans collectively over the next ten years.
• Forest health and restoration. The USFS foresees one formal
consultation regarding forest health and restoration project over the
next ten years.
218. The Tuskegee National Forest area in Unit 17 of the proposed critical habitat in Alabama is likely to engage in activities resulting in up to six informal and one formal section 7 consultation over the next ten years.
• Prescribed burnings. The USFS anticipates one informal consultation regarding prescribed burnings over the next ten years.
• Special uses. One informal consultation associated with special uses is likely to occur over the next ten years.
• Recreation. Trail relocation projects are expected to lead to two informal consultations over the next ten years.
• Road construction or maintenance. The USFS foresees two informal consultations to result from road construction or maintenance projects.
• Forest health and restoration. The USFS foresees one formal
consultation regarding a forest health and restoration project over the
next ten years.
219. This analysis anticipates up to 13 informal consultations over ten years with the USFS regarding the following activities and projects within the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest in Georgia (proposed critical habitat Unit 25).
• Silviculture. The USFS manages all State and private timber
harvests within the boundaries of national forests, ensuring all
harvests are conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner. No
timber sales harvests within the Chattahoochee National Forest are
expected within the next two years. However, contingent on the
adoption of the Forest’s revised management plan, a maximum of ten
harvests will occur within the decade that may result in informal
section 7 consultation on the mussels.
• Prescribed burns. The USFS is responsible for conducting
prescribed burns to maintain fire-dependent ecosystems and clear
forest grounds of dead wood and brush. Prescribed burns are
expected to result in two informal section 7 consultations on the
mussels over the next ten years.
• Forest management plan. The Chattahoochee National Forest is in the process of revising and adopting its Forest Management Plan, which will guide all natural resource management activities for a ten to 15 year period. The plan will be reviewed by the Service to ensure it is appropriately protective of aquatic threatened and endangered species. This analysis anticipates one informal section 7 consultation on Chattahoochee National Forest’s forthcoming management plan within the next ten years.
220. Activities conducted and overseen by the Cherokee National Forest within the proposed critical habitat designation Unit 25 in Tennessee are anticipated to result in five informal section 7 consultations with the Service over ten years.
• Silviculture. Cherokee National Forest expects to consult informally
on up to three timber harvests and their impact on the proposed
critical habitat for the mussels.
• Recreation. The USFS consults on recreational activities such as campground construction that occur in or adjacent to stream and river beds. One informal section 7 consultation related to recreational activities is expected to occur in the next ten years.
• Road maintenance and construction. This analysis anticipates one
informal consultation on forest road construction and maintenance
projects over the next ten years.
Project Modifications
221. Biologists at Bankhead, Tuskegee, and Talladega National Forests in
Alabama maintain that due to the protections afforded the species in Amendment
14 of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, additional project
modifications on their activities are not likely to be recommended by the Service.
Further, no project modifications are expected to result from consultations in
Chattahoochee or Cherokee National Forests.
4.2.6 Agriculture and ranching-related activities
Baseline
222. All agricultural activities are bound by State water quality standards as outlined in Appendix A of this analysis. Further, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Services Agency (FSA) projects are typically designed in order to improve agricultural practices, including minimizing wildlife impacts.
Future Consultations
223. The NRCS in Alabama anticipates six to nine informal and one formal consultation over the next ten years. These low numbers can be attributed to the fact that few NRCS projects occur in the units being proposed for critical habitat designation.
• Flood Control. One formal consultation is likely to result for a flood control project through the Emergency Watershed Protection division of NRCS.
• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). NRCS expects four to six informal consultations related to the CRP program. However, this does not include riparian buffer restoration projects. NRCS does not consult with the Service regarding these projects due to the implementation and adherence to CRP guidelines.
• Animal Waste Planning. NRCS anticipates two to three informal
consultations regarding animal waste planning projects within the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) program.
224. The NRCS in Georgia runs an active EQIP program (see Section 3.2.6 of this
analysis) and anticipates engaging in consultation with the Service regarding any
EQIP projects within the proposed critical habitat Units 16 and 25. Three informal
and one formal consultations are likely within these units over the next ten years
and may regard activities such as heavy use area protection, upland habitat
management, or critical area planning.
225. The NRCS in Tennessee provides technical and financial assistance to
private landowners. Projects that may affect the mussels involve the
implementation of such conservation practices as streambank stabilization, stream
crossing, fencing, forested riparian buffer zones, filter strips, and manure
application. The NRCS anticipates 20 informal consultations regarding the
application of streamside conservation practices over the next ten years.
226. The FSA in Georgia fulfills farm loan requests from private landowners
concerning the purchase of real estate such as farms, or for construction of barns
or other livestock facilities that may result in a ground disturbance with the potential
to affect the mussels habitat. The FSA anticipates two informal consultations in
review of such projects within the proposed critical habitat Units 16 and 25 over the
next ten years.
227. The USACE in Tennessee expects approximately four informal and four
formal consultations related to 404 permitting of private landowner bank
stabilization projects within Unit 25 of the proposed critical habitat for the
mussels.
228. The NRCS may consult in Southeastern States on their boll weevil
eradication program. This program considers multiple threatened and endangered
species, including each of the endangered mussels excluding the dark pigtoe.
Fifteen different pesticides are utilized throughout the project area which
encompasses different lands each year as the boll weevils become extirpated.
Eight States are currently considered active in the eradication program, including
Mississippi and Tennessee.
The Service in Mississippi and Tennessee,
however, have commented that they have not consulted on this program in the past
and do not anticipate doing so in the future. Cotton fields do not exist within or
surrounding the area proposed as critical habitat within Tennessee and are present
only in small quantities near critical habitat within Mississippi.
Project Modifications
229. The anticipated formal consultation associated with a flood control project with the NRCS in Alabama may lead to the following project modifications:
• Construction Methods. The Service may restrict the use of mechanical equipment in the stream channel, and require all work to be completed from the bank. Costs associated with working from the bank depend on the width of the stream; therefore, they can range from an increase of ten to twenty percent of the total project cost, resulting in additional costs of $4,460 to the consultation.
• Termination of the project. The NRCS may terminate the project
completely if the Service decides that the project will result in
jeopardy or adverse modification to the mussels or habitat. The cost
of project cancellation is difficult to quantify as it depends on the
planning stage of the project.
230. Projects within the EQIP program are intended to positively impact the
environment; therefore, consultations remain at the informal level, and are unlikely
to lead to significant project modification.
Similarly, the FSA in Georgia does not
anticipate modification of projects due to section 7 consultation for the mussels.
231. The USACE in Tennessee expects there to be a broad range of potential
modification costs regarding bank stabilization activities. The four informal
consultations are expected to bear additional project modification costs of
approximately $100 to ensure that correct sedimentation measures were in place.
The four formal consultations, however, may bear an additional cost of up to
$10,000 to account for potential surveying for the mussels.
4.2.7 Water quality activities
Baseline
232. All water quality-related projects within the proposed critical habitat are
subject to the provisions of the CWA and State water quality standards as outlined
in Section 2.2.1 and Appendix A of this analysis. State water quality standards, as
reviewed by the EPA, must be designed such that the water bodies meet their
respective uses, including recreation and providing habitat to wildlife species. As
such, State water quality standards intend to meet the needs of the mussels and
consultations regarding water quality activities are primarily informal consultations
without any recommended project modification.
Future Consultations
233. The EPA must approve Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) levels along 303 (d) designated streams. Six stream segment exist within critical habitat that are on the State 303 (d) list due to water quality criteria impairments. The following list describes these rivers and their listed impairments.
• Unit 2: Bull Mountain Creek
• pesticides
• nutrients
• organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
• sediments/siltation
• Unit 3: Buttahatchee River
• pesticides
• nutrients
• organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
• sediments/siltation
• Unit 4: Yellow Creek
• pesticides
• nutrients
• organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
• sediments/siltation
• Unit 12: Locust Fork
• nutrients
• sediments/siltation
• Unit 13: Cahaba River
• nutrients
• sediments/siltation
• Unit 16: Tallapoosa River
• organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
The EPA anticipates consulting once per impairment on each of these rivers over the next ten years (e.g., four consultations are anticipated for TMDLs at Yellow Creek over the next ten years).
234. Overall, 17 formal consultations are anticipated to occur within these six
critical habitat units with respect to EPA review of TMDL levels, one consultation
for each aquatic life criteria impairment listed. Although such consultations may
have been resolved informally in the past, these informal consultations were
particularly lengthy and the costs resulting are more accurately represented by the
effort level and associated cost of a formal consultation.
235. EPA further consults with the Service regarding review of State 303 (d) lists
and State water quality standards. As these consults follow a standard format
resulting from a past programmatic consultation, they are anticipated to remain
informal in nature. One to four informal consultations are expected within each
State in review of 303 (d) lists, and three informal consultations are anticipated
within each State in review of water quality standards over the next ten years.
236. EPA funding of Special Appropriation Projects (SPAPs) regarding water
quality improvements may also result in consultations where these projects occur
within or adjacent to the proposed critical habitat for the mussels. It is likely that
funding of drinking water or wastewater facility improvements will result in three
formal consultations over the next ten years.
237. The Mobile District USACE states that it will likely engage in one informal
consultation over the next ten years for the issuance of a 404 permit for the
placement of fill material in jurisdictional wetlands.
Project Modifications
238. Project modifications are not anticipated for approval of TMDLs, 303 (d) lists, or State water quality standards as provisions for the mussels are typically considered and recommendations of protective measures are often redundant with the CWA regulations.
SPAP projects within critical habitat may require the following modifications:
• Species surveys. Surveys typically cost anywhere between $10,000 to $25,000.
• Project redesign. Pipelines and infrastructure may have to be relocated to avoid species habitat. This may introduce a cost of about $25,000 to the project.
Accordingly, this analysis ascribes an additional cost of $35,000 to $50,000 to the three consultations regarding funding of SPAPs.
239. The Mobile District USACE anticipates the same project modification
recommendations associated with the anticipated informal consultations as those
anticipated for the 404 permits regarding road and bridge projects as described in
Section 4.2.1 of this analysis. These project modifications include implementation
of BMPs, pre-construction species surveys, mussel relocation, and habitat
restoration and are estimated to add an incremental cost of $21,800 to $245,000
to each of the consultations.
4.2.8 Conservation and Recreation
Baseline
240. Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) projects are partially funded or otherwise supported by the Service. Because the Service is aware of species concerns, projects are designed to be beneficial to present species and habitat.
Future Consultations
241. In coming years, the Mobile District USACE intend to increase habitat
restoration activities within the proposed critical habitat area for the mussels.
Although in the recent past, the level of activity for such projects has been limited
(there has been one consultation over the past eight years), the USACE anticipates
up to 68 informal consultations over the next ten years for Section 206 and 1135
aquatic habitat restoration projects as this program is accelerated (see Section
3.2.8).
242. In addition, the USACE in Mobile, AL foresees one formal consultation
associated with issuance of a 404 permit for the straightening of the channel at
Black Creek in Mississippi.
243. Typically PFW projects in Alabama concern wetland restoration activities,
such as tree planting, or restoration of riparian forest buffers. Less frequently the
projects will be related to agricultural improvements, such as cattle fencing. The
Service in Alabama anticipates approximately 25 informal internal consultations
regarding PFW projects over the next ten years, two each in the Cahaba River area
(Unit 13) and Bogue Chitto Creek area (Unit 15), and one each in the remaining
critical habitat units within Alabama.
244. The Service in Georgia engages in internal consultations on their PFW
projects as well. Such projects most often involve streambank restoration, livestock
fencing, vegetation planting, or control of exotic species. Thirteen to 20 informal
consultations are likely over the next ten years in the Georgia portion of the
proposed critical habitat for the mussels.
245. Within Mississippi, PFW activities revolve around bank stabilization and
erosion control with small-scale private farms. The majority of the farms in this rural
area are dedicated to cotton or soybean production. Approximately nine informal
internal consultations are expected regarding PFW projects that may affect the
mussels in Mississippi over the next ten years, three along the Buttachatchee (Unit
3) and two each around East Fork Tombigbee River (Unit 1), Bull Mountain Creek
(Unit 2), and Luxapalila Creek (Unit 4).
246. The Tennessee portion of critical habitat for the mussels (Unit 25) may
experience up to 20 informal consultations regarding PFW projects over the next
ten years. Such projects typically involve livestock fencing, water sources for
livestock, and hardening of stream crossings or bank stabilizations to prevent
erosion.
247. The Service funds the active fish stocking program that is run through the
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (DWFP) intended to
restore recreational fisheries within the State of Mississippi. Once per year, an
internal informal consultation takes place regarding fish stocking plans for the year.
Each of the critical habitat streams within Mississippi may be stocked with game fish
within the next ten years. Accordingly, ten informal internal section 7
consultations are anticipated over the next ten years within the Mississippi portion
of the critical habitat designation for the mussels.
Project Modifications
248. The USACE in Alabama anticipates the same project modification
recommendations associated the anticipated formal consultations as for the 404
permits regarding road and bridge projects as described in Section 4.2.1 of this
analysis. These project modifications include implementation of BMPs, pre-construction species surveys, mussel relocation, and habitat restoration and are
estimated to add an incremental cost of $21,800 to $245,000 to the consultation
regarding channel straightening.
249. This analysis does not estimate that the USACE aquatic habitat restoration
projects will bear additional project modification costs as these projects are
intended to be beneficial to the species and habitat and accordingly are not
anticipated to have adverse effects. Although these projects will require species
surveys, because of the nature of the project to provide adequate habitat for the
species, these surveys would be conducted for the projects regardless of the
section 7 activity.
250. As these projects are designed to benefit the mussels and habitat, PFW consultations are not expected to bear any additional project modification costs. Further, the MS DWFP does not anticipate project modifications to their fish stocking program within the State of Mississippi.
4.2.9 Dredging
Baseline
251. The required section 10 sand and gravel excavation permit provides baseline
protections to the mussels. Some of the special conditions contained in the permit
limit the dredging activity as follows: (1) no destruction of a threatened or
endangered species or the critical habitat of such species; (2) work restricted to
outside the stream flow, “in the dry,” and during low flow conditions from July 15
through October 31; (3) maintenance of a mandatory buffer zone between the
excavation site and the stream flow; (4) streamside vegetation must be left
undisturbed and intact; and (5) site access is limited to the existing road network.
State water quality permits also provide a level of baseline protection for the
mussels.
Future Consultations
252. The Mobile District ACE anticipates six informal and eight formal
consultations for dredging activities within the proposed critical habitat for the
mussels. These dredging events are categorized accordingly.
• Maintenance dredging and disposal. Four formal and five informal consultations may occur over the next ten years regarding issuance of 404 permits associated with this activity. These projects typically involve new excavation and also include debris removal, clearing, and snagging. Two of these informal consultations are associated with new excavation for construction of a marine facility on the Alabama River (Unit 14).
• Commercial sand and gravel dredging. One informal consultation is anticipated in Unit 4 of the proposed critical habitat.
• Dredging for small boat access. This dredging is limited to the mouths of the sloughs and boat ramps and may be done in conjunction with the dredging of the Federal navigation channel. The USACE, however, foresees up to two formal consultations over the next ten years for dredging of the small boat access channel in the Alabama River (Unit 14) separate from the consultations regarding dredging of the Federal navigation channel.
• Dredging of Federal navigation channel. Two formal consultations may occur over the next ten years associated with dredging of the Federal navigation channel on the Alabama River from Gardner’s Island to R.F. Henry Lock and Dam. This dredging occurs approximately every five years and there is one ongoing consultation anticipated to be completed in summer 2003. Therefore, one consultation is anticipated to occur in approximately five years, and another in ten years from now.
Project Modifications
253. The USACE in Alabama anticipates the same project modification
recommendations for each of the six informal and seven of the eight formal
consultations as for the 404 permits regarding road and bridge projects as
described in Section 4.2.1 of this analysis. These project modifications include
implementation of BMPs, pre-construction species surveys, mussel relocation, and
habitat restoration and are estimated to add an incremental cost of $21,800 to
$245,000 to these dredging projects.
254. The dredging of the Federal navigation channel, however, may result in
greater project modification costs as this activity may require establishing 300 foot
(91 meter) buffer zones around known mussel beds, and the purchase of upland
disposal areas for the dredge material. For the current dredging consultation, the
USACE and the Service have agreed that it is best for the dredge material to
remain in-stream after dredging.
The Service has indicated that it intends to
make this same recommendation for future dredging consultations.
In this case,
the project modifications associated channel dredging would consist of the same
measures as described above at a cost of $21,800 to $245,000 per consultation.
The USACE, however, has expressed concern that for future consultations the
Service may request that dredge material be removed from the stream. This would
require purchase of land upstream to serve as a disposal site for the dredge
material. Acquiring and establishing such land is anticipated to cost up to
$8,000,000.
Because of the potentially harmful geomorphic effects to mussels,
the Service has stated that it does not intend to recommend upland disposal of
dredge material in the Alabama River within the foreseeable future.
255. The establishment of new upland disposal sites is a one time cost and, consequently, would be associated with only one of the two formal consultations anticipated for dredging of the Federal navigation channel. For the purposes of this analysis, project modification costs for purchase of upland disposal sites are assumed to be associated with the first consultation, and may range from $21,800 to $8,245,000. The variation in this range stems from the uncertainty regarding whether or not purchase of upland disposal areas will be recommended. Project modifications associated with the second formal consultation are anticipated to range from $21,800 to $245,000, as the one time cost of acquiring disposal sites is assumed to be associated with the first consultation.
4.3 Estimated Technical Assistance Efforts
256. Although they are not direct section 7 costs, technical assistance efforts are
included in the cost analysis when it is determined that they are engendered by
consideration of species and habitat protection resulting from the designation of
critical habitat The estimates for the per effort technical assistance costs are based
on recent experience at the Service’s Daphne, AL Field Office. Costs associated
with these efforts include the opportunity cost of Service personnel time, as well as
third party staff costs. Per effort costs associated with technical assistance are
presented in Exhibit 4-1. On average, technical assistance efforts required
approximately an hour of Service personnel time. Therefore, on average technical
assistance requests cost approximately $50 per request.
4.3.1 USFS Technical Assistance
257. The USFS requests technical assistance to inform the Service about various
projects and ensure that they abide by State BMPs and criteria within Forest
Management Plans. Both the USFS in Chattahoochee and Cherokee National
Forests anticipate requesting technical assistance from the Service approximately
two times per year.
Thus, a total of 40 technical assistance requests are
anticipated within the next ten years within Unit 25 of the proposed critical habitat.
4.3.2 NPDES permit review
258. In all four States, the Service is notified and receives copies of draft NPDES permits from State environmental agencies. NPDES permitted activities requiring EPA oversight are for discharges exceeding one million gallons per day (one MGD). Most NPDES activities within proposed critical habitat for the mussels do not meet this criteria and therefore do not require EPA oversight. Consequently, exchanges between State environmental agencies and the Service are classified as technical assistance efforts. These technical assistance efforts generally involve the Service notifying both State agencies and applicants about the presence of the mussels and ensuring that federal and State water quality standards are addressed. This analysis estimates that approximately 400-460 technical assistance efforts regarding NPDES activities will occur over the next ten years.
259. In Alabama, the Service has commented on NPDES activities permitted by
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). Effluent
limitations and other restrictions contained in ADEM NPDES permits are consistent
with EPA regulations and applicable State water quality standards and are
designed to protect indigenous species of fish and wildlife, including endangered
species. ADEM also applies guidelines within the Alabama Soil & Water
Conservation Committee’s Alabama Handbook Best Management Practices.
This
analysis estimates that approximately 320 technical assistance efforts between
the Service and ADEM regarding NPDES permitted activity over the next ten
years.
260. In Georgia, the Service comments on about 50-100 percent of the draft
NPDES permits they receive from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) regarding potential impact on threatened and endangered species. Within
the counties under consideration for mussel critical habitat in Georgia, on average
12 NPDES permits are issued per year.
In the past few years, EPD has not had
any new or expanding permits meeting the one MGD criteria for the Service to
review in the particular counties under consideration.
This analysis anticipates
that a range of 60 to 120 technical assistance efforts will take place in the next
ten years with regard to NPDES permits in the Georgia portion of the proposed
designation.
261. NPDES activities within the Mississippi portion of the proposed designation
typically relate to wastewater discharge. The Service occasionally sends letters to
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to ensure that pH,
chlorine and ammonia levels will not impact the mussels. No discharge facilities
within the Mississippi counties in the proposed critical habitat designation meet the
one MGD criteria.
This analysis estimates approximately 20 technical
assistance efforts will take place over the next ten years regarding NPDES permit
review in Mississippi.
262. The Service has reviewed NPDES activities permitted by the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Most of the areas within the
Tennessee portion of the proposed designation for the mussels, however, are within
Cherokee National Forest and therefore few land use activities require NPDES
permits. Morever, due to the biologically diverse nature of the Conasauga, TDEC
is not likely to permit NPDES activity in this region. Accordingly, TDEC does not
anticipate any technical assistance or informal consultations with the Service within
the next ten years.
4.3.3 Power Company Certifications
263. Mississippi assists private power companies by providing technical assistance in review of statewide blanket certifications to ensure that activities adequately provide for area wildlife, including the 11 mussel species. Each company requests technical assistance on certifications approximately once per year. Although there are 12 power companies operating within the proposed critical habitat for the mussels, the Service anticipates engaging in six technical assistance efforts regarding the review of statewide certifications over the next ten years.
4.3.4 Boat Ramp Activities
264. The Service in Mississippi also anticipates providing technical assistance to private parties with respect to construction or maintenance of boat ramps within the proposed critical habitat in Mississippi. Proper construction of the ramps avoids negative impact to the species. Approximately one technical assistance effort is expected within Units 1, 2, and 3 of the proposed designation for a total of three technical assistance efforts regarding boat ramp activity over the next ten years.
4.3.5 Private Landowner Support
265. Private landowners may request technical assistance from the Service in order to ensure that their activities that are not subject to section 7 consultation adequately provide for the species and habitat. Although this is not a section 7 cost, it is included in the cost analysis where it is determined that the effort is engendered by the designation of critical habitat.
266. The Service in Georgia responds to calls from private landowners regarding the potential impacts of critical habitat designation. Approximately 60 to 80 technical assistance efforts are anticipated with regard to private landowner support, 30 to 40 within Unit 16 and 30 to 40 within Unit 25.
267. The Service in Alabama likewise responds to private landowner concerns regarding potential or perceived impacts of critical habitat on private lands. Such activities may generate about 120 technical assistance efforts within the AL portion of the designation over the next ten years.
4.4 Other Regulatory Assessments
Potential Impacts on Small Entities
268. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever a Federal
agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule,
it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of an agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, Appendix B of this analysis provides a screening level
analysis of the potential effects of critical habitat designation on small entities to
assist the Secretary in making this certification.
Potential Impacts on the Energy Industry
269. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” issued May 18, 2001,
Federal agencies must prepare and submit a “Statement of Energy Effects” for all
“significant energy actions.” The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all
Federal agencies “appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal
Government’s regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy.”
The
Office of Management and Budget has provided guidance for implementing this
executive order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant
adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration.
Appendix B of this analysis provides an analysis of the potential effects of critical
habitat designation on the energy industry.
Unfunded Mandates Analysis
270. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the
Service must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
significant regulatory actions that include a Federal mandate resulting in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
An analysis of the annual
costs to State and local government, and private entities is included in Appendix B
of this analysis.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT SECTION 5
271. The published economics literature has documented that real social welfare benefits can result from the conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species (Bishop (1978, 1980), Brookshire and Eubanks (1983), Boyle and Bishop (1986), Hageman (1985), Samples et al. (1986), Stoll and Johnson (1984)). Such benefits have also been ascribed to preservation of open space and biodiversity, both of which are associated with species conservation (see examples in Pearce and Moran (1994) and Fausold and Lilieholm (1999)). Likewise, regional economies and communities can benefit from the preservation of healthy populations of endangered and threatened species, and the habitat on which these species depend (ECONorthwest [2002]).
272. However, a purpose of the Act is to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Thus, the benefits of actions taken under the Act are primarily measured in terms of the value placed by the public on species preservation (e.g., avoidance of extinction, and/or an increase in a species’ population). Such social welfare values may reflect both use and non-use (i.e., existence) values. For example, use values might include the potential for recreational use of a species (e.g., viewing opportunities) should recovery be achieved. Non-use values are not derived from direct use of the species, but instead reflect the utility the public derives from knowledge that a species continues to exist.
273. In addition, as a result of actions taken to preserve endangered and threatened species, various other benefits may accrue to the public. Such benefits may be a direct result of modifications to projects made following section 7 consultation, or may be collateral to such actions. For example, a section 7 consultation may result in the conservation of buffer strips along streams, in order to reduce sedimentation due to construction activities. A reduction in sediment load may directly benefit water quality, while the presence of buffer strips may also provide the collateral benefits of preserving habitat for terrestrial species and enhancing nearby residential property values (e.g., preservation of open space).
274. The remainder of this chapter describes the categories of benefits resulting from implementation of section 7 of the Act in the context of areas affected by the proposed designation. First, it qualitatively describes the types of benefits likely to result from section 7 protections. Then, it addresses both the benefits associated with species preservation as well as habitat protection.
275. As discussed below, it is not feasible to fully describe and accurately monetize the benefits of this designation in the context of this economic analysis. The discussion presented in this report provides insight into the potential benefits of the designation based on information obtained in the course of developing the economic analysis. It is not intended to provide a complete analysis of the benefits that could result from section 7 of the Act. Given these limitations, the Service believes that the benefits of critical habitat designation are best expressed in biological terms that can be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the rulemaking.
5.1 Categories of Benefits
276. Implementation of section 7 of the Act is expected to substantially increase the probability of recovery for the 11 mussels. Such implementation includes both the jeopardy provisions afforded by the listing, as well as the adverse modification provisions provided by the designation. Specifically, the section 7 consultations that address the 11 mussels will assure that actions taken by Federal agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of the 11 mussels or adversely modify its habitat. Note that these measures are separate and distinct from the section 9 “take” provisions of the Act, which also provide protection to this species.
277. The benefits of critical habitat designation can therefore be placed into two broad categories:(1) those associated with the primary goal of species conservation, and (2) those that derive mainly from the habitat protection required to achieve this primary goal. In the case of the 11 mussels, habitat protection provides for a variety of environmental benefits, including:
• Decreased sedimentation and decreased turbidity resulting from erosion control measures, maintenance of minimum flows, and habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects.
• Stable water volume, flow, and depth resulting from erosion control measures and maintenance of minimum flows.
• Stable water temperature resulting from maintenance of minimum flows.
• Decreased habitat loss resulting from erosion control measures, maintenance of minimum flows, habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement projects.
• Decreased chance of isolation of mussel species and fish host species resulting from increased flows at dam sites and mussel relocation efforts.
278. Exhibit 5-1 details those activities expected to generate section 7 consultations leading to project modifications associated with the proposed critical habitat for the 11 mussels, organized by the category of physical/biological improvement expected to result from the project modification. Specifically, this exhibit identifies the physical/biological improvements expected to result from implementation of section 7 of the Act and existing baseline protections. As discussed, uncertainty exists in appropriately allocating the number and costs of certain project modifications between existing baseline regulations, such as the Federal Power Act, and the implementation of section 7 of the Act.
Exhibit 5-1 PHYSICAL/BIOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS ANTICIPATED TO RESULT FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS FOR THE MUSSELS |
||||
Physical/Biological Improvement |
Expected Project Modification |
Nexus |
Critical Habitat Unit |
Number of Expected Consultations |
Decreased erosion/sedimentation |
Implementation of erosion control measures and limits on in-stream construction activities |
FHA/DOT USACE FERC NRCS EPA |
Units 3-26 Units 1,2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 25 Units 18 and 25 Unit 3-26 Unknown Units |
20 42 2 1 3 |
Increasing flows through the historical channel of the river (allows for more habitat for multiple species and restoration of fisheries) |
Implementation of minimum flows |
FERC USACE |
Units 18 and 25 Unit 11 |
2 1 |
Habitat improvements |
Post-construction habitat restoration activities |
USACE |
Units 1,2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 25 |
42 |
279. It is expected that 68 consultations will result in project modifications providing for stable water quality, flow and depth. These are expected to result from consultations regarding road and bridge construction (24 consultations), dredging (14 consultations), utilities construction and maintenance (12 consultations), agriculture and ranching improvement projects (nine consultations), hydropower operations (three consultation), water quality activities (four consultations), conservation and recreation projects (one consultation), and water supply dams (one consultation). These consultations will be conducted under both the section 7 listing provisions (i.e., jeopardy), as well as the section 7 critical habitat related provisions (i.e., adverse modification), and thus are not solely attributable to the proposed designation. Note that estimates of future consultations provided in Exhibit 5-1 are conservative (i.e., more likely to overstate than understate the true number of project modifications that could result from section 7 requirements associated with the 11 mussels). For example, forecast modifications to hydro-power projects may, in fact, have been required under the Federal Power Act in the absence of section 7.
280. The physical/biological improvements listed in Exhibit 5-1 may in turn provide for a variety of economic benefits. For example, reduced sedimentation and turbidity may improve fish populations, resulting in improved recreational fishing opportunities. The discussion below provides qualitative descriptions of the economic benefits associated with these environmental improvements. As noted, while it is possible to estimate the number of projects that will generate consultations requiring project modifications, existing data do not allow for quantification or monetization of the ecological or economic implications of these requirements.
5.1.1 Benefits Associated with Species Conservation
281. The primary benefit of designating critical habitat is to increase the chance of conservation for the mussels. Quantifying the benefits associated with improved chance of conservation requires an assessment of the public’s value for the designation of critical habitat for species such as the mussels. This may include both a use and non-use (i.e., existence value) component.
Use Value
282. The value that the public holds for species preservation may include a direct use component related to commercial harvesting or viewing opportunities. Commercial harvesters, however, have generally focused on more conspicuous mussel species for the purpose of buttons and pearl nuclei. Below we describe possible human use benefits associated with the recovery of the 11 mussels.
283. Freshwater mussels have historically been used for a variety of commercial purposes. Notably, in the late 19th century mussel shells were harvested to create “pearl buttons” for shirts. This trade ended with the development of synthetic substitutes. In more recent years, freshwater mussels were harvested in the U.S. to provide nuclei for the cultivated pearl industry. Significant numbers of mussels were harvested in the South (including Tennessee and Alabama) to support this export industry; in fact, harvest in some States rose to a level that threatened mussel populations (both those species that were the target of the harvest effort as well as those simply affected by harvest activities). Restrictions on freshwater mussel harvests to protect all mussel species are now in effect in many States, including Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama.
284. While several species of freshwater mussels provide some commercial
economic benefit, the shells of most of the 11 mussels are too thin to be valued by
the mussel harvest industry, and were not commercially harvested historically. The
heavier shelled of the 11 species, such as the southern clubshell and the triangular
kidneyshell, may have occasionally been used in the historic button manufacture
industry, however, they have never been target species for commercial mussel
harvest.
Thus, commercial benefits are not expected to result in the foreseeable
future from the recovery of the 11 mussels
Existence Value
285. Existence value reflects the utility the public derives from knowledge that a species continues to exist. A number of published studies have demonstrated that the public holds values for endangered and threatened species separate and distinct from any expected direct use of these species (i.e., a willingness to pay to simply assure that a species will continue to exist). These studies include Boyle and Bishop (1987), Elkstrand and Loomis (1998), Kotchen and Reiling (2000), and Loomis and White (1996). There is little doubt that the mussels provide intrinsic value, and that this value will be enhanced by their survival and conservation.
286. This analysis attempts to assess the benefits of protections afforded the mussels as a result of designating an additional unit of critical habitat. The existing economics literature does not provide quantitative estimates of these benefits. To accurately quantify the existence value benefits for the mussels would require information regarding the public’s marginal willingness to pay for an incremental unit of critical habitat, in terms of the increased probability of conservation or increase in abundance of the species.
5.1.2 Benefits Associated with Habitat Protection
287. As noted above, habitat preservation provides for a range of economic benefits, as discussed below.
Sport Fishing
288. Designation of critical habitat for the 11 mussels may result in improved recreational fishing opportunities, given improved water quality and habitat. That is, recreational anglers may benefit from enhanced catch rates, a broader range of target species, and improved stream aesthetics. Associated benefits could include an increase in tourism and recreation-industry jobs and expenditures in areas of the designation. However, no data exist to quantify the extent of the improvement expected in area fisheries, and thus no monetization of this benefit category can be made.
Other Recreation Benefits
289. In addition to the long-term potential for improvements in regional sport
fisheries, protecting critical habitat for this species may result in preservation of
habitat suitable for other recreational uses, such as hunting, hiking, boating and
swimming. Conservation of various habitats may in turn lead to increased tourism
and contribute to the expansion of a tourist economy in certain counties.
In
addition, such activities are likely to generate social welfare benefits to recreators.
Quantification of these benefits, however, is limited by the same information
constraints as discussed above. For example, to estimate the extent to which
whitewater rafting opportunities will improve requires an understanding of the extent
to which this activity is limited by current flow rates and water quality (e.g., modest
changes in sedimentation may not result in a change in the experience of this
category of recreationalist). Data on the expected environmental change are not
available.
Overall Ecosystem Health
290. Freshwater mussels are an integral part of the ecosystems in which they live. Protecting the primary constituent elements for the 11 mussels, including preserving water quality and natural flow regimes, will benefit other organisms that cohabit these areas. Each one of these organisms may in turn provide some level of direct or indirect benefit to the public and local economies.
291. Understanding the change in aquatic ecosystem health resulting from this designation would entail significant effort to model the likely changes in water quality as well as the ecological benefits of modified flow regimes. While these benefits can be described qualitatively, existing data are not available to quantify the scale of these changes, such as required for monetization. For example, it is widely understood that reduced sedimentation in a river system can benefit various fish, shellfish, and aquatic plant communities. In addition, in some cases reductions in sedimentation may provide direct economic benefit (e.g., reducing the need for, or scale of, dredging operations). Quantifying these changes would, however, require additional information on the make-up of these aquatic communities and the baseline state of environmental quality. More importantly, such quantification would require detailed information on the nature and scope of project modifications resulting from section 7. Such information is not currently available due to the uncertainty about the modifications potentially associated with future projects.
Water Quality Benefits
292. Measures undertaken to protect 11 mussels habitat could lead to a variety of water quality benefits including: (1) protection of human drinking water supplies; (2) reduced cost of drinking water treatment; and (3) reduced cost of future stream restoration/maintenance activities. Again, quantification and monetization of these categories of benefits would require additional, detailed information on the scope and location of expected project modifications. For example, reductions in sediment load may reduce the cost of filtering municipal water supplies. The extent to which this category of benefits will be experienced, however, will depend on the location of the water systems, and the manner in which they operate (e.g., whether they utilize an instream water intake structure, or other system not impacted by sediment load).
Other Benefits
293. Additional benefits of designating critical habitat for the 11 mussels may include educational/informational benefits (increased awareness by the public of the extent of 11 mussels habitat), increased support for existing conservation efforts, and reduced uncertainty regarding the extent of 11 mussels habitat. For example, critical habitat designation will provide a firm legal definition of the extent of 11 mussels habitat, which may reduce regulatory uncertainty. At this time sufficient information does not exist to quantify or monetize the benefits of this designation, and thus it is not possible to present monetized benefits on a unit-by-unit basis.
REFERENCES
Alabama Agricultural Statistics. Accessed at http://www.aces.edu/department/nass/bulletin/2000/
pg04.htm on December 11, 2002.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Alabama’s Nonpoint Source Management Program 2001 Annual Report.
Alabama Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 14. July 1995. Section 2. Bankhead, Talladega, and Tuskegee National Forests, I-6 through I-7.
Alabama Forestry Commission. 1999. Alabama’s Best Management Practices for Forestry.
Alabama Power Company. November 2000. Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Project, Initial Information Package for the Jordan Development and Bouldin Development, FERC No. 618 and 2146.
Alabama Power Company. November 2000. Coosa/Warrior Relicensing Project, Initial Information Package for the Weiss Development, FERC No. 2146.
Alabama Power Company, Hydro Relicensing, accessed at http://www.southerncompany.com/ alpower/hydro/ on March, 3, 2003.
Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee. July 2002. Alabama Handbook For Erosion Control, Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas.
Alabama Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries. Alabama Regulations Relating to Game, Fish, and Fur-bearing Animals, 2002-2003, pp. 76.
American Rivers Organization, Federal Power Act Summary, accessed at http://www. amrivers.org/hydropowertoolkit/hydroreformtoolkitlawsfpa.htm.
Austin, Chris, Chris Brewster, Alicia Lewis, Kenton Smithson, Tina Broyles, and Tom Wojtalik. 1999. A guide for Environmental Protection and Best Management Practices for Tennessee Valley Authority Transmission Construction and Maintenance Activities. Tennessee Valley Authority, Transmission/Power Supply Group.
Bishop R.C. 1980. Endangered Species: An Economics Perspective. Transactions of the 45th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. The Wildlife Management Institute; Washington D.C.
Bishop R.C. 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: the economics of a safe minimum standard. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60: 10-18.
Black, Robert, B. McKenney, R. Unsworth, N. Flores. October 1998. Economic Analysis for Hydropower Project Relicensing: Guidance and Alternative Methods.
Bouma, Katherine. Locust Fork Eyed For Dam. Birmingham News, November 27, 2002.
Boyle, K. and R. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Water Resource Research. Vol. 23: 943-950.
Brookshire, D., L. Eubanks and A. Randall. 1983. Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources. Land Economics. Vol. 59: 1-15.
CEQA, Article 19. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/flowchart/exemptions/ categorical.html, as viewed on April 21, 2003.
ECONorthwest, “Economic Benefits of Protecting Natural Resources in the Sonoran Desert,” prepared for the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, August 2002.
Elkstrand, Earl R. and John Loomis. November 1998. Incorporating Respondent Uncertainty When Estimating Willingness to Pay for Protecting Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Fish. Water Resources Research. Vol. 34, No. 11.
Energy Information Administration, State Energy Statistics. Accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/states/_states.html on January 15, 2003.
Fausold, Charles J. and Robert J. Lilieholm. 1999. The economic value of open space: a review and synthesis. Environmental Management. Vol. 23, No. 3: 307-320.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. January 2003. Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures.
Federal Highway Administration. 1995. Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control - Final Report October 1988- June 1995. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Eastern Federal Lands Highway Design. FHWA/FLP-94/005.
FERC. Report on Hydroelectric Licensing Policies, Procedures, and Regulations: Comprehensive Review and Recommendations Pursuant to Section 603 of the Energy Act of 2000, May 8, 2001, p. 49.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. 1998. Coosa River Basin Management Plan.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. Tallapoosa River Basin Plan 1998, Section 3, Water Quantity, p. 3-5. Accessed at http://www.state.ga.us/dnr/ environ/plans_files/plans/tallapoosa-pdf/tallapoosa.pdf on February 28, 2003.
Georgia’s Office of Planning and Budget. Accessed at http://opb.georgia.gov/01/home/ 0,2167,683151,00.html.
Gramlich, Edward M., A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis (2nd Ed.), Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc., 1990.
Hageman, R.K. 1985. Valuing Marine Mammal Populations: Benefit Valuation in a Multi-species Ecosystem. Administrative report No. LJ-85-22, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, CA. 88p.
Hartfield, Paul and J. Garner. 1998. Report on Dive Surveys of the Lower Alabama River, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS.
Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Nine Bexar County Texas Invertebrate Species, prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2002.
Keller, Dr. Anne E. April 1996. The Acute Toxicity of Malathion to Three Life Stages of Unionid Mussels, Final Report.
Kotchen, Matthew J. and Stephen D. Reiling. 2000. Environmental Attitudes, Motivations, and Contingent Valuation of Nonuse Values: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species. Ecological Economics. Vol. 32: 93-107.
Kuhajda, Bernard R., C.C. Blanco, M.M. Green, C.G. Haynes, M.B. Hicks, D.B. Jones III, R.L. Mayden, A.M. Miller, G.A. Nichols, H.E. Smith-Somerville. December 1996. Impact of Malathion on Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Communities and on Acetylcholinesterase Activity in Fishes within Stewart Creek, Fayette County, Alabama.
Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Daphne, AL Field Office to District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, October 3, 1994.
Letter from Manager, Alabama Power Company Hydro Licensing to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, September 21, 2000.
Letter from Group Leader, Hydro East Group 2, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to Manager, Alabama Power Company, January 29, 2001.
Loomis, John B. and Douglas S. White. 1996. Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics. Vol. 18: 197-206.
Memorandum from Assistant Director, Ecological Services, to Acting Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. “Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion and Conference Report on Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations Under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,” September 24, 1996.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. “Status of Aquatic Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A Downward Spiral of Diversity.” Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Ed. G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute: Special Publication 1.
Office of Surface Mining, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Accessed at http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/osm2.cfm on March 14, 2003.
Office of Surface Mining, Georgia. Accessed at http://www.osmre.gov/pdf/georgia.pdf on March 14, 2003.
Pearce, David and Dominic Moran. 1994. The Economic Value of Biodiversity. The World Conservation Union. London: Earthscan.
Raper, M., Boldt D., and Dole, C. October 2002. West Georgia Regional Outlook. Department of Economics, Richards College of Business, State University of West Georgia, p. 32.
Samples, K., J. Dixon, and M. Gowen. 1986. Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics 62: 306-312.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: An Overview. Accessed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/ wetlands/ facts/fact10.html.
State of Georgia Department of Transportation. Special Provision: Section 107.23 Environmental Considerations, August 5, 2002.
State of Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal Waters, November 16, 1995.
Stoll, John R. and Lee Ann Johnson. 1984. Concepts of Value, Nonmarket valuation, and the Case of the Whooping Crane. Transactions of the 49th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 1993. Guide to Forestry Best Management Practices.
Tennessee Valley Authority’s Transmission System. Accessed at http://www.tva.gov/power/ xmission.htm on February 4, 2002.
Tennessee Valley Authority. Principles and Practices Manuel, Revised 2002. Accessed at http://www.tva.com/ foia/readroom/policy/prinprac/index.htm on February 19, 2003.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Black Warrior Tombigbee/Alabama-Coosa Project Management Office. Accessed at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/op/tu/tusclnk3.htm on February 27, 2003.
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and State & County QuickFacts. Accessed at http:// quickfacts.census.gov/qfd on December 10, 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County Business Patterns. Accessed at http://censtats.census.gov/ cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml on December 11, 2002.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Protection Measures for Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species by the 2002 Boll Weevil Control Program in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, A, Agricultural Statistics Database. Accessed at http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/ on December 12, 2002.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Database. Accessed at http://www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/ on December 11, 2002.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. 1997. Accessed at http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/ on December 10, 2002.
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce, Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook, November 4, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, EPA 240-R-00-003, September 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act; Notice, Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 36, February 22, 2001.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin, 50 CFR Part 17, March 2003.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife -Associated Recreation, pp.103, 111.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Accessed at http://www. fws.gov on July 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation Planning.” From: http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/, as viewed on August 6, 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery Plan for Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation Planning. Accessed at http://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/ on August 6, 2002.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Justifications, Appropriation: Land Owner Incentive Program, pp. 401.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Industrial Economics, Inc. April 2002. Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Industrial Economics, Inc. January 2003. Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat for the Gulf Sturgeon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Private Stewardship Program,
http://endangered.fws.gov/grants/private_stewardship.html as viewed on May 6, 2003.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Environmental Setting and Water-Quality Issues of the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, pp. 26.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting Statements. Appendix 4: Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations, March 22, 2000.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Draft 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations; Notice,” 68 Federal Register 5492, February 3, 2003.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Water Division, § 335-6-11, Water Quality Program.
Clean Water Act, §§ 131.10, 131.11, 130.7, 303, 305, 402, 1251, 1313(d).
Department of Energy Organization Act, § 7112.
Endangered Species Act, § 10.
Endangered Species Act, § 7.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, §§ 661-666.
Federal Power Act, §§ 800, 803(j), 10(a)(2)(A).
Georgia Statutes, §391-4-10, Rules for Protection of Endangered, Threatened, Rate, or Unusual Species.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division. June 2002. §391-3-6, Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, §391-3-7, Erosion and Sediment Control.
Mississippi Code. Ann. § 49-5-101 through 49-5-119, § 51-3-1 through §51-3-5, §49-17-29,
97-15-41.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, §§ 1271-1287.
Public Law 105105-Nov. 20, 1997.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, §§ 601, 605(b).
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, § 10.
Rules of Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of State Parks, §0400-2-8, Management of Tennessee Natural Resource Areas.
Soil and Resources Conservation Act, §§ 2001-2009.
Tennessee. Code Ann., §§ 69-3-101, 70-8-104.
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, §§ 1001-1009.
2 U.S.C. §§658-658g and 1501-1571
5 U.S.C. §§ et seq; and Pub Law No. 104-121.
5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.
50 CFR Part 402.02.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” September 30, 1993.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use," May 18, 2001.
New Mexico Cattle Growers Ass'n v. U.S.F.W.S., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001).
Personal communication with:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
Alabama Forestry Commission
Columbus Air Force Base
Departments of Transportation (DOT)
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 (EPA)
Farm Services Agency (FSA)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Mississippi Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP)
Mississippi Forestry Commission
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
The Nature Conservancy
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District
USACE, Savannah, GA District
United States Forest Service (USFS)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Athens, GA Field Office
USFWS, Cookville, TN Field Office
USFWS, Daphne, AL Field Office
USFWS, Jackson, MS Field Office
United States Forest Service (USFS), Armuchee-Cohutta District Office, Chattahoochee National Forest
USFS, Bankhead National Forest
USFS, Cherokee National Forest
USFS, National Forests in Alabama
USFS, Talladega National Forest
USFS, Tuskegee National Forest
Appendix A
BASELINE REGULATORY PROTECTION
State-level Protections: Alabama
1. The following section presents information on relevant State regulations that may offer some baseline protection to the mussels and their habitat within the proposed critical habitat areas in Alabama.
Alabama Mussel Harvest Restrictions
2. The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries prescribes
mussel harvesting methods for commercial mussels, which include prohibitions on
the harvesting of federally listed threatened and endangered mussels. Regulations
also prohibit harvesting commercial mussels in various State waters, including the
Cahaba River portion of the critical habitat designation.
Alabama Water Pollution Control Act
3. This Act authorizes the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM) to establish and enforce water quality standards, regulations, and penalties
in order to implement both State and federal water quality regulations. ADEM
administrative code prohibits the deposition of pollutants, including sediment,
organic materials, and pesticides into State waters. For non-source pollutants,
provisions are limited to recommending best management practices adequate to
protect water quality consistent with the ADEM’s Nonpoint Source Control Program
(see below).
Alabama Nonpoint Source Program: Alabama Clean Water Partnership
4. Established in 1987, Alabama’s Nonpoint Source Program relies on best management practices, education and outreach, monitoring and assessments, and resource assistance to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Alabama Clean Water Partnership, a key component of the program, consists of joint voluntary efforts of public and private stakeholders who strive to restore and protect Alabama’s river basins. Clean Water Partnerships currently exist for four river drainages within the boundaries of the proposed designation, including Tombigbee River basin, Coosa River basin, Cahaba River basin, and Black Warrior River basin. Specific actions by partnerships include accepting and managing funding for various activities such as:
• River, stream, and lake clean-up days;
• Water quality and watershed evaluation efforts to include the collection and analysis of water quality data;
• Stream restoration programs; and
• The implementation of Best Management Practices related to water
quality in priority areas.
Cahaba River Land Trust
5. This land conservation organization is dedicated to improving water quality in the Cahaba River watershed. The Land Trust has to date, purchased nearly 700 acres of critical stream-side buffer zones along rivers and streams in the Cahaba River basin for both conservation and recreational purposes.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (NWSRA)
6. The NWSRA requires that "In all planning for the use and development of
water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal
agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas."
It also requires that "the Secretary of the Interior shall make specific studies and
investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river
areas.....shall be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential
alternative uses of water and related land resources involved."
In partial
fulfillment of this requirement, NPS maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI),
a register of river segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic or
recreational river areas.
A presidential directive requires Federal agencies to
avoid or mitigate adverse effects on rivers identified in the NRI. In addition,
agencies are required to consult with the NPS on actions which could affect the
wild, scenic or recreational status of a river on the inventory.
7. The NWSRA will provide baseline protection to the Sipsey Fork in Unit 10 of the proposed critical habitat for the mussels. As Federal agencies are required to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on National Wild and Scenic Rivers and those on the NRI, this statute will likely impact the extent, location, and nature of future activities on or near the Unit 10 over the next ten years. As such, the NWSRA is likely to provide substantial baseline protection within this area.
State-level Protections: Georgia
8. This section presents information on relevant State regulations that may offer some level of baseline protection to the mussels and their habitat within the proposed critical habitat areas in Georgia.
Georgia Nongame Wildlife Protected Species Program
9. The Endangered Wildlife Act of 1973 authorizes Georgia’s Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to designate as protected any species of animal life within
Georgia which may be endangered, threatened, rare or usual. Ten of the 11 Mobile
River basin mussels (dark pigtoe is excluded) are listed as protected species in
Georgia. Provisions include prohibiting possessing, selling, or purchasing any
protected species and activities intended to harass, capture, kill, or directly cause
the death of any protected species.
Georgia Water Quality Control Standards
10. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act provides the Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources with the
authority to enforce water quality standards. General water quality standards
provide for the enhancement of water quality, prevention of pollution, conservation
of fish and wildlife, and agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of the waters.
General conservation criteria apply to all water resources and intend to maintain
and improve the biological integrity of the State waters. Such criteria include the
provision that waters shall be free of municipal or domestic sewage, industrial
waste, or other sources of sludge, discharge, caustic substances, and other debris
and material that may interfere with legitimate water uses.
Georgia’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program
11. Under the authority of the Erosion and Sediment Control Act (ESCA)
(Georgia §391-4), the Erosion and Sediment Control Program, administered by the
EPD, protects Georgia’s waters from soil erosion and sediment deposition. The
program requires buffers between land disturbing activities and waters to minimize
adverse impacts of development on water quality. Buffer functions that may afford
protection for the mussels include temperature control, streambank stabilization,
trapping of sediments, removal of nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides and other
pollutants.
Georgia River Basin Management Program - Tallapoosa and Coosa River Basin Management Plans
12. The law requires the EPD to develop river basin management plans for major rivers in Georgia. Plans should include a description of goals, including providing environmental education, improving water quality, reducing pollution at the source, improving aquatic habitat, reestablishing native species of fish, restoring and protecting wildlife habitat, and providing recreational benefits, along with strategies and measures necessary to accomplish these goals.
13. The Tallapoosa River basin and the Coosa River basin management plans are part of the greater Georgia River basin management planning approach to watershed protection. Both plans present and facilitate the implementation of water quality protection efforts in the basins. Specific objectives that may afford protection to the mussels include:
• Protecting water quality in lakes, rivers and streams through attainment of water quality standards and support for designating uses;
• Providing adequate, high quality water supply for municipal, agricultural, industrial, environmental, and other human activities; and
• Preserving habitat suitable for the support of healthy aquatic and
riparian ecosystems.
State-level Protections: Mississippi
14. The following section presents information on relevant State regulations that may offer some level of baseline protection for the mussels and their habitat in Mississippi.
Mississippi Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act
15. This Act prohibits the taking, possession, transportation, exportation,
processing, sale, or shipment within the State of endangered species. Pursuant to
this Act, the Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks shall issue
regulations establishing limitations related to taking, possession, transportation,
and sale of species as necessary to protect the species.
Mississippi Water Quality Criteria for Intrastate, Interstate, and Coastal Waters
16. Mississippi water quality standards establish criteria necessary to protect,
upgrade, and enhance water quality in Mississippi. General conditions applicable
to all State waters include: State waters should be free from materials attributable
to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other discharges producing color, odor,
taste, total suspended solids, or other conditions in such a degree to degrade
waters and impact public health, recreation, aquatic life and wildlife. Specifically,
criteria for aquatic life use includes standards for toxicity , bacteria, dissolved
solids, and phenolic compounds levels.
Mississippi State Water Management Plan
17. Under authority of Mississippi Legislature the Office of Land and Water Resources of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is responsible for development and oversight of the “State water management plan.” This plan was developed in order to control the effects of development on the waters of the State through a water withdrawal permitting system and thorough study and reporting regarding:
• Water resources of the State;
• Methods of conserving and augmenting such waters;
• Existing and contemplated needs and uses for protection and procreation of fish and wildlife and various other uses; and
• Drainage, reclamation, flood-plain or flood-hazard area zoning, and
selection of reservoir sites.
State-level Protections: Tennessee
18. The following section presents information on relevant State regulations that may offer some level of baseline protection to the mussels and their habitat within Tennessee.
Tennessee Threatened and Endangered Species Statutes
19. Eight of the 11 mussels are listed as endangered or threatened by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Regulations for endangered and
threatened species include prohibition on take, attempt to take, possess, transport,
export, process, sell or ship nongame wildlife.
Tennessee Water Quality Standards
20. Authorized by the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 (§69-3-101),
the Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control implements and enforces State
water quality standards. Water quality objectives include abating existing pollution
of Tennessee waters, reclaiming polluting waters, preventing the future pollution of
waters, and planning for the future use of State waters.
Tennessee Scenic Rivers Program
21. Established in 1968 with the passage of the Tennessee Scenic River Act,
this program seeks to preserve valuable selections of rivers in their free-flow natural
or scenic conditions and to protect water quality and adjacent lands. The
Conasauga River, which flows through Polk County in Tennessee, has been
designated as a State Scenic River. Protections afforded to the river habitat
include road development control, water level control, erosion control, and
vegetation and wildlife management.
Interstate-level Protection
Tristate Water Compact
22. Congressionally authorized in1997, the tristate water compact calls for
interstate water resource planning in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Within
Georgia and Alabama, the Compact extends to all waters arising within the
drainage basin of the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa Rivers and their respective
tributaries. The ACT Basin Commission, an interstate administrative agency, was
created to establish an allocation formula for apportioning the surface waters of the
ACT basin among Alabama and Georgia. Objectives include minimizing adverse
impacts of floods and droughts, improving water quality, water supply, and
conservation. Several Federal agencies are engaged in the process, including the
EPA, the Service, and USACE (Mobile District). While a final allocation formula has
yet to be determined, current proposals address water quality, biodiversity,
adequate instream flow regimes, monitoring programs, and water conservation.
Current action includes studies to address point and nonpoint source pollution,
water flow requirements for aquatic habitat, and protection of fisheries with the river
basins.
Appendix B:
OTHER REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS
B.1 Potential Impacts on Small Entities
1. This analysis is intended to facilitate determination of whether this critical habitat designation potentially affects a “substantial number” of small entities in counties supporting critical habitat areas. It also quantifies the probable number of small businesses and governments likely to experience a “significant effect.” In both tests, this analysis examines the total estimated section 7 costs calculated in Section 4 of this report, including those impacts that may be “attributable co-extensively” with the listing of the mussels. This results in a conservative estimate (i.e., more likely to overstate impacts than understate them), because it utilizes the upper bound impact estimate from the earlier analysis.
2. Federal courts and Congress have indicated that a Regulatory Flexibility Act/SBREFA analysis should be limited to direct and indirect impacts on entities subject to the requirements of the regulation. As such, entities indirectly impacted by the mussels listing and designation of critical habitat, and, therefore, not directly regulated by the listing or critical habitat designation, are not considered in this screening analysis.
Identifying Activities That May Involve Small Entities
3. Section 3 of this report identifies activities that are within, or will otherwise be affected by, section 7 of the Act for the mussels. Of the projects that are potentially affected by section 7 implementation for the mussels, several do not have third party involvement (i.e. only the Action agency and the Service are expected to be involved) or occur exclusively on Federal lands. Of the projects whose consultations are potentially affected by section 7 implementation for the mussels that do not involve solely the Action agency and the Service, many are known to have no directly-regulated small businesses or governments involved. Thus, small entities should not be directly impacted by section 7 implementation for these affected projects:
• Road and bridge construction and maintenance. DOT consultations on bridge projects could lead to project modifications that include seasonal restrictions on construction activity, restrictions on the placement of in-stream infrastructure, avoidance of in-stream work, surveys for the presence of mussels, and the relocation of mussels. This analysis anticipates that the costs associated with project modification compliance will be borne by the Federal government either directly or through their funding of State DOT projects.
• Utilities construction and maintenance. Utilities consultations may result in project modifications that include rerouting. This analysis anticipates that most costs associated with project modification compliance will either be borne directly by or passed on to the Federal government, which accordingly will ultimately bear the majority of the costs of these modifications.
• Activities in National Forests (Forest Service). These may include special uses, recreation, bridge construction or maintenance, watershed protection, wildlife management plans, silviculture, trail heads and parking lot construction, and forest health and restoration. These activities are anticipated to be carried out by the Forest Service.
• Hydropower re-licensing (Federal Energy Regulation
Commission). As described in Section 4 of this analysis, three
formal consultations and one informal consultation are expected
involving FERC relicensing of hydropower dams. The Alabama
Power Company is the third party involved in two of the formal
consultations. APC reports megawatt hour sales in excess of the
SBA threshold of four million megawatt hours.
In addition, APC is
a wholly owned subsidiary of A Southern Company, one of the
largest electricity generators in the country.
The Fall Line Hydro
Company is the third party involved in the remaining two
consultations. Fall Line reports average annual capacity below the
SBA threshold, therefore the potential impact to the company is
discussed below.
• Water supply dams (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)). As
detailed in Section 4 there are two water supply dam projects within
the 31 counties that may affect mussel critical habitat. This analysis
assumes that the costs of the consultation process and any project
modifications will be borne jointly by the USACE and the county (or
counties) which will benefit from the water supply. Two counties
potentially involved in water supply dam consultations are
considered small– Haralson county, Georgia and Fayette county,
Alabama. The proposed project in Georgia, however, is part of the
West Georgia Regional Water Authority (WGRWA), which
represents four counties. The government entity involved in the
consultation, WGRWA, is therefore considered above the SBA
threshold for small governments.
The potential impact on Fayette
county is discussed below.
• Water quality activities (Environmental Protection Agency). Environmental Protection Agency conducts activities to protect water quality under the CWA. These may include EPA review of TMDL levels with States and review of State water quality standards.
• Conservation and recreation (Fish and Wildlife Service and USACE). As stated in Section 4 of this analysis, the Service’s conservation and recreation projects are designed to benefit the mussels and habitat, and are generally carried out by the Service themselves. Therefore, small entities should not be affected by consultations on these activities. Further, costs of USACE habitat conservation projects are anticipated to be borne by agency itself.
• Dredging activities (USACE). As detailed in section 4 of this analysis there are six formal and eight informal dredging projects proposed within the 31 counties included in mussel critical habitat. In the case of four of the formal consultations, this analysis assumes that the costs of the consultation process and any project modifications will be borne solely by the USACE; while the costs of the consultation process and any project modifications in the remaining four formal and five of the six information consultations will be borne jointly by the USACE and the states. The remaining informal consultation is for a commercial sand and gravel operation permit for which the costs of the consultation and any project modifications may be borne by a small entity.
4. After excluding the consultations on activities above from the total universe of potential impacts identified in the body of the analysis, the following consultations and Action agencies remain. This subset represents the group of consultations and Action agencies that may produce significant impacts on small entities. Specifically, these actions feature activities that do not occur exclusively on Federal lands and may directly regulate small entities:
• Agriculture and ranching-related activities (USACE and USDA),
• Hydropower re-licensing (FERC),
• Water supply dams (USACE), and
• Dredging activities (USACE).
Description of Affected Small Entities
5. This section describes the industries with small entities that are most likely to be affected by section 7 implementation for the mussels. Potential indirect regional impacts are also discussed. More information about affected projects can be found in Sections 3 and 4 of this analysis.
• Agriculture and ranching-related activities. Agriculture and
ranching-related activities, such as flood control and bank
stabilization, may result in project modifications that include
regulation of construction methods, project termination,
sedimentation measures, and surveys for the presence of mussels.
The SBA sets the small business size standard for “crop production”
and “animal production” at $0.75 million in annual receipts, with the
exception of “cattle feedlots” and “chicken egg production” that are
set at $1.5 million and $10.5 million respectively.
There are 1,556
crop and animal production operations within the 31 counties
included in mussel critical habitat of which 1,466 are small.
• Hydropower re-licensing. Hydropower re-licensing activities may
result in project modifications that control minimum flows,
sedimentation and water quality. The SBA sets the small business
size standard for “hydroelectric power generation” at four million
megawatt hours of total electric output for the preceding fiscal year
if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale. The Fall
Line Hydro Company is the third party involved in two of the
expected hydropower re-licensing consultations at the Carters
Reregulation dam. The company reports average annual megawatt
hours of 16,500, falling below the SBA threshold. There are 106
electric services operations within the 31 counties included in mussel
critical habitat.
• Water supply dams. Water supply activities may result in project
modifications that control minimum flows, sedimentation and water
quality. The SBA defines a “small governmental jurisdiction” as “the
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
Fayette county,
Alabama is the third party for one formal consultation on water
supply activities. Fayette county has a population of 18,500, falling
below the SBA threshold. In the 31 counties included in mussel
critical habitat, there are 19 counties that are considered small.
• Dredging activities. Dredging activities may result in project
modifications that include the implementation of BMPs, pre-construction species surveys, mussel relocation, habitat restoration,
and purchase of upland disposal sites. The SBA sets the small
business size standard for “dredging and surface clean-up activities”
at $17 million in annual receipts.
There are 192 “heavy
construction, nec” operations within the 31 counties included in
mussel critical habitat of which 177 are small.
Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected: The “Substantial Number” Test
6. To be conservative, this analysis assumes that a unique entity will
undertake each of the projected consultations in a given year, and so the number
of entities affected is equal to the total annual number of consultations (both formal
and informal).
This analysis also limits the universe of potentially affected
entities to include only those within the thirty-one counties in which critical habitat
units lie. This interpretation produces far more conservative results than including
all entities nationwide.
7. First, the number of small entities affected is estimated. As shown in Exhibit
B-1, the following calculations yield this estimate:
• Estimate the number of entities within the study area affected by section 7 implementation annually (assumed to be equal to the number of annual consultations);
• Calculate the percent of entities in the affected industry that are likely to be small;
• Calculate the number of affected small entities in the affected industry;
• Calculate the percent of small entities likely to be affected by critical habitat.
Exhibit B-1
ESTIMATED ANNUAL NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION: THE "SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER" TEST |
|||||
Industry Name |
Agriculture and Ranching NAICS 111, 112 (SIC 01, 02) |
Hydro-electric Power Generation NAICS 221111 (SIC 4911) 1 |
Water Supply activities: Small Government |
Heavy Construction NAICS 234990 (SIC 1629) |
|
Annual number of affected entities in industry (Equal to number of annual consultations) |
By formal consultation |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
By informal consultation |
3.8 |
0.1 |
- |
0.1 |
|
Total number of all entities in industry within study area |
1,556 |
106 |
31 |
192 |
|
Number of small entities in industry within study area |
1,466 |
- |
19 |
177 |
|
Percent of entities that are small (Number of small entities)/(Total Number of entities) |
94% |
100% |
61% |
92% |
|
Annual number of small entities affected (Number affected entities)*(Percent of small entities) |
4.1 |
0.2 |
0.06 |
0.1 |
|
Annual percentage of small entities affected (Number of small entities affected)/(Total number of small entities) |
0.3% |
0.2% |
0.3% |
0.06% |
|
1 Actual estimates of small hydroelectric power generation facilities are not available, therefore this analysis conservatively assumes 100% of hydroelectric power generation facilities in the affected areas to be small. |
|||||
Estimated Effects on Small Businesses and Governments: The “Significant Effect” Test
8. As concluded in the previous section, less than one percent of all activities in affected areas will potentially be affected by section 7 implementation for the mussels. Costs of critical habitat designation to individual small businesses consist primarily of the cost of participating in section 7 consultations and the cost of project modifications. To calculate the likelihood that a small business will experience a significant effect from critical habitat designation for the mussels, the following calculations were made:
• Calculate the per-business cost. This consists of the cost to a third party of participating in a section 7 consultation and the cost of associated project modifications. To be conservative, this analysis uses the high-end estimate for each cost, and includes all project modifications for that activity. The per business cost for the agriculture and ranching industries is estimated to be $14,000, the per business cost for the hydroelectric power generation industry is estimated to be $488,000, and the per business cost for the heavy construction industry is estimated to be $248,000.
• Distribute the total number of affected small businesses across
revenue levels. This is done by taking the annual number of affected
small businesses and distributing them into different revenue bins as
categorized by RMA Annual Statement Studies: 2001-2002, which
provides data on the distribution of annual sales within an industry
across the following ranges: $0-1 million, $1-3 million, $3-5 million,
$5-10 million, $10-25 million, and greater than $25 million (for some
industries, fewer bins are included when revenues are much lower
than $25 million). As stated above, the SBA sets the small business
size standard for “crop production” and “animal production” at $0.75
million in annual receipts, with the exception of “cattle feedlots” and
“chicken egg production” that are set at $1.5 million and $10.5 million
respectively.
In these industries, 96 percent of small businesses
have annual revenues less than $1 million. The size standard for
“hydroelectric power generation” is set at less than four million
megawatt hours generated per year.
In the case of the heavy
construction industry, the SBA sets the small business size standard
at $17 million in annual receipts.
• Estimate the level of effect on small businesses per bin level. This is calculated by taking the per-business cost and dividing it by the per-business revenue in each bin to determine the percent of revenue represented by the per-business cost. As presented in Exhibit B-2, of the four agriculture and ranching industries impacted annually by this designation, an average of four businesses with revenues less than $1 million will experience a three percent effect on revenues, and less than one business per year with greater than $1 million in revenues will experience an effect on revenues of less than two percent.
9. Calculations for costs associated with section 7 implementation for the mussels are provided in Exhibit B-2 below.
Exhibit B-2
ESTIMATED ANNUAL EFFECTS ON SMALL BUSINESSES: THE “SIGNIFICANT EFFECT” TEST
|
||||||
Agriculture and Ranching NAICS 111, 112 (SIC 01, 02) |
||||||
Annual Number of Small Businesses Affected |
4.1 |
|||||
Per-Business Cost |
$14,000 |
|||||
RMA Revenue Bin |
$0-1M |
$1-3M |
$3-5M |
$5-10M |
$10-25M |
$25+M |
Per Business Revenue 1 |
$0.5M 3 |
$1M |
$3M |
$5M |
$10M |
$25M |
Distribution |
96% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
- |
- |
Annual number of affected small businesses |
4.0 |
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
- |
- |
Per-Business effect |
2.8% |
1.4% |
0.5% |
0.3% |
- |
- |
Hydroelectric Power Generation NAICS 221111 (SIC 4911) 2 |
||||||
Annual Number of Small Businesses Affected |
0.2 |
|||||
Per-Business Cost |
$488,000 |
|||||
RMA Revenue Bin |
$0-1M |
$1-3M |
$3-5M |
$5-10M |
$10-25M |
$25+M |
Per Business Revenue 1 |
$0.5M 3 |
$1M |
$3M |
$5M |
$10M |
$25M |
Distribution |
9% |
17% |
10% |
5% |
22% |
37% |
Annual number of affected small businesses |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
0.07 |
Per-Business effect |
97.6% |
48.8% |
16.3% |
9.8% |
4.9% |
2.0% |
Heavy Construction, nec NAICS 234990 (SIC 1629) |
||||||
Annual Number of Small Businesses Affected |
0.1 |
|||||
Per-Business Cost |
$248,000 |
|||||
RMA Revenue Bin |
$0-1M |
$1-3M |
$3-5M |
$5-10M |
$10-25M |
$25+M |
Per Business Revenue 1 |
$0.5M 3 |
$1M |
$3M |
$5M |
$10M |
$25M |
Distribution |
4% |
26% |
16% |
41% |
13% |
- |
Annual number of affected small businesses |
0.004 |
0.04 |
0.02 |
0.04 |
0.01 |
- |
Per-Business effect |
49.6% |
24.8% |
8.3% |
5.0% |
2.5% |
- |
1 In order to be conservative, this analysis assumes that the small businesses in each bin have revenue equal to the low end of the range within a bin. Thus, percent revenue impacts may appear larger than would be likely for that business. 2 Actual estimates of small hydroelectric power generation facilities are not available, therefore this analysis conservatively assumes 100% of hydroelectric power generation facilities in the affected areas to be small. 3 Because this bin ranges from $0 to $1 million, this analysis uses the mid-point of the range. |
||||||
10. Costs of critical habitat designation to individual small governments also consist primarily of the cost of participating in section 7 consultations and the cost of project modifications. To calculate the likelihood that a small government will experience a significant effect from critical habitat designation for the mussels, the following calculations were made:
• Calculate the per-government costs. This consists of the cost to a third party of participating in a section 7 consultation and the cost of associated project modifications. To be conservative, this analysis uses the high-end estimate for each cost.
• Determine the per-government revenue for the small governments in
the study area. This is derived by calculating the per capita local
government revenue for each state and multiplying this number by the
population of each small government entity.
• Estimate the level of effect on small governments. This is calculated by dividing the per-government cost by the per-government revenue to determine the percent of revenue represented by the per-government cost of a consultation.
11. Calculations for costs associated with section 7 implementation for the mussels are provided in Exhibit B-3 below.
Exhibit B-3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EFFECTS ON SMALL GOVERNMENTS: THE “SIGNIFICANT EFFECT” TEST |
|
Water Supply Activities: Small Government |
|
Annual Number of Small Governments Affected |
0.1 |
Per-Government Cost |
$488,000 |
Median Government Revenue |
$54,000,000 |
Per-Government effect |
0.9% |
B.2 Potential Impacts on the Energy Industry
12. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations
that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” issued May 18, 2001,
Federal agencies must prepare and submit a “Statement of Energy Effects” for all
“significant energy actions.” The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all
Federal agencies “appropriately weigh and consider the effects of the Federal
Government’s regulations on the supply, distribution, and use of energy.”
The
Office of Management and Budget has provided guidance for implementing this
executive order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant
adverse effect” when compared without the regulatory action under consideration:
• Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels per day;
• Reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels per day;
• Reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons per year;
• Reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25 million mcf;
• Reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatts per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity;
• Increases in energy use required by the regulatory action that exceed the thresholds above;
• Increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent;
• Increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one percent; or
• Other similarly adverse outcomes.
13. Three of these criteria are relevant to this analysis: 1) reductions in electricity production in excess of 1 billion kilowatts per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity; 2) increases in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent; and 3) increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one percent. Below, the analysis determines whether the electricity industry, specifically hydroelectric producers and distributers, are likely to experience “a significant adverse effect” as a result of section 7 implementation for the mussels.
Evaluation of Whether Section 7 Implementation will Result in a Reduction in Electricity Production in Excess of 500 Megawatts of Installed Capacity
14. Installed capacity is “the total manufacturer-rated capacity for equipment
such as turbines, generators, condensers, transformers, and other system
components” and represents the maximum rate of flow of energy from the plant or
the maximum output of the plant.
Exhibit B-4 lists the installed capacity of each
of the hydropower projects likely to impact proposed critical habitat for the mussels.
The APC owns and operates two hydropower facilities within the proposed critical
habitat designation for the mussels, Jordan Dam in Unit 26 and Weiss Dam in Unit
18. The Fall Line Hydro Company owns and operates the Carters Reregulation
Dam, on the Coosawattee River in Unit 25.
15. The combined installed capacity for all eight hydropower projects is 192.25 MW (192,250 KW). As stated above, the relicensing of hydropower facilities is subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Dam Safety Control Act and the Federal Power Act as well as implementation of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, hydropower facility owners/operators will need to consider the impacts of their actions on sensitive species, regardless of the implementation of section 7 of the Act. As it is difficult to separate the economic impacts associated with the baseline regulations from the requirement of section 7, however, the analysis makes the conservative assumption that all of the costs for project modifications to hydropower facilities are attributable to implementation of section 7 of the Act.
16. Even when viewed in the context of the worst-case scenario, in which implementation of section 7 of the Act results in significant operational changes to all three hydropower projects, the total capacity is 192.25 MW (192,250 KW) of hydroelectricity, therefore it is not possible for the impact on these hydropower facilities to exceed the 500 MW (500,000 KW) threshold.
Exhibit B-4 Installed Capacity of Hydropower Projects Likely to Impact Proposed Critical Habitat for the Mobile River Basin Mussels |
||||
Name of Facility |
Owner |
Installed Capacity |
Average Annual Generation |
|
MW |
KW |
1,000 KWhr |
||
Jordan Dam |
Alabama Power Company (APC) |
100 |
100,000 |
152,600 |
Weiss Dam |
Alabama Power Company (APC) |
87.75 |
87,750 |
215,500 |
Carters Reregulation Dam |
Fall Line Hydro Company |
4.5 |
4,500 |
16,500 |
Total |
192.25 |
192,250 |
384,600 |
|
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Records Information System (FERRIS) on-line database, http://www.ferc.gov/Ferris.htm; Individual Conventional Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Plants and Sites by Geographic Division, State, and Stream, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
||||
Evaluation of Whether Section 7 Implementation will Result in an Increase in the Cost of Energy Production in Excess of One Percent
17. In order to determine whether implementation of section 7 of the Act will
result in an increase in the cost of energy production, this analysis considers the
maximum possible increase in energy production costs under a scenario where the
implementation of section 7 causes significant operational changes to all three
hydropower facilities and the resulting electricity demand is met through coal-fired
facilities. Natural gas represents the next cheapest fuel source for generating
electricity (hydropower is the cheapest) but also accounts for the smallest portion
of electricity production, at roughly three percent. Nuclear-generated electricity
accounts for approximately 26 percent of overall generation and represents the
most expensive fuel source.
Electricity generated by coal-fired facilities makes
up the largest portion of electricity generated in Alabama and Georgia, accounting
for approximately 63 percent of overall production. Accordingly, professional
judgment suggests that coal would be the likely fuel substitute for this electricity
demand.
Exhibit B-5 outlines the cost of energy production with the operation of
the three hydropower facilities. Exhibit B-6 outlines the cost of energy production
where the electricity demand is met through coal-fired facilities. Under this
scenario, coal-fired facilities will experience $24,803 in additional costs which
represents less than a one-thousandth of one percent increase in production costs.
Exhibit B-5 AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS FOR ENERGY PRODUCERS WITH HYDROPOWER OPERATIONS |
||||
Fuel Type |
Net Generation KWhrs |
Weighted Average |
Production Costs cents/KWhr |
Total Costs |
Hydro |
384,600,000 |
0.16% |
$0.01 |
$6,201 |
Gas |
6,706,320,000 |
2.81% |
$0.04 |
$7,541,473 |
Coal |
149,336,218,000 |
62.60% |
$0.05 |
$4,674,422,054 |
Nuclear |
62,370,516,000 |
26.15% |
$0.07 |
$1,141,552,130 |
Total |
238,546,132,000 |
91.72% |
|
$5,823,491,857 |
Sources: Electric Power Annual 2000, Volume 1, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, August 2001, accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/epav1.pdf; Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2003; Individual Conventional Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Plants and Sites by Geographic Division, State, and Stream, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; State Electricity Profiles, Alabama and Georgia, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, May 2003; Average Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 1995 Through 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t13pl.html |
||||
Exhibit B-6 AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS FOR ENERGY PRODUCERS WITHOUT HYDROPOWER OPERATIONS |
||||
Fuel Type |
Net Generation KWhrs |
Weighted Average |
Production Costs cents/KWhr |
Total Costs |
Hydro |
384,600,000 |
0.16% |
$0.05 |
$31,004 |
Gas |
6,706,320,000 |
2.81% |
$0.04 |
$7,541,473 |
Coal |
149,336,218,000 |
62.60% |
$0.05 |
$4,674,422,054 |
Nuclear |
62,370,516,000 |
26.15% |
$0.07 |
$1,141,552,130 |
Total |
238,546,132,000 |
91.72% |
|
$5,823,516,660 |
Sources: Electric Power Annual 2000, Volume 1, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, August 2001, accessed at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav1/epav1.pdf; Annual Energy Outlook 2003, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, January 2003; Individual Conventional Developed and Undeveloped Hydroelectric Plants and Sites by Geographic Division, State, and Stream, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; State Electricity Profiles, Alabama and Georgia, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, May 2003; Average Operating Expenses for Major U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 1995 Through 1999, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t13pl.html |
||||
Evaluation of Whether Section 7 Implementation will Result in an Increase in the Cost of Energy Distribution in Excess of One Percent
18. As described in Section 4.2.4, TVA anticipates two informal consultations on transmission line construction and maintenance with no project modifications. Thus, the total costs incurred by TVA as a result of section 7 implementation range from $2,600 to $7,800. Total operating expenses for TVA in 2002 were $5.2 billion. The total costs incurred as a result of section 7 are less than one ten-thousandth of one percent of TVAs operating expenses. The impact to energy distribution is therefore not anticipated to exceed the one percent threshold.
Summary
19. Even in the worst case scenario, implementation of section 7 for the mussels will not result in a “reduction in electricity production in excess of 500 megawatts of installed capacity”, an “increase in the cost of energy production in excess of one percent”, or an “increase in the cost of energy distribution in excess of one percent.” Consequently, this rule is not anticipated to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
B.3 Unfunded Mandates Analysis
20. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the
Service must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
significant regulatory actions that include a Federal mandate resulting in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Federal rules are exempt
from the UMRA requirements if: (1) the rule implements requirements specifically
set forth in law; or (2) compliance with the rule is voluntary for State and local
governmental entities. Although the designation of critical habitat is required by the
Act, the Secretary has discretion in designating specific geographic areas which
precludes the critical habitat rules from exemption as these two criteria are not met.
21. If a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA requires the Service
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives.
The
Service must adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Secretary publishes
an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. These requirements apply to
both proposed and final rules.
22. This analysis first determines whether written statement is required, based
on the criteria set forth by UMRA. If such a statement is needed, section 202 of
UMRA provides specific direction regarding the contents of the cost-benefit analysis
that must accompany such a statement.
This analysis describes and discusses
each of the types of costs that must be addressed.
23. Exhibit B-6 highlights the subset of costs of critical habitat designation that are anticipated to be borne by State and local governments. No impacts to tribal governments are expected as a result of this rule. These costs are comprised of administrative and project modification costs for road and bridge maintenance, utilities construction and maintenance, dredging activities (excluding dredging of the Federal navigation channel where USACE is anticipated to bear the project modification costs), construction and operation of water supply dams, and water quality development and permitting activities. In only three instances are project modification costs expected to be absorbed by the Action agency as opposed to the third party: 1) for USACE habitat restoration projects; 2) for USACE dredging of the Federal navigation channel and small boat access channels on the Alabama River; and 3) for EPA SPAP projects.
Exhibit B-7 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE 11 MUSSEL SPECIES ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS |
|
Nominal value of costs |
$15,960,700 |
Present value of costs (discounted at 7 percent) |
$11,210,128 |
Annualized |
$1,596,070 |
24. Exhibit B-7 highlights the subset of costs of critical habitat designation that are anticipated to be borne by private entities, such as privately-owned hydropower companies and individual parties. These costs are comprised of administrative and project modification costs for hydropower relicensing, agricultural activities, and conservation and recreation projects on private lands. Further, costs of technical assistance to private landowners are included.
Exhibit B-8 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE 11 MUSSEL SPECIES ON PRIVATE ENTITIES |
|
Nominal value of costs |
$2,664,660 |
Present value of costs (discounted at 7 percent) |
$1,871,546 |
Annualized |
$266,466 |
25. As demonstrated in Exhibits B-6 and B-7, neither State and local governments nor private entities are anticipated to bear more than $100 million annually. State and local governments may expect costs of approximately $1.6 million per year over the next ten years, and private entities may experience costs of $266,000 per year over the next ten years. This analysis uses an annualization of total costs to represent the average anticipated costs in any one year because in many cases the exact year in which consultations regarding these activities will occur is unknown. As a result of this uncertainty, this analysis assumes that the costs of these activities are spread evenly throughout the ten year time frame.
26. Based on the criteria set forth by UMRA, the designation of critical habitat for the 11 mussels will not result in expenditures by the private sector of more than $100 million annually. Therefore, no written statement is required, and no additional analysis is necessary.
Appendix C
SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE MUSSELS PER UNIT AND ACTIVITY
TOTAL SECTION 7 COSTS FOR THE MUSSELS (OVER TEN YEARS) |
||||||||
Unit |
Activity |
Section 7 Impact |
Range |
Costs to the Service |
Costs to the Action Agency |
Costs to Third Parties |
Project Modifications |
Total Section 7 Costs |
1 |
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
2 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
High |
$12,200 |
$13,000 |
$19,400 |
$0 |
$44,600 |
|||
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
3 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,200 |
$3,900 |
$3,600 |
$0 |
$8,700 |
|
High |
$9,300 |
$11,700 |
$20,700 |
$0 |
$41,700 |
|||
Utilities Construction/ Maintenance (USACE) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$87,200 |
$150,000 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$82,400 |
$16,400 |
$980,000 |
$1,100,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$3,400 |
$0 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$5,800 |
|
High |
$14,000 |
$0 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|||
Private Landowner Assistance |
1 Technical Assistance |
Low |
$50 |
$0 |
$600 |
$0 |
$650 |
|
High |
$50 |
$0 |
$1,500 |
$0 |
$1,550 |
|||
2 |
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
2 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
High |
$12,200 |
$13,000 |
$19,400 |
$0 |
$44,600 |
|||
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$5,200 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$11,600 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|||
Road and Bridge Construction (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$26,000 |
$38,800 |
$0 |
$89,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$3,400 |
$0 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$5,800 |
|
High |
$14,000 |
$0 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$87,200 |
$150,000 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$82,400 |
$16,400 |
$980,000 |
$1,100,000 |
|||
Private Landowner Assistance |
1 Technical Assistance |
Low |
$50 |
$0 |
$600 |
$0 |
$650 |
|
High |
$50 |
$0 |
$1,500 |
$0 |
$1,550 |
|||
3 |
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
2 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
High |
$12,200 |
$13,000 |
$19,400 |
$0 |
$44,600 |
|||
Road and Bridge Construction (MSDOT) |
3 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,200 |
$3,900 |
$3,600 |
$0 |
$8,700 |
|
High |
$9,300 |
$11,700 |
$20,700 |
$0 |
$41,700 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$26,000 |
$38,800 |
$0 |
$89,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$6,800 |
$0 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$11,600 |
|
High |
$28,000 |
$0 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|||
Private Landowner Assistance |
1 Technical Assistance |
Low |
$50 |
$0 |
$600 |
$0 |
$650 |
|
High |
$50 |
$0 |
$1,500 |
$0 |
$1,550 |
|||
4
|
Road and Bridge Construction (MS DOT) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$5,200 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$11,600 |
High |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$0 |
$55,600 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$26,000 |
$38,800 |
$0 |
$89,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$21,800 |
$37,400 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$20,600 |
$4,100 |
$245,000 |
$276,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
3 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$5,100 |
$0 |
$3,600 |
$0 |
$8,700 |
|
High |
$21,000 |
$0 |
$20,700 |
$0 |
$41,700 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
5 |
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
6
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
7 |
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
8
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
9
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
10 |
Activities in National Forests (USFS) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$10,800 |
$0 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
High |
$6,100 |
$16,200 |
$0 |
$0 |
$22,300 |
|||
Activities in National Forests (USFS) |
18 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$7,200 |
$45,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$52,200 |
|
High |
$55,800 |
$194,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$250,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
11 |
Water Supply Dam (USACE) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$484,000 |
$500,000 |
High |
$6,100 |
$20,600 |
$4,100 |
$484,000 |
$515,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
12
|
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
2 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
High |
$12,200 |
$13,000 |
$19,400 |
$0 |
$44,600 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
13
|
Utilities Maintenance/ Construction (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$43,600 |
$50,800 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$490,000 |
$521,000 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
2 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|
High |
$12,200 |
$13,000 |
$19,400 |
$0 |
$44,600 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$3,400 |
$0 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$5,800 |
|
High |
$14,000 |
$0 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|||
14
|
Road and Bridge Maintenance (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
Utilities Maintenance/ Construction (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
4 Formal Consultations |
Low |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$87,200 |
$150,000 |
|
High |
$24,400 |
$82,400 |
$16,400 |
$8,980,000 |
$9,100,000 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$43,600 |
$50,800 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$490,000 |
$521,000 |
|||
15
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$14,400 |
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$0 |
$62,400 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$3,400 |
$0 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$5,800 |
|
High |
$14,000 |
$0 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|||
16 |
Road and Bridge Construction (GA DOT) |
20-30 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$8,000 |
$26,000 |
$24,000 |
$2,100,000 |
$2,160,000 |
High |
$93,000 |
$117,000 |
$207,000 |
$2,100,000 |
$2,520,000 |
|||
Water Supply Dam (USACE) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$0 |
$15,600 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$20,600 |
$4,100 |
$0 |
$30,800 |
|||
Utilities (TVA) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$1,300 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Agriculture and Ranching (NRCS) |
2 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$800 |
$2,600 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$5,800 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$7,800 |
$13,800 |
$0 |
$27,800 |
|||
Agriculture and Ranching (FSA) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$1,300 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (EPA) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$6,500 |
$9,700 |
$0 |
$22,300 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
4-6 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$6,800 |
$0 |
$4,800 |
$0 |
$11,600 |
|
High |
$42,000 |
$0 |
$41,400 |
$0 |
$83,400 |
|||
Private Landowner Assistance |
30-40 Technical Assistance |
Low |
$1,500 |
$0 |
$18,000 |
$0 |
$19,500 |
|
High |
$2,000 |
$0 |
$60,000 |
$0 |
$62,000 |
|||
17 |
Activities in National Forests (USFS) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$10,800 |
$0 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
High |
$6,100 |
$16,200 |
$0 |
$0 |
$22,300 |
|||
Activities in National Forests (USFS) |
6 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$2,400 |
$15,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$17,400 |
|
High |
$18,600 |
$64,800 |
$0 |
$0 |
$83,400 |
|||
Water Quality Activities (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
18 |
Hydropower Facilities |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$484,000 |
$498,000 |
High |
$6,100 |
$6,500 |
$9,700 |
$484,000 |
$506,000 |
|||
Utilities Construction/ Maintenance (USACE) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$8,000 |
$4,800 |
$87,200 |
$102,000 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$38,400 |
$11,600 |
$980,000 |
$1,040,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
19
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
20
|
Utilities Construction/ Maintenance (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
|
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
21
|
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
22 |
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
23 |
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Dredging (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$21,800 |
$25,400 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$245,000 |
$261,000 |
|||
24 |
Conservation/Recreation (USACE) |
2 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$800 |
$4,000 |
$2,400 |
$0 |
$7,200 |
High |
$6,200 |
$19,200 |
$5,800 |
$0 |
$31,200 |
|||
Conservation/Recreation (PFW) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$1,700 |
$0 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$7,000 |
$0 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
25 |
Road and Bridge Maintenance (GA DOT) |
10 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$4,000 |
$13,000 |
$12,000 |
$900,000 |
$929,000 |
High |
$31,000 |
$39,000 |
$69,000 |
$900,000 |
$1,040,000 |
|||
Road and Bridge Maintenance (TN DOT) |
4 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$1,600 |
$5,200 |
$4,800 |
$7,200 |
$18,800 |
|
High |
$12,400 |
$15,600 |
$27,600 |
$60,000 |
$116,000 |
|||
Road and Bridge Maintenance (USACE) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$2,000 |
$1,200 |
$100 |
$3,700 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$100 |
$15,700 |
|||
Road and Bridge Maintenance (USACE) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$10,000 |
$25,600 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$20,600 |
$4,100 |
$10,000 |
$40,800 |
|||
Hydropower (USACE) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$9,600 |
$2,900 |
$484,000 |
$500,000 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$20,600 |
$4,100 |
$484,000 |
$515,000 |
|||
Hydropower (FERC) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$1,300 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Utilities (TVA) |
1 Informal Consultation |
Low |
$400 |
$1,300 |
$1,200 |
$0 |
$2,900 |
|
High |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|||
Activities in National Forests |
18 Informal Consultations |
Low |
$7,200 |
$45,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$52,200 |
|
High |
$55,800 |
$194,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$250,000 |
|||
Activities in National Forests |
40 Technical Assistance |
Low |
$2,000 |
$24,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$26,000 |
|
High |
$2,000 |
$60,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
$62,000 |
|||
Agriculture and Ranching (NRCS) |
1 Formal Consultation |
Low |
$3,100 |
$3,900 |
$6,900 |
$0 |
$13,900 |
|
High |
$6,100 |
$6,500 |
$9,700 |
$0 |
||||