Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (17) DATE: November 15, 2000 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building SUBJECT: Critical Habitat Designation for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the proposed Critical Habitat Designation and Draft Economic Analysis and direct staff to prepare a written response to be signed by the Mayor. SUMMARY: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has, in response to a lawsuit, proposed designating Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Bighorn Sheep) and has prepared a Draft Economic Analysis. The designation of Critical Habitat may have a significant effect upon properties within the City. Proposed Critical Habitat includes significant portions of the City. BACKGROUND: The FWS listed the Bighorn Sheep as an endangered species in March of 1998. At this time, FWS did not designate Critical Habitat for Bighorn Sheep because designating Critical Habitat may cause threats to the species and would not provide additional benefits. Subsequently, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and Desert Survivors filed a lawsuit to force FWS to designate Critical Habitat. In September 1999, the FWS entered into a settlement agreement which requires reconsideration of this issue. Critical Habitat was proposed on July 05, 2000. Listing of Bighorn Sheep and proposed Critical Habitat effects all properties in, and adjacent to, the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The Draft Critical Habitat Map includes extensive developed and undeveloped areas within the City as Critical Habitat. A revised map is being prepared based upon public comments but is not available for public review at this time. In response to the proposed Critical Habitat Designation, the Mayor sent a detailed response letter outlining numerous concerns regarding the proposal. A copy of that letter is attached to this report. Several meetings have occurred to discuss the proposed Critical Habitat Map and boundary, but FWS has not indicated how it will respond to comments. The Draft Economic Analysis is intended to evaluate the potential economic impact of specifying a particular area as Critical Habitat. It does not address the economic impact of listing the species. With this limitation, the report does not consider the full cost of listing, but only the incremental cost and benefits associated with designation of Critical Habitat. A copy of the Draft Economic Analysis was provided under separate cover and the Executive Summary is attached. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) requires the Secretary of the Interior, prior to designating any habitat of a threatened or endangered species as "Critical Habitat," to take into consideration "the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area" as such. (16 USC § 1533(b)(2); 50 CFR § 424.12(a). I to Page 2 of 3 November 15, 2000 City Council Report Critical Habitat Designation for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The regulations promulgated pursuant to FESA expand upon this requirement as follows: The Secretary shall identify any significant activities that would either affect an area considered for designation as critical habitat or be likely to be affected by the designation, and shall, after proposing designation of such an area, consider the probable economic and other impacts of the designation upon proposed or ongoing activities. The Secretary may exclude any portion of such an area from the critical habitat if the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as part of the critical habitat. (50 CFR § 424.19) Case law does not give much guidance for applying this requirement. In summary, the law requires that the Secretary take a "hard look" at the potential economic impacts of the listing and conduct a "reasonably thorough discussion of the impacts". Based upon our preliminary review, we do not feel that the Draft Analysis satisfies these standards. In the City's comment letter on the proposed Critical Habitat Determination, the City specifically requested that the economic analysis include a study of the impacts on numerous properties proposed to be placed within the critical habitat. The Draft does not contain any portion of the requested analysis. Instead, the analysis in the report is extremely generalized and not based upon specific geographic or economic circumstances. There is no analysis regarding the City's property holdings that fall within the proposed habitat. Nor is there any meaningful analysis of the impacts on the private property holdings, which, in Riverside County, make up one-third of the 245,000 acres proposed for listing. The impacts on private property in all of Riverside County have been given a total of one and one-half pages of discussion. (Draft Report, pp. 46-47.). The study does little more than to mention a few projects which made it through the "consultation" process (e.g. the Ritz Carlton and the La Mirada project), and essentially concludes that other projects would likewise simply go through that process. This analysis provides no information as to the effect the designation of critical habitat will have on revenues of the City if projects such as Shadowrock, Mountain Falls, or Palm Hiss do not proceed. The Draft Economic Analysis concludes that the economic impact is minimal. It estimates the total cost to the FWS, other Federal agencies, local government, and applicants (property owners) is to range between $500,000 and $2 million. This estimate does not consider many costs since it is limited to the incremental costs associated with Critical Habitat designation only. Staff believes that costs are severely underestimated and that the Draft Economic Analysis is flawed. Designation of Critical Habitat will affect 875,000 acres, of which 245,000 acres are located within the Riverside County. Specific areas affected by the Proposed Critical Habitat Designation include the entire Chino Canyon alluvial fan (Shadowrock and hundreds of developable acres), Tachevah Canyon (Mountain Falls), Palm Canyon, and Palm Hills. Consultants, meetings, biological studies, and possible litigation for any one project can cost thousands of lqA i Page 3 of 3 November 15, 2000 City Council Report Critical Habitat Designation for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep dollars. Property values can be dramatically affected by designation of Critical Habitat. The FWS has concluded that the Critical Habitat designation will have a limited economic effect and that most economic consequences are attributable to the species listing and not to Critical Habitat designation. The Draft Economic Analysis identified benefits which include increased Federal support for management activities, reduced uncertainty about the extent of habitat, and that the likelihood of species survival will increase. The Draft Economic Analysis was released for public review on, or about, October 19, 2000. Staff is reviewing the document. Additional comments will be provided at the November 15, 2000 City Council meeting. The official comment period on the Draft Economic Analysis closes on November 20, 2000. Staff recommends that the City Council direct the Mayor to send a letter to FWS outlining the City Council's concerns. Douglas . Evans Director of Planning & Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Economic Analysis Executive Summary; 2. Letter to Ken Berg, FWS, dated August 31, 2000; 3. Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (provided under separate cover). /4r! 3 Draft-October 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts that would result from the proposed critical habitat designation for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis crenmobates). This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated(IEc), under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Economics. 7. Section 4(b)(2)of the Endangered Species Act(the Act)requires the Service to base critical habitat proposals upon the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact,and any other iclevant 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. Proposed Critical Habitat 8. The Service has proposed over 875,000 acres of mountainous land in southern California as critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (hereafter referred to as "bighorn sheep"). The proposed critical habitat encompasses dry regions with limited development in central Riverside County, eastern S an Diego County, and western Imperial County. A large portion of the proposed critical habitat is State pads land or designated wilderness areas. Any existing structures within the critical habitat area,such as residential development or canals that do not contain any of the primary constituent elements necessary to support the species,arenot considered critical habitat. The critical habitat areas within the three counties are outlined below. Riverside-Includes 245,000 acres of steep mountains south of the urbanized areas of the Coachella Valley, including the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains and the Martinez Canyon. This portion of the proposed critical habitat provides land for the home ranges of fourdistinct ewe groups as well as corridors for possible connectivity between ewe groups. Recreation and development are the primary economic activities in this region. San Diego- hicludes almost 470,000 acres of mountainous regions of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and surrounding Bureau of Land Management and private lands. Specific mountain ranges include the San Ysidro,Vallecito,Tierra Blanca,and In-Ko-Pahmountains. The San Diego designation is home to seven distinct ewe groups. Recreation withinthe State park and surrounding wilderness areas is the primary economic activity. Imperial-Includes over 160,000 acres in the Coyote Mountains and Fish Creek Mountains wilderness areas, as well as a small portion of the Anza- ES-1 Draft-October 2000 Borrego State Park and the Tones Martinez Indian Reservation. Limited recreation, mining and grazing occurs in this region. Framework and Economic Impacts Considered 9. This analysis defines an impactof critical habitat designation to include any effect the critical habitat designation has above and beyond the impacts associated with the listing of the species. To evaluatethe increment of economic impacts attributable to the critical habitat designation,above and beyond the listing, the analysis assumes a "without critical habitat' baseline and compares it to a "with critical habitat"scenario. The difference between the two is a measurement of the net change in economic activity that may result from the designation of critical habitat. 10. The "without critical habitat" baseline represents current and expected economic activity raider all existing modifications prior to critical habitat designation. These include the take restrictions that result from the listing of the bighorn sheep (and listings for otherrelevant species) and modifications due to section 7 consultation on the impacts of the species, as well as other Federal, Tribal, State, and local requirements that may limit economic activities in the regions containing the proposed critical habitat units. This analysis focuses on potential costs and benefits of critical habitat designation for the bighorn sheep,above and beyond any costs andbenefits already in existence due to the listing of the species. 11. To estimate the incremental costs and benefits that critical habitat designation would have on existing and planned activities and land uses, the analysis applies the following framework: 1. Develop a comprehensive list of possible Federal nexuses on Federal and Tribal lands in and around the proposed critical habitat area. 2. Review historical patters and current information describing the section 7 consultations in the proposed critical habitat area to evaluate the likelihood that nexuses would result in consultations with the Service. 3. Determine whether specific projects and activities within the proposed critical habitat involve a Federal nexus and would likely result in section 7 consultations. 4. Evaluatewhether section 7 consultations with the Service would likely result in any modifications to projects,activities,or lvnduses beyond those required without critical habitat designation. 12. Using the framework outlined above, this analysis evaluates potential costs and benefits ES-2 Draft-October 2000 associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat. Three primary categories of potential incremental costs are considered in the analysis. These categories include: Costs associated with any modifications to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the outcome of section 7 consultations beyond those required without critical habitat designation. Costs associated with conducting reinitiations or extensions of existing section 7 consultations occurring Linder the listing, or with the incremental effort associated with new consultations (e.g., administrative effort). Costs associated with uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from the designation of critical habitat. Uncertainty and public perceptions about the likely effects of critical habitat may cause project delays and changes in property values, regardless of whether critical habitat actually generates incremental impacts. 13. Potential economic benefits considered in this analysis include regional economic effects as well as changes in social welfare. For example,the existence of critical habitat forthe bighorn sheep may enhance the region's economy by generating travel to the region and by increasing the region's desirability as a place to live. Social welfare may also be increased if the designation of critical habitat enhances the recovery ofthe species. Changes in social welfare can be measured through the existence value and non-consumptive use value people place on the bighorn sheep.' Finally, the public's perception of the potential importance of critical habitat may result in increases to property values,just as the perception of modifications may result in propertyvalue reductions,regardless of whether critical habitat generates such impacts. Preliminary Results 14. The preliminary results are as follows: Few incremental consultations or othercosts due to proposed critical habitat are expected to occur above and beyond those associated with the listing for the bighorn sheep. The two supporting factors are: 'Existence value is the welfare associated with the knowledge of continued existence of a resource or species and non-consumptive use value is the welfare associated with wildlife viewing and other entranced recreational activities that do not harm the species. ES-3 /1A� Draft-October 2000 i. A significant number of existing regulations and management plans in the baseline scenario already affect activities within the proposed critical habitat designation area, and ii. Most of the lands proposed for designation are in remote mountainous locations and do not support significant economic activity. As noted above, while most of the proposed critical habitat designation contains remote areas, a small portion contains a developed area. Specifically, significant development pressures exist along the Coachella Valley in Riverside County,spurring building in the foothills. Theseprojects can interfere with bighorn sheep habitat use, which if subject to a Federal nexus, would typically be consulted on with the Service under section 7 of the Act. The proposed designation of critical habitat may slightly increase the number of informal and formal consultations. As a result, the total cost of this increase to the Service, other Federal agencies, and applicants is estimated to range between $500,000 and$2 million. Many-residents and tourists use recreational hails within the proposed critical habitat designation. Federal,Trust,State and local landowners and managers have placed seasonal and spatial restrictions on recreational trail use as a result of habitat management plans, recovery plans and the listing of the bighorn sheep. Therefore,the Service believes that any ongoing restrictions would be attributable to the listing,not critical habitat designation. Critical habitat designation may provide incremental benefits to certain land owners and managers beyond the benefits associated with the listing of the bighorn sheep. These benefits include the educational impact of delineating habitat for the bighorn sheep, increased Federal support for current bighorn sheep management activities, reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, and a potential increase in the probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep. Both increases in social welfare and enhancements to the regional economy are likely to be on the order of millions of dollars,but are difficult to accurately estimate. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes these preliminary findings. ES-4 1147 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributable to Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Habitat* Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Federal Bureau of Land Recreational trail Federal land ownership Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Management management activities Land use permits Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep ranagement activities Management of grazing Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat allotments United States Forest Management of grazing Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Service allotments Recreational trail Federal land ownership Low Low management Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep management activities Department of Maintenance of Interstate 8 Federal land Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation ownership/easement Trust Morongo Tribe None anticipated Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Low oversight ES-5 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Habitat' Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Agua Caliente Recreational trail Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe maintenance oversight activities Trust Agua Caliente Management of Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe Canyons oversight activities Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management oversight activities Torres Martinez Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe oversight activities State and CA Departmentof Acquisition of land along Use of U.S.Department of Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Local Parks and highways Transportation grants activities Recreation CA Department of Research activities University of California Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep management Fish and Game system Federal funding activities CA Departmentof Road maintenance Use of U.S.Department of Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation Transportation funding Coachella Valley Delivery of irrigation and Section 404 permit Low Low Water District domestic waters ES-6 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Habitat* Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Construction and Located on BLM lands Moderate-informal Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, maintenance of waterworks and formal educational benefits of conversations,potential increase in the consultations and probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep project modifications State and Riverside County Recreation activities Use of Bureau of Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Local Regional Parks Reclamation water activities Private Private landowners Residential and commercial Section 404 permit Moderate-informal Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, development and formal educational benefits of conversations, potential increase in the consultations and probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep project modifications Private landowners Railroad operation U.S.Department of Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation Imcencing Sources:Information in table based on personal communications with Service Feld Biologist,Carlsbad,California Office,August-October 2000,and other stakeholders(see footnotes and References) Note:Anypotential new or rehitiated consultation or other impact attributable to critical habitat presumes apre-existing Federal nexus as identified in the preceding column. ES-7 Q / pF PALM ,Sp !U 0� N City of Palm Springs Office of the Mayor rycototni t°`q� * 3200 Tahquia Canyon Way•Palm Springs,California 92262 Cq4 FO R�\P TEL(760)323-8200 • FAX(760)323-8207 •TDD(760)864-9527 August 31, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Range - Comments and Request For Documents Under The Freedom of Information Act Dear Mr. Berg: I am writing to express the City's serious concerns regarding the Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat (PDCH) for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS) that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) released for public comment on July 5, 2000. The PDCH would result in the designation of existing homes, ready-to-build or entitled lots, hotel rooms, and various other urban uses within the City as critical habitat for PBS under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. We were shocked to find that the Service would propose to classify such properties as critical habitat for PBS, and disappointed in the dearth of information and analysis found in the PDCH. The City acknowledges that PBS are an important part of Coachella Valley's environment, and supports efforts to protect PBS. For the past 25 years, the City has been acquiring hillside properties for public open space. Currently, the City owns approximately 3,400 acres of prime PBS habitat which is primarily located in the San Jacinto Mountains. In addition, the City has required some of the most extensive environmental review of specific projects ever undertaken in the valley. Our past record and the extent of our territory within the designated initial habitat area should make our views important to the Service. Moreover, City staff and I have met a number of times with your staff and have been assured that local input and working with affected communities is important to your office. Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 2 Therefore, we have been greatly disappointed to see that the PDCH and the Recovery Plan, proposed by the Service, failed to analyze private and public land ownership patterns, an initial component to evaluate the reasonableness of the initial habitat area and the impact of the proposal on affected communities. The neglect to analyze this contradicts all the assurances we have received, which perhaps were intended to lull us into support of the process. Moreover, I am equally concerned that the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan may be handled in a similar fashion by the Service. We further understand that this is a very sensitive subject that concerns an endangered species at the top of the chain within this habitat area. However, we believe that the Service's efforts to protect PBS must comply with the statutory framework created by Congress through FESA. The City has reviewed the PDCH and has determined that it fails to meet the requirements of the FESA and the regulations promulgated thereunder (FESA Regulations), 50 CFR § 424.01, et seq. The PDCH falls woefully short of complying with both the letter and the spirit of FESA. In particular, the PDCH is legally and factually inadequate in the following respects: It purposefully evades making identification of specific areas of PBS habitat that are essential to the conservation of the species'; It fails to identify the specific biological or geographical features within the designated area that render the habitat"critical'; It fails to differentiate between occupied and unoccupied proposed critical habitat areas; It fails to utilize the best scientific data available in determining which areas to designate as critical habitat; It fails to provide any scientific justification for its utilization of an "ecosystem" approach to the designation of critical habitat; and It fails to consider the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation, as required by FESA and the FESA Regulations. In summary, rather than making any sincere effort at utilizing the best scientific data available, considering the economic effects of designation, researching property ownership, and reaching a well-reasoned determination as to those specific areas that are critical to PBS's continued survival, the Service has adopted an approach that makes a mockery of the critical habitat designation process and subverts the purposes of the FESA. ' The City utilizes the term "species" to apply to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep for the purpose of this letter only. It does not concede that PBS qualify as a "species" under FESA. if 4 Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 3 Based on the comments contained below, the City requests that the Service (a) substantially revise the PDCH and include a full and scientifically supported justification for its critical habitat mapping methodology and conclusions, (b) remove all of the properties specified in Exhibit "A" from the proposed critical habitat area, (c) circulate an economic analysis of the PDCH for public comment, and, thereafter (d) recirculate a revised PDCH for further public comment.' Additionally, the City requests that the Service produce the documents requested herein, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 522. 1. The PDCH Fails to Satisfy the FESA's Requirement that Critical Habitat Areas be Designated with Specificity FESA, the FESA Regulations, and the PDCH all provide the same definition of critical habitat: Critical habitat means (1) the specific areas within the geographical area currently occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species and (ii) that may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) the specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. (16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A); 50 C.F.R. 424.02(d); 65(129) F.R. 41408-41409; emphasis added.) Despite this explicit requirement of specificity, the Service's proposed designation is designed to avoid disclosure of particularized areas that are critical to PBS survival. The motivation for this approach is described at page 41408 of the PDCH: We were concerned that publishing detailed maps of bighorn habitat would encourage human disturbance in sensitive areas, such as lambing habitat, rutting areas, and water sources, and thereby result in increased disruption of bighorn sheep. 2 Pursuant to 40 CFR 424.18(c), if the Service elects to designate critical habitat in a manner that is inconsistent with the comments contained herein, it must provide the City with a written justification for such action. 14�41� Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 4 The Service's "solution" to this concern is to adopt a nebulous "ecosystem approach to delineate critical habitat that includes all of the essential habitat components, and does not highlight localized bighorn areas." (65 (129) F.R. 41409). In essence, the Service attempts to convert its inability and unwillingness to disclose essential habitat areas for PBS into a pretense for designating an over-inclusive critical habitat area. The Service tacitly concedes that this is the result of its ecosystem approach when it states "While the Service is proposing 876,000 acres of critical habitat, not all the areas within those broad boundaries have habitat elements important to Peninsular bighorn sheep." (July 5, 2000 Press Release for U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, www.rl.fws.gov/news/2000-111.htm) In other words, the Service's position is that the label "critical habitat" does not necessarily mean that the designated area is, in fact, critical. Indeed, one can hardly conceive of a more non-specific method of designation.' 2. The PDCH Fails to Adequately Disclose the Physical and Biological Features of the Designated Area That are Essential to the Conservation of PBS In designating critical habitat, the Service is required to consider and disclose those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species. (65 (129) F.R. 41409). In particular, 50 CFR § 424.12(b)(5) requires that "known primary constituent elements shall be listed with the critical habitat description." An exhaustive search of the PDCH reveals that the Service has failed to identify a single specific biological or physical feature of the designated area that is essential to the conservation of PBS. Instead, the Service attempts to satisfy this requirement by nebulously claiming that the critical habitat features include: space for normal behavior of groups and individuals; protection from disturbance; availability of a variety of native desert vegetation, including alluvial habitat that provides essential seasonal forage; a range of habitats that provide forage during periods of environmental stress, such as drought or predation; steep, remote habitat for lambing, rearing of young, and escape from disturbance and/or predation; water sources; suitable corridors allowing individual bighorn to move freely between ewe groups; and space and essential habitat components to accommodate a recovered population. ' While the Service's intentions may be good, they do not and cannot form a valid basis for deviating from the explicit requirements of FESA and the FESA Regulations. Both the PDCH and the Draft Recovery Plan (DRP) strongly suggest that more particularized data (and mapping) is available, but the Service has merely elected to withhold that information. Such an approach plainly violates the requirements for critical habitat designation. 114 Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 5 To provide any meaningful evaluation of the PDCH, it is necessary to know which specific features are found at what specific locations within the critical habitat area." Otherwise, the City and others are left at the mercy of the Service's unverified judgment concerning the proper scope of the designated area. The over-inclusiveness of the PDCH is extreme. As just a few examples, exactly which essential habitat components can be found at the Hyatt Hotel, Desert Fashion Plaza, Desert Museum, and hundreds of existing residential properties that are within the proposed critical habitat areas? Do these properties include lambing areas, watering areas, food sources, or any habitat value? There can be little doubt that the Service is aware of the over-inclusiveness of the proposed critical habitat. At page 41409 of the PDCH, the Service states: "we did not map critical habitat in sufficient detail to exclude all developed areas, such as scattered residential housing in sparsely inhabited regions, that do not contain primary constituent elements essential for bighorn conservation. Within the delineated critical habitat boundary, only lands supporting one or more constituent elements are considered critical habitat." (Emphasis added.) This statement admits that the critical habitat is not mapped with any specificity. It also misleadingly suggests that only "scattered residential housing in sparsely inhabited regions" has been included in the designation when, to the contrary, significant unit developments within fully inhabited regions of Palm Springs have been included. The Service then takes the exceptional position that only lands within the critical habitat boundary that contain constituent elements constitute critical habitat. ° In addition to specific geographic locations for the features, a proper critical habitat designation should include answers to the following questions: What is "normal" behavior of groups and individuals, and how much "space" is required for such behavior? What is meant by "protection from disturbance"? What "range of habitats" is required to provide forage during periods of environmental stress? What is the size and composition of "suitable corridors" that allow Bighorn to move freely between ewe groups? How much "space and essential habitat components" is required to accommodate a recovered population? WIr Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 6 Indeed, the Service's statement sums up all that is wrong with the proposed designation — it is based on circular reasoning; it defers the determination that is supposed to be made in the PDCH (i.e. where is the critical habitat located and why is it critical?) for a future determination; and it provides absolutely no guidance to readers who may wish to participate in the public review process. Without some indication of where the "essential habitat features" are located, and how the features are essential to the recovery of PBS, a proper evaluation of the PDCH is virtually impossible. Yet that is precisely the burden that the Service has placed upon the City by failing to provide sufficient information from which the designation of habitat areas can be evaluated. 3. The PDCH Fails to Differentiate Between Occupied and Unoccupied Critical Habitat As noted, both FESA and the FESA Regulations provide for two distinct categories of critical habitat: (a) specific areas that are occupied and essential to the conservation of the species, and (b) specific areas that are not occupied by the species at the time of the designation, but that are nonetheless essential for the conservation of the species. The PDCH makes absolutely no effort to differentiate between these categories of"critical habitat." Instead, it claims: All proposed critical habitat is currently occupied and necessary to maintain connectivity between ewe groups. Maintaining connectivity between ewe groups and access to changing resource availability in a variable environment is a necessary component of continued viability of the metapopulations and to achieve recovery of Peninsular bighorn. Bighorn sheep are wide-ranging large animals that often move great distances. Thus, we consider all critical habitat to be occupied by the species. (65(129) F.R. 41410.) To paraphrase, the Service contends that because PBS are wide-ranging animals (that somehow simultaneously maintain a great degree of fidelity to their home range (see 65(129) FIR 41409)), all critical habitat is "considered occupied." However, absolutely no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the mapped area is actually occupied.' If such information is available, it should be presented. If, on the other hand, certain portions of the PDCH are not occupied, then that information should be presented as well' so that the public can offer informed feedback to the Service concerning the propriety of its designation.' 5 From the City's perspective, the Service's action to classify the entire designated area as occupied is, at best, a semantic manipulation. No data demonstrating that the entire area is occupied has been proffered and, given the range of developed properties presented in Exhibit "A," it is clear that much of the designated area is in fact unoccupied. 6 Under 50 C.F.R. 424.12(e), any listing of critical habitat for an area outside of that presently occupied by PBS must be accompanied by information demonstrating that the present range of PBS would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. ' This issue is of particular concern in the case of PBS, insofar as many commentators have IMA Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 7 4. The PDCH Fails To Adequately Mal) the Proposed Critical Habitat. The PDCH purports to include a "delineation" of what the Service has determined to be the "critical habitat" for PBS. (65(129) F.R. 41417-41423.) Yet the "delineation" provided consists of three maps that are at such a small scale that they are unable to be read; hence meaningless. Moreover, the maps have virtually no reference points, no topographical information, and no geographic labels, parcel lines, section lines, nor any other information which could assist the public in interpreting the map. How are public agencies, property owners, and members of the general public supposed to analyze and comment upon the PDCH when its most important aspect, the "delineation" of critical habitat, is meaningless? The City hereby requests that it be provided with detailed mapping which shows the specific delineation of the proposed critical habitat. The City further requests that it be provided with the scientific backup for the inclusion of each parcel within the City that is proposed to be in the essential habitat area. Currently, the PDCH is devoid of such information (this issue is discussed at length below). Until the requested information has been provided, it is not possible to submit complete comments on the PDCH. As noted above, the term critical habitat as defined by FESA (16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A) means "a specific area within a geographic area occupied by a species...." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the delineation process necessarily involves the identification of the "specific area" at issue, not merely the drawing of an intentionally fuzzy line. 5. The PDCH Does Not Sufficiently Detail Any Scientific Data That Would Form the Basis for Its Conclusions 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(a) provides in pertinent part that "a final designation of critical habitat shall be made on the basis of the best scientific data available . . . ." However, a review of the PDCH reveals that neither the methodology nor the conclusions of the critical habitat mapping are supported by the any scientific data, let alone the best scientific data. To be sure, in the section of the PDCH labeled "Background" the Service reviews various articles and background information relating to PBS taxonomy, physical characteristics, and the like. However, the objective of the PDCH is not to present background information, it is to marshal the best stated that the size of the metapopulation is so small that extirpation is unavoidable. Hence, preservation of unoccupied habitat for the resurgence of the species at some future date is most likely unjustified. 'iton Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 8 available scientific data available for the purpose of identifying critical habitat areas. Toward that end, the PDCH is devoid of citation to any scientific authority. Yet it nonetheless advances a series of broad, unsupported statements. As just a few examples: A. "Peninsular bighorn sheep distribution is not solely dependent on insolated habitat features, but requires a continuum of essential resources that allows the species to adapt to natural and unnatural environmental processes." (65(129) C.F.R. 41409.) What authority does the Service have for this statement? What are the "essential resources" to which the statement refers? What are "natural and unnatural environmental processes"? B. "Though bighorn sheep exhibit a high degree of site fidelity to their home range their distributions are continually changing in response to changes in the environment." (Id.) What authority does the Service have for this statement? How can PBS simultaneously exhibit high fidelity to their home range and have continually changing distributions? What "changes in the environment' result in changes in distribution. C. "Habitat restriction and fragmentation can impede dispersal and recolonization Potential, thereby degrading the ability of the sub-populations to interact." (Id.) What authority does the Service have for this statement? How much habitat is necessary to avoid restriction and fragmentation? Where are the sub- populations located? How have these considerations been utilized in mapping the proposed critical habitat? D. "Large mammals range widely to locate and exploit unpredictably changinq sources of food, water, and shelter." (ld.) What authority does the Service have for this statement? How does this statement reconcile with the previous representation that PBS display a high degree of site fidelity? How and why are sources of food, water, and shelter unpredictably changing? E. "We have used an ecosystem approach to delineate critical habitat that includes all of the essential habitat components and does not highlight localized bighorn areas." (Id.) What authority does the Service have for utilization of an "ecosystem approach"? Has such an approach been used in connection with other critical habitat designations? If so, when? Is it possible to highlight "localized bighorn areas?" If so, where are they? Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 9 There are similar examples of ambiguity throughout the PDCH. The entire section labeled "Primary Constituent Elements" purports to identify essential habitat features, but does not contain a single citation. Equally important, as noted above, this section does not even attempt to bridge the analytical gap between the bare listing of categories of essential features and the actual identification of the location of those features within the specified area.' Again, without some description of the scientific basis for the Service's reasoning, the City's ability to comment on the PDCH is unfairly limited. This undermines the purposes of the public review process of FESA and the FESA regulations, and additionally violates the express dictates of 50 C.F.R. § 424.12.' The PDCH Fails to Account For the Economic Impact of a Critical Habitat Determination Under 50 C.F.R. § 424.12(a), a final critical habitat designation must take into consideration the probable economic and other impacts of making such a designation. One searches the PDCH in vein for any consideration of the economic impacts of the designation, and instead finds the statement "we will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as critical habitat prior to making a final determination." (65(129) FIR 41412.) This is yet another attempt by the Service to defer analysis of essential PDCH issues to some future undisclosed date. Consideration of the Service's economic analysis is absolutely essential to providing meaningful comments on the PDCH, and presentation of the PDCH without that data limits the ability of the City to offer a comprehensive response. The City notes that in the case of the San Diego Fairy Shrimp, the Service (a) released a PDCH, (b) accepted public comments, (c) released an economic analysis, and (d) reopened the ' To be sure, at 65(129) F.R. 41409, the Service claims that "we used the best scientific and commercial data available" in identifying areas that are essential to conserve PBS. However, that statement is not borne out in the text of the PDCH, which contains almost no citations to data, articles, or other information in those portions that address the actual mapping of the critical habitat. 9 To the extent the PDCH purports to rely on the information contained in the DRP, the City maintains its objection to the adequacy of the data presented. The DRIP is riddled with citations to unpublished data, personal communications, and other sources of information that are unverifiable. The City hereby incorporates its previously submitted letter to Pete Sorensen at the Service concerning inadequacies in the DRP as though that letter were set forth in full herein. Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 10 comment period to accept further public input on the PDCH and economic analysis. (See, 65(162) FR 50672-50673.) The City hereby requests that the Service follow a similar protocol in the instant case so that the City, and the public at large, have a full and fair opportunity to evaluate and comment on the economic analysis of the critical habitat designation. 2. Specific Properties The City has devoted its staff and resources to identifying specific properties of concern that have been mapped as critical habitat. A partial listing" of these properties is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." In summary, that listing identifies: 1162 existing residential units 250 vacant residential lots 815 proposed residential lots in conjunction with resorts 140 proposed assisted living units 216 timeshare units 592 existing hotel units 844 - 1174 proposed hotel units numerous commercial properties For each of the properties identified in Exhibit "A", the City requests that the Service provide a full and specific explanation of how the property can be accurately classified as occupied critical habitat. Such an explanation must include a listing of the physical or biological features of the property that render it "critical" to PBS, any and all data relating to previous sitings or other information justifying classification of the property as "occupied" habitat," and a comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of the designation on the particular property. Alternatively, the City requests that the Service admit that the indicated properties are not critical PBS habitat, and remove those properties from the proposed critical habitat designation and revised PDCH. The City requests a 60 day review period for the revised PDCH. 6. Freedom of Information Act Requests In addition to providing responses to the issues raised herein as required by 50 C.F.R. § 424.18(c), pursuant to the FOIA, the City additionally hereby requests that the Service produce the categories of documents listed in Exhibit"B." 10 The City reserves the right to submit information relating to additional properties included within the draft critical habitat area through further correspondence. 11 If the Service's position is that the property is critical, but unoccupied, habitat, then the Service must present evidence to support a determination that the present range of the PBS would be inadequate to ensure the preservation of the species. (50 C.F.R. § 424.12(e).) '404V Mr. Ken Berg, Field Supervisor August 31, 2000 Page 11 7. Conclusion In closing, while the City wants the PBS to be protected to the fullest extent possible, it believes (and insists) that the protection be carried out in a manner that is consistent with FESA, the FESA Regulations, and common sense. The PDCH runs afoul of FESA and the FESA Regulations by failing to provide particularized information in support of the proposed designation, failing to disclose and/or utilize the best scientific and commercial data available, and facially over-designating critical habitat to include areas that are neither occupied nor amenable to occupation by PBS. It runs well afoul of common sense. Unless and until these errors are repaired, no final designation is appropriate. Sincerely, -'::)- William G. Kleindienst Mayor WGK:mlb cc: Palm Springs City Council David Ready, City Manager Douglas Evans, Director of Planning and Building David Aleshire, City Attorney Michael Spear, USFWS � qq � EXHIBIT "A" EXISTING & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INSIDE CRITICAL HABITAT LINE NEIGHBORHOOD/PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Mesa Tract Approximately 216 built residential lots South of East Palm Canyon and West of South Palm Canyon • Old Las Palmas Approximately 310 built residential lots West of North Palm Canyon between Alejo Rd and Vista Chino • Historic Tennis Club Approximately 163 built residential lots and West of South Palm Canyon 400 hotel units between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Ramon Road • Desert Museum Existing museum North of Tahquitz Canyon Way on Museum Drive • Desert Fashion Plaza Existing shopping center West side of North Palm Canyon north of Tahquitz Canyon Way • Little Tuscany Approximately 190 built residential lots West of North Palm Canyon between Vista Chino Road and West Racquet Club Road • La Mirada area Approximately 27 built residential lots West of South Palm Canyon between Ramon Road and Sunny Dunes Road • Shadowrock Resort Proposed destination resort including: 18- South of Tramway Road hole golf course, clubhouse, 70-unit hotel, 200 condominiums, and 135 residential lots (or up to 400 hotel units) • Mountain Falls Golf Preserve Proposed 18-hole golf course, clubhouse, Between Via Monte Vista and the and 20 residential units Tachevah Debris Basin • Plaza del Sol Existing shopping center Near corner of South Palm Canyon and East Palm Canyon • Sun Center Existing shopping center Southwest corner of South Palm Canyon and Camino Parocela • Mac Magruder Chevrolet Existing car dealership Northwest corner of South Palm Canyon and Mesquite Avenue • Star Canyon Approved 374-unit hotel/timeshare facility One lot north of the northwest corner of South Palm Canyon and Mesquite Avenue • Montana St. Martin's (Formerly Historic gas station Tramway Gas Station) Northwest corner of North Palm Canyon and San Rafael Drive • Portion of Palm Springs Villas Approximately 181 residential units Southeast corner of North Palm Canyon and San Rafael Drive • Portion of Palm Springs Villas II Approximately 75 residential units Northeast corner of North Palm Canyon and San Rafael Drive • LG's Steakhouse Existing restaurant South Palm Canyon between Arenas Road and Baristo Road • Kaiser Grill Existing restaurant Southwest corner of South Palm Canyon and Arenas Road • Mercado Plaza Existing mixed use South Palm Canyon between (Retail/Restaurant/Office) Tahquitz Canyon Way and Arenas Road • Cornerstone Existing mixed use (Retail/Restaurant) Northwest corner of North Palm Canyon and Amado Road • Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Existing aerial tramway station and parking End of Tramway Road facilities yq 23 • Canyon Park Resort Hotel & Spa Approved resort onsisting of a 400-unit Corner of South Palm Canyon and hotel, 400 residential units, 60 low-income Murray Drive residential units, and various mixed uses (hotel, residential units, and several golf holes in proposed critical habitat) • Hyatt Regency Suites Existing192-unit hotel North Palm Canyon between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Amado Road • Parkview Mobile Home Park Existing mobile home park (number of Mesquite Avenue west of South spaces unavailable) Palm Canyon • Belardo Gardens Approved 140-unit assisted living apartment West of Belardo Road between complex Camino Parocela and Sunny Dunes Road • O'Donnel Golf Course Existing golf course (oldest golf course in Southwest corner of Alejo Road and the Coachella Valley) Belardo Road • Whitewater River Settling Ponds Water recharge area Section 19 along Highway 111 • Tennis Club Resort Existing 216-unit timeshare resort West end of Baristo Road TOTAL: 1162 existing residential units 250 vacant residential lots 815 proposed residential lots in conjunction with resorts 140 proposed assisted living units 216 timeshare units 592 existing hotel units 844 -1174 proposed hotel units EXHIBIT "B" FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS 1. All referenced information, including, but not limited to, personal communications, unpublished works, and progress reports cited directly within the PDCH. 2. All referenced information, including, but not limited to, personal communications, unpublished works, and progress reports cited within the DRP. 3. All writings, studies or treatises relating to historic and/or current occurrence of PBS or PBS habitat in the Peninsular Ranges. 4. All reports, drafts or final mappings, graphics, or exhibits pertaining to the historic and/or current PBS occupation in the Peninsular Ranges. 5. All writings or personal communication notes held by Service staff as they may pertain to the Service's opinion(s) on the historic and/or current PBS occupation of the Peninsular Range. 6. All information or data communicated by the California Department of Fish and Game, its employees, its agents, contractors or permittees relating to the historic and/or current PBS occupation of the Peninsular Range. 7. All writings, personal communications, drafts, graphics, exhibits, or other documents that reveal and/or relate to the Service's attempt to use an ecosystem-based justification for the designation of critical habitat for the PBS. 8. All reports resulting from permits and memoranda of understanding that provide information as to the historic and/or current PBS occupation of the Peninsular Range. 9. All information or data contained within Service files that may have been used directly or indirectly as information for the proposed critical habitat designation. 10. All peer reviewer's unedited comments and remarks for "Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep" and any other reviews, reports, opinions and/or other data referring or related thereto. 11. All peer reviewer's unedited comments and remarks for the "Draft Recovery Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Range" and any other reviews, reports, opinions and/or other data referring or related thereto. 12. All mapping(s) which shows the specific delineation of the proposed critical habitat for PBS. 13. All scientific backup for the inclusion of each parcel within the City in the proposed critical habitat for PBS. 14. All peer reviewer's research data, peer reviewed publications, reports, survey observations, recovery criteria, analyses, notes emanating from discussions with ��� the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team, etc. embraced by the following citation from the "Methods" section of the 'Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep": In identifying areas that are essential to conserve the Peninsular bighorn sheep, we used the best scientific and commercial data available. This included data from research and survey observations published in peer reviewed articles; recovery criteria and habitat analyses outlined in the draft Recovery Plan; discussions with, and data made available through the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team; and regional Geographic Information System ("GIS") coverages. 15. All implied research data, biological information, peer reviewed publications, reports, survey observations, habitat models, habitat validation analyses, notes and opinions emanating form discussions with the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team, etc. which serve to validate that aspect of critical habitat designation embraced by the following citation from the 'Primary Constituent Elements" section of the "Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep": The areas we are proposing to designate as critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep provide some or all of those habitat components essential for the primary biological needs of feeding, resting, reproduction and population recruitment, dispersal, connectivity between ewe groups, and isolation from detrimental human disturbance. The primary biological and physical constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of Peninsular bighorn sheep include space for the normal behavior of groups and individuals; protection from disturbance; availability of a variety of native desert vegetation, including alluvial habitat that provides essential seasonal forage; a range of habitats that provide forage during periods of environmental stress, such as drought or predation; steep, remote habitat for lambing, rearing of young, and escape from disturbance and/or predation water sources; suitable corridors allowing individual bighorn to move freely between ewe groups; and space and the essential habitat components to accommodate a recovered population. 16. All implied research data, biological information, peer reviewed publications, reports, survey observations, habitat models, habitat validation analyses, notes and opinions emanating from discussions with the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team, etc. which serve to validate that aspect of critical habitat -2- 44 designation embraced by the following citation from the "Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat" section of the "Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep": The criteria for delineating Peninsular bighorn habitat was based on biological information in pertinent literature and the expert opinion of those most familiar with bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges (i.e., the recovery team). 17. All implied research data, biological information, peer reviewed publications, reports, survey observations, habitat models, habitat validation analyses, notes and opinions emanating from discussions with the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team, etc. which serve to validate that aspect of critical habitat designation embraced by the following citation from the last paragraphs of "Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat" section of the "Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep": All proposed critical habitat is currently occupied and necessary to maintain connectivity between ewe groups. (emphasis added.) 18. All documents held by the Service that refer or relate to the effects of the activity of the Bighorn Institute ("BI") or PBS. 19. All documents that refer, relate to or comprise BI's operational permits and memoranda of understanding with Service. 20. The following documents, data, and/or materials cited in the DRP: 4¶2;line 9 Boyce pers comm.—no date- 13¶1;line 14 Ostermann at al.in prep 11¶2;line 10 Ostermann at al.in prep 13 11;line 18 BI unpub.Data 11¶2;line 11 Boyce&Rubin unpub.data 13¶1;line 19 ABDSP unpub.Data 11 ¶2;line 11-12 BI unpub,data 13`[11;line 20 Rubin et al.in prep 11¶2;line 16 BI unpub.data 13¶1 line 32 Ostermann at al.in prep 12 12;line 2 Ostermann et al.in prep 14 11;line 5 Ostermann et al.in prep 12 12;line 2-3 Rubin at al.in prep 14¶3;line 3-4 Ostermann&DeForge unpub. 12¶2;line 11 Rubin et al.in prep data 12¶2;line 16-17 BI unpub.data 14—Table 1 Rubin et al,in prep 12 13;line 5-6 Rubin&Boyce unpub.data 15¶1;line 4 Ostermann&DeForge unpub 13 11;line 2 Rubin at al.in prep data 15—Table 2 Ostermann et al.in prep 34¶2;line 10 Rubin pers comm.1998 16 11;line 2 Hayes et al.in prep 34 12;line 12 DeForge&Ostermann unpub. 16¶1;line 3 Hayes at al.in prep data 16 11;line 7 Hayes at al.in prep 34`[13;line 6 Rubin,Boyce,DeForge, 17—Table 3 Ostermann at al.in prep Ostermann pers comm. 1998 17 11;line 5 BI unpub.data 37 12:line 2 Hayes at al.in prep 18—Table 4 Hayes at al.in prep 37 121 line 8 V.Bleich unpub.data 18¶1;line 5 Hayes at al.in prep 37 12;line 9 BI unpub.data 19¶1;line 12 Boyce unpub.data 37¶2;line 11 BI unpub.data 1990-1999 19¶2;line 19 ABDSP unpub.data 37¶2;11-12 Rubin unpub.data 1999 19¶2;line 21 ABDSP unpub.data 37 14;line 2 Hayes et al.in prep 20¶2;line 8 Weaver pers comm. 1998 40¶2;line 13 Rubin et al.in prep 20¶2;line 11 Bleich pers comm.2998 42 11;line 10-11 Krausman at al.in prep 20¶2;line 11 BI unpub.data 42 11;line 11 Krausman pers comm.1998 20¶3;line 8 Jorgensen pers comm.1998 42 12;line 4-5 Bureau of Land Management 20 13;line 11-12 ABDSP unpub.data unpub.data 21 ¶2;line 9-10 Jorgensen pers comm.—no date- 43¶1;line Jorgensen, ABDSP pers comm.— -3- A4 4247 22¶1;line 7 BI unpub.data no date- 22¶1;line 17 Jessup,in litt 1999 43-44¶2;line 32 Jorgensen,ABDSP pers comm. 22¶2;line 14 BI unpub.data 1998 22¶2;line 14 Boyce unpub.data 57¶1;line 10 Krausman at al.in prep 23¶1;line 5 Rubin unpub.data 57¶1;line 11 Krausman et al.in prep 23¶1;line 7 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data 75¶3;line 6 Krausman et al.in prep 23¶1;line 7-8 Rubin&Boyce unpub.data 75¶3;line 8 literature cited in Papouchis et al. 23¶1;line 9-10 Rubin&Boyce unpub.data 1999 23¶1;line 10 BI unpub.data 82¶3;line 12 Ostermann et al.in prep 23¶3;line 7 BI unpub.data 88¶1;line 88 Hayes at al.in prep 23¶3;line 8-9 DeForge&Ostermann unpub data 136¶1;line 11 Torres CDFG pers comm.—no 24¶1;line 2-3 Ostermann&DeForge unpub.data date 24—Table 5 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data 137¶2;line 17-18 Weaver CDFG pers comm. — no 24—Table 5 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data date 24—Table 5 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data 152¶1;line 3-4 Ostermann&DeForge unpub. 25¶1;line 9-10 Terrie Correll,Living Desert data 25—Table 6 Ostermann&DeForge unpub.data 158¶1;line 6 Ostermann&DeForge unpub. 26¶1;line 4-5 Ostermann at al.in prep data 28¶1;line 7 Bleich pers comm.—no date- 162¶2;line 12 BI unpub.data 28¶2;line 16 BI unpub.data 163¶1;line 5 BI unpub.data 29¶1;line 6-7 Bleich,CDFG,pers comm.1998 165¶2;line 10 Bleich unpub.data 29¶1;line 10 DeForge unpub.data 176¶1;line 4-5 Rubin et al.submitted 29¶1;line 18 BI unpub.data 176¶1;line 5 BI unpub.data 29¶1;line 24 DeForge in litt 1997 176¶1;line 6 Hayes at al.in prep 30¶1;line 10 Rubin et al.in prep 176¶1;line 6-7 BI unpub,data 30¶1;line 10 Hayes at al.in prep 186¶2;line 2 ABDSP unpub.data 31—Table 7 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data 187¶1;line 1 ABDSP unpub.data 31 —Table 8 Ostermann at al.in prep. 33 12;line 7 DeForge&Ostermann unpub.data -4- MA VXLM Sc hCF �!c City of Palm Springs Department of Planning & Building C'44 FOR N�' MEMORANDUM Date: November 03, 2000 To: Mayor and City Council via City Manager From: Director of Planning & Building y2 Subject: Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Attached are copies of background documents to be considered at the November 15, 2000 City Council meeting. Documents attached include: 1. Draft Economic Analysis 2. Bighorn Sheep Habitat and Observations in the Peninsular Ranges Map Staff report and additional background material will be provided for the City Council November 15, 2000 meeting. cc: City Clerk 9 � /mlb DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP October 2000 Prepared for: Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Prepared by: Robert E. Unsworth, Sarah J. Malloy, and Kirk R. Klausineyer Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 Send comments on the economic analysis to: Field Supervisor Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Draft-October 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1 SECTION I 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1.1 Consultation Linder section 7 of the Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Purpose and Approach of Economic Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3 Structure of Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SECTION 2 2. SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 Description of Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Proposed Critical Habitat Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3 Relevant Baseline Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1 Baseline Statutory and Regulatory Req tirerments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.2 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical Habitat Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 SECTION 3 3. ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1 Framework for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.1 Categories of Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.2 Methodological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.1.3 Information Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2 Potential Federal Nexuses Within Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.3 Potential Costs and Benefits Due to Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.3.1 Economic Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.3.2 Federal Landowners and Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.3.3 Trust Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3.3.4 State and Local Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3.5 Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.3.6 Total Economic Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.3.7 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.3.8 Summary of Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 i Draft-October 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 3.4 Additional Impacts Due to Proposed Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.4.1 Potential Impacts to Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.4.2 Potential Impacts to Native American Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.4.3 Potential Impacts Associated with Project Delays and Property Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 ii Draft-October 2000 PREFACE 1. This report was prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(the Service) by Industrial Economics,Incorporated(IEc)to assess the economic impacts that may result from designation of critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. Under section 4 (b)(1) of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (the Act), the decision to list a species as endangered or threatened is made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data and analysis. Bycontrast,section 4(b)(2)of the Act states that the decision to designate critical habitat must consider potential economic impact of specifying a particular area as critical habitat. As such, this report does not address any economic impacts associated with the listing of the species. The analysis only addresses those incremental economic costs and benefits potentially resulting from the designation of critical habitat. 2. IEc worked closely with Service personnel to ensure that potential Federal actions as well as current and future land uses were appropriately identified, and to begin assessing whether or not the designation of critical habitat would have any net economic effect in the regions containing the proposed critical habitat designations. Identification of these land use/Federal-agency actions provided IEc with a basis for evaluating the incremental economic impacts due to critical habitat designation for the bighorn sheep. 3. Section 7 of the Act authorizes the Service to consider, and where appropriate, make a determination that aFederal-agency action is likelyto jeopardize the continued existence of species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. IEc,therefore, also requested input from Service officials concerning whether or not any of these projects would likely result in an adverse modification determination without an accompanying jeopardy opinion. It is important to note here that it would not have been appropriate for IEe to make such policy determinations. 4. To better understand the concerns of stakeholders, IEc solicited the opinions of Federal, Tribal,State and local government agencies regarding the uses of land within the proposed critical habitat, historical consultations with the Service, and potential future consultations. Public continents and testimony submitted in response to Proposed Determination of Critical Habitatfor the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep(65 FR 41405)were also milizedto assess potential econoric effects of the critical habitat designation on private lands. This report uses this information to present an initial characterization of possible economic impacts associated with the designation of critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. 5. Our final analysis will provide,to the extent possible, more rigorous estimates of expected economic impacts. Thus, we solicit information that can be used to support such assessment, whether associated with the categories of impacthighlighted in this report,orother economic effects of the critical habitat designation. Since the focus of this report is an assessment of increrental impacts of proposed critical habitat, we request information on the potential effects of the designation on current and future land uses,rather than on effects associated with the listing of the P-1 Draft-October 2000 Peninsular bighorn sheep,or of other Federal,Tribal,State,or local requirements that influence land use. The effects of listing include the take restrictions that result from the listing of a species as endangered or threatened,as well as the requirement that Federal agencies consult withe the Service under section 7 of the Act on activities that may affect the species. P-2 Draft-October 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic impacts that would result from the proposed critical habitat designation for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates). This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Economics. 7. Section 4(b)(2)of the Endangered Species Act(the Act)requires the Service to base critical habitat proposals upon the best scientific and cornmercial data available, after tatting 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. Proposed Critical Habitat 8. The Service has proposed over 875,000 acres of mountainous land in southern California as critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (hereafter referred to as "bighorn sheep"). The proposed critical habitat encompasses dry regions with limited development in central Riverside County, eastern San Diego County, and western Imperial County. A large portion of the proposed critical habitat is State park land or designated wilderness areas. Any existing structures within the critical habitat area,such as residential development or canals that do not contain any of the primary constituent elements necessary to support the species,arenot considered critical habitat. The critical habitat areas within the three counties are outlined below. Riverside-Includes 245,000 acres of steep mountains south of the urbanized areas of the Coachella Valley, including the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains and the Martinez Canyon. This portion of the proposed critical habitat provides land for the home ranges of four distinct ewe groups as well as corridors for possible connectivity between ewe groups. Recreation and development are the primary economic activities in this region. San Diego- Includes almost 470,000 acres of mountainous regions of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and surrounding Bureau of Land Management and private lands. Specific mountain ranges include the San Ysidro,Vallecito,Tierra Blanca,and In-Ko-Pahtnountains. The San Diego designation is home to seven distinct ewe groups. Recreation withinthe State park and surrounding wildemess areas is the primary economic activity. Imperial-Includes over 160,000 acres in the Coyote Mountains and Fish Creek Mountains wilderness areas, as well as a small portion of the Anza- ES-1 Draft-October 2000 Borrego State Park and the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. Limited recreation, mining and grazing occurs in this region. Framework and Economic Impacts Considered 9. Thisanalysis defines anirnpactof critical habitat designation to include any effect the critical habitat designation has above and beyond the impacts associated with the listing of the species. To evaluatethe increment of economic impacts attributable to the critical habitat designation,above and beyond the listing, the analysis assumes a "without critical habitat' baseline and compares it to a "with critical habitat"scenario. The difference between the two is a meas urenent of the net change in economic activity that may result from the designation of critical habitat. 10. The "without critical habitat' baseline represents current and expected economic activity under all existing modifications prior to critical habitat designation. These include the take restrictions that result from the listing of the bighorn sheep (and listings for otherrelevant species) and modifications due to section 7 consultation on the impacts of the species, as well as other Federal, Tribal, State, and local requirements that may limit economic activities in the regions containing the proposed critical habitat units. This analysis focuses on potential costs and benefits of critical habitat designation for the bighorn sheep,above and beyond any costs andbenefits already in existence due to the listing of the species. 11. To estimate the incremental costs and benefits that critical habitat designation would have on existing and planned activities and land uses, the analysis applies the following fiamework: 1. Develop a comprehensive list of possible Federal nexuses on Federal and Tribal lands in and around the proposed critical habitat area. 2. Review historical patterns and current information describing the section 7 consultations in the proposed critical habitat area to evaluate the likelihood that nexuses would result in consultations with the Service. 3. Determine whether specific projects and activities within the proposed critical habitat involve a Federal nexus and would likely result in section 7 consultations. 4. Evaluatewhother section 7 consultations with the Service would likely result in any codifications to projects,activities,or land uses beyond those required without critical habitat designation. 12. Using the framework outlined above, this analysis evaluates potential costs and benefits ES-2 Draft-October-2000 associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat. Three primary categories of potential incremental costs are considered in the analysis. These categories include: Costs associated with any modifications to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the outcome of section 7 consultations beyond those required without critical habitat designation. Costs associated with conducting reinitiations or extensions of existing section 7 consultations occurring under the listing, or with the incremental effort associated with new consultations (e.g., administrative effort). Costs associated with uncertainty and public perceptions resulting from the designation of critical habitat. Uncertainty and public perceptions about the likely effects of critical habitat may cause project delays and changes in property values, regardless of whether critical habitat actually generates incremental impacts. 13. Potential economic benefits considered in this analysis include regional economic effects as well as changes in social welfare. For example,the existence of critical habitat forthe bighorn sheep may enhance the region's economy by generating travel to the region and by increasing the region's desirability as a place to live. Social welfare may also be increased if the designation of critical habitat enhances the recovery ofthe species. Changes in social welfare can be measured through the existence value and non-consumptive use value people place on the bighorn sheep.` Finally, the public's perception of the potential importance of critical habitat may result in increases to property values,just as the perception of modifications may result in property value reductions,regardless of whether critical habitat generates such impacts. Preliminary Results 14. The preliminary results are as follows: Few incremental consultations or other costs due to proposed critical habitat are expected to occur above and beyond those associated with the listing for the bighorn sheep. The two supporting factors are: 'Existence value is the welfare associated with the knowledge of continued existence of a resource or species and non-consumptive use value is the welfare associated with wildlife viewing and other enhanced recreational activities that do not hann the species. ES-3 Draft-October 2000 i. A significant number of existing regulations and management plans in the baseline scenario already affect activities within the proposed critical habitat designation area, and ii. Most of the lands proposed for designation are in remote mountainous locations and do not support significant economic activity. As noted above, while most of the proposed critical habitat designation contains remote areas, a small portion contains a developed area. Specifically, significant development pressures exist along the Coachella Valley in Riverside County,spurring building in the foothills. Theseprojects can interfere with bighorn sheep habitat use, which if subject to a Federal nexus, would typically be consulted on with the Service under section 7 of the Act. The proposed designation of critical habitat may slightly increase the number of informal and formal consultations. As a result, the total cost of this increase to the Service, other Federal agencies, and applicants is estimated to range between$500,000 and$2 million. Many residents and tourists use recreational trails within the proposed critical habitat designation. Federal,Trust,State and local landowners and managers have placed seasonal and spatial restrictions on recreational trail use as a result of habitat management plans, recovery plans and the listing of the bighorn sheep. Therefore,the Service believes that any ongoing restrictions would be attributable to the listing, not critical habitat designation. Critical habitat designation may provide incremental benefits to certain land owners and managers beyond the benefits associated with the listing of the bighorn sheep.These benefits include the educational impact of delineating habitat for the bighorn sheep, increased Federal support for current bighorn sheep management activities, reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, and a potential increase in the probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep. Both increases in social welfare and enhancements to the regional economy are likely to be on the order of millions of dollars,but are difficult to accurately estimate. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes these preliminary findings. ES-4 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical HablW Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Federal Bureau of Land Recreational trail Federal land ownership Low Increased support forcurreut bighorn sheep management Management management activities Land use permits Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management activities Management of grazing Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat allotments United States Forest Management of grazing Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Service allotments Recreational trail Federal land ownership Low Low management Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management activities Department of Maintenance of Interstate 8 Federal land Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation ownership/easement Trust Morongo Tribe None anticipated Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Low oversight ES-5 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other.Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Habitat* Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Ague Caliente Recreational trail Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep management Tribe maintenance oversight activities Trust Agua Caliente Management of Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe Canyons oversight activities Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management oversight activities Tones Martinez Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe oversight activities State and CA Department of Acquisition of land along Use of U.S.Department of Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Local Parks and highways Transportation grants activities Recreation CA Department of Research activities University of California Law Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Fish and Game system Federal funding activities CA Department of Road maintenance Use of U.S.Department of Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation Transportation funding Coachella Valley Delivery ofirrigation and Section 404 permit Law Low Water District domestic waters ES-6 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit ES-I SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Hab$at* Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Construction and Located on BLM lands Moderate-informal Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, maintenance of water works and formal educational benefits of conversations, potential increase in the consultations and probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep project modifications State and Riverside County Recreation activities Use of Bureau of Law Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Local Regional Parks Reclamation water activities Private Private landowners Residential and commercial Section 404 permit Moderate-informal Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat, development and formal educational benefits of conversations, potential increase in the consultations and probability of recovery for the bighom sheep project modifications Private landowners Railroad operation U.S.Department of Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation licenang Sources:Infornation in table based on personal communications with Service Field Biologist,Carlsbad,California Office,August-October 2000,and other stakeholders(see footnotes and References) *Note:Anypotential new or reinitiated consultation or other impact attributable to critical habitat presumes a pre-existing Federalnexus as identified in the preceding column. ES-7 Draft-October 2000 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 15. On March 18, 1998,following a review of information and public conunents received on the proposed rule, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) listed the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cretnnobates) as an endangered species (63 FR 13134). In this rule, the Service found that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because the Service believed critical habitat could increase threats to the species and would not provide any additional benefit beyond that provided by the listing. On December 18,1998,the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity and Desert Survivors filed a complaint against the Service alleging that the Service's not prudent findings were unsubstantiated. The Service reconsidered the question of critical habitat as part of the settlement order pursuant to this lawsuit in September 1999. Upon further consideration,the Service decided there maybe some benefit to designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep, and proposed critical habitat for the bighorn sheep on July 5, 2000. 16. Critical habitat refers to a geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that mayrequire special management and protection. Critical habitat designation can help focus conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that are essential. Critical habitat designation contributes to Federal land management agencies'andthe public's awareness of the importance of these arms. 17. In addition to its informational role,the designation of critical habitat may provide protection from section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service in order to ensure that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Under the listing of a species,Federal agencies must consult with the Service regarding any activities that may affect a listed species. Under section 7, each Federal agency shall ensure that their actionis not likelyto jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The regulations of the Act define jeopardy as any action that would appreciably reducethe likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species. The designation of critical habitat requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service regarding any action that could potentially adversely modify the species' habitat. Adverse modification of critical habitat is defined as any 1 Draft-October 2000 direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the species. 18. The designation of critical habitat affects lands both within the geographical area occupied by the species and outside the geographical area occupied by the species. Critical habitat is defined in the Act as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied bythe species on which are found the physical or biological features that(1)are essential to the conservation of the species,and (2) that may require special management considerations or protection. Areas outside the geographicalrange occupied by the species also maybe included in the designation of critical habitat when the Service determines that they are essential for the conservation of the species. Federal agencies will have to consultwith the Service regarding any activities theyfund, authorize,or carry out on areas within the geographical range occupied by the species and areas outside the geographical range occupied by the species that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Already, they must consult with the Service on activities in these areas that may jeopardize the bighorn sheep. 1.1 CONSULTATION UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 19. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service whenever activities they fund, authorize, or carry out may affect listed species or designated critical habitat. Section 7 consultation with the Service is designed to ensure that any current or fature Federal actions do not appreciably diminish the value of the critical habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Activities on land owned by individuals, organizations, States, local and Tribal governments only require consultation with the Service if their actions occur on Federal lands(e.g., grazing permit);require a Federal permit, license,or other authorization;or involve Federal funding. Federal actions not affecting the species or its critical habitat,as well as actions on non-Federal lands that are not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted, will not require section 7 consultation. 20. For consultations concerning activities on Federal lands,therelevant Federal agencyconsults with the Service. For consultations where the consultation involves an activity proposed by a State or local government or a private entity (the "applicant"), the Federal agency with the nexus to the activity(the "Action agency")serves as the liaison with the Service. The consultation process may involve both informal and formal consultation with the Service. 21. Informal section 7 consultation is designed to assist the Federal agency and any applicant in identifying and resolving potential conflicts at an early stage in the planning process. Informal consultation consists of informal discussions between the Service and the agency concerning an action that may affect a listed species or its designated critical habitat. In preparation for an informal consultation, the applicant must compile all biological,technical, and legal information necessary to analyze the scope of the activity and discuss strategies to avoid, minimize, or otherwise affect 2 Draft-October 2000 impacts to listed species or critical habitat' During the informal consultation, the Service makes advisory recommendations, if appropriate, on ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects. If agreement can he reached,the Service will concur in writing that the action, as revised,is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. Infornial consultation may be initiated via a phone call or letter from the Action agency,or ameeting between the Action agency and the Service. 22. A formal consultation is required if the proposed action is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat in ways that cannot be avoided through informal consultation. Formal consultations determine whether a proposed agency action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Determination of whether an activity will result in jeopardy to a species or adverse modification of its critical habitat is dependent on a number of variables,including type of project,size,location,andduration. If the Service finds, in their biological opinion,that a proposed agencyaction is likelyto jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adverselymodify the critical habitat,the Service may identify reasonable and prudent alternatives that are designed to avoid such adverse effects to the listed species or critical habitat. 23. Reasonable and prudent alternatives are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions that can be implemented in a maamer consistent with the intended propose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible,and that the Service believes would avoid j eopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alteratives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with iniplementing reasonable and prudentalternatives vary accordingly. 24. Federal agencies are also required to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its proposed or designated critical habitat. Regulations implementing the interagency cooperation provisions of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species or to result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat 'Many applicants incur costs to prepare analyses as part of the consultation package. These costs vary greatly depending on the specifics ofthe project. Major construction activities,as referred to in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C.4321 et seq.),require that a biological assessment be completed prior to informal consultation. In most cases,these costs are attributable to the fact that a species has been added to the list of threatened and endangered species rather than the designation of critical habitat. 3 Draft-October 2000 1.2 PURPOSE AND APPROACH OF ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 25. Under the regulations of the Act, the Service is required to make its decision concerning critical habitat designation on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider economic and other re levant impacts of designating a particular area as critical habitat. The Service may exclude areas from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. The purpose of this report is to identify and analyze the potential economic costs and benefits that could result from the proposed critical habitat designation for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. 26. The analysis must distinguish between economic impacts caused bythe listing of the bighorn sheep and those additional effects that would be caused by the proposed critical habitat designation. The analysis only evaluates economic impacts resulting from critical habitat designation that are above and beyond impacts caused by the listing of the bighorn sheep. In the event that a land use or activity would be limited or prohibited by another existing statute, regulation, or policy, the economic impacts associated with those limitations or prohibitions would not be attributable to critical habitat designation. 27. This analysis assesses how critical habitat designation for the bighorn sheep may affect current and planned land uses and activities on Federal,Trust, State,county, local,and private land. For federally-managed land, designation of critical habitat may modify land uses, activities, and other actions that may adversely modifyhabitat. For Trust, State, county, local, and private land subject to critical habitat designation,modifications to land uses and activities can only be required when a"Federal nexus" exists (i.e., the activities or land uses of concern involve Federal permits, Federal finding, or other Federal actions). Activities on State and private land that do not involve a Federal nexus are not affected by critical habitat designation. 28. To be considered inthe economic analysis,activities should be reasonably foreseeable,which this analysis defines as activities which are currently authorized,permitted, or funded,or for which proposed plans are currently available to the public. This analysis considers all reasonably foreseeable activities on proposed critical habitat areas. Current and future activities that could potentially result in section 7 consultations and/or modifications are considered. 1.3 STRUCTURE OF REPORT 29. The remainder of the report is organized as follows: Section 2: Species Description and Relevant Baseline Information - Provides general information on the species, a brief description of the proposed critical habitat units, and regulatory and socio-economic 4 Draft-October 2000 information describing the baseline, that is, the "without critical habitat" scenario. Section 3: Analytic Framework and Results - Describes the framework and methodology for the analysis, and provides preliminary findings of potential incremental costs and benefits resulting from the proposed designation. 5 Draft-Octoher 2000 2 SPECIES DESCRIPTION AND RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION' SECTION 2 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES 30. The Peninsular bighorn sheep is a large mammal with a pale brown coat and yellowish brown to dark brown horns. The permanent horns are massive and coiled in males and smaller and not coiled in females. In comparison to other desert bighorn sheep,the Peninsular bighorn sheep is generally described as having paler coloration and horns with very heavy bases. The bighorn sheep's diet includes a wide variety of plant species,consisting of shrubs,herbaceous annuals and perennials, cacti, and grasses. 31. Bighorn sheep typically produce only one lamb per year. Lambing occurs primarily in February, March and April,but may occur as early as January and as late as August. Lambs and ewes frequently occupy steep terrain that provides escape from predators and cover from excessive heat and tend to congregate near dependable water sources during the summer. Lambs are able to eat native grass within two weeks of their birth and are weaned between four and six months of age. Lambing areas are particularly sensitive to human disturbance and thus represent vitally important areas within the proposed critical habitat designation. 32. Bighorn sheep occur on steep, open slopes, canyons, and washes in hot and dry desert regions where the land is rough,rocky, and sparsely vegetated. Most of these sheep live between 300 and 4,000 feet in elevation, where average annual precipitation is less than four inches and daily high temperatures average 104 degrees Fahrenheit in the srmmier. Caves and other forms of shelter(e.g.,rock outcrops)are used during inclement weather. Lambing areas are associatedwith ridge benches or canyon rims adjacent to steep slopes or escarpments. Alluvial fans (sloping masses of gravel,sand,clay,and other sediments that widen out like fans at the base of canyons and 'The infonnation on the Peninsular bighorn sheep and its habitat included in this section was obtained from the Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Proposed Rule), July 5, 2000 (65 FR 41405). 6 Drajz October 2000 washes) are also used for breeding, feeding, and movement. 33. The distribution of bighorn sheep is not solely dependent on isolated habitat features, but requires a continuum of essential resources that allows the species to adapt to environmental processes. Bighorn ewes exhibit a high degree of site fidelity to their home range,which is learned at an early age. Ewes that share a portion of a range are likely to be more closely related to each other and are called "ewe groups." Bighorn rains exhibit less site fidelity and tend to range more widely, moving among ewe groups. These characteristics make the bighorn sheep a metapopulation, which is a group of smaller populations that occasionally exchange individuals and/or genetic material. 34. Considering these and other attributes, habitat requirements, and population biology, the Service has detennined several primary constituent elements for thePe insular bighorn sheep. The primary biological and physical constituent elements that are essential to the conservation of the bighorn sheep include: Space for the nonnal behavior of groups and individuals; Protection from disturbance; Availability of a variety of native desert vegetation, including alluvial habitat that provides essential seasonal forage; A range of habitats that provide forage during periods of envirommental stress, such as drought or predation; Steep, remote habitat for lambing, rearing of young, and escape from disturbance and/or predation; Reliable water sources; Suitable corridors allowing individual bighorn to move freely between ewe groups; and, Space and the essential habitat components to accommodate a recovered population. 35. The areas that the Service is proposing for designation as critical habitat provide one or more primary constituent elements or will be capable, with restoration, of providing them. 2.2 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS 7 Draft-October 2000 36. Exhibit 2-1 shows the proposed critical habitat in the mountainous regions in San Diego, Riverside and Imperial Counties in California. The proposed designation encompasses approximately 876,000 acres of hot, dry,and sparsely vegetated desert regions. Because bighorn sheep often move great distances, all proposed critical habitat is believed to be currently occupied and necessary to maintain connectivity between bighorn ewe groups. 8 Draft-October 2000 Draft-October 2000 37. Exhibit 2-2 shows the acreage associated with Federal, Trust, State and local, and private lands. The majority of the proposed critical habitat designation is in western San Diego County, and over half is on State and local land. Exhibit 2-2 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ACREAGE BY MANAGER,HOLDER OR OWNER Riverside San Diego Imperial Total (Percent of (Percent of (Percent of (Percent of total designation) County total) County total) County total) Federal 98,135 (40%) 49,699 (I1%) 103,808 (64%) 251,642 (29%) Government Trust 16,293 (7%) 0 4,168 (3%) 20,461(2%) Slate and 43,801 (18%)* 377,677 (81%) 32,126 (20%) 453,604 (52%) Local Government Private Entity 87,121 (36%) 40,143 (9%) 22,642 (14%) 149,906 (17%) Total 245,350 467,519 162,744 875,613 Source: Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for Penmsulm Bighorn Sheep (65 FR 41405) *Note: According to the Proposed Rate,the amount of State and to cal land in Riverside County is 43,081 acres. After confirming with the Service, it was determined the correct number is 43,801 acres. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to noundtng error. 38. A more detailed description of physical attributes and specific landowners of the critical habitat in each county is provided below: Riverside. The critical habitat designation in Riverside County includes the steep mountains south of the urbanized areas of the Coachella Valley, including the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains and the Martinez Canyon. This portion of the proposed critical habitat provides land for the home ranges of four distinct ewe groups as well as corridors for possible connectivity between ewe groups. Specific land parcels in this region include portions of the Agua Caliente and Morongo Reservations,the Santa Rosa Wilderness, the San Bernardino National Forest, Lake Calmilla Regional Park, and land under private ownership. San Diego. The critical habitat designation in western San Diego County includes a majority of the mountainous regions of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Specific mountain ranges include the San Ysidro, Vallecito, 10 Draft-October 2000 Tierra Blanca and In-Ko-Pah mountains. The San Diego designation is home to four distinct ewe groups. In addition to the Anza-Borrego State Park, the critical habitat boundaries include the Sawtooth Mountains and Carrizo Gorge wilderness areas. Imperial. The critical habitat designation in Imperial County includes the Coyote Mountains and Fish Creek Mountains wilderness areas, as well as a small portion of the Anza-Borrego State Park and the Tones Martinez Indian Reservation. The Service believes a portion of the critical habitat designation south of the I-8 highway in the Jacumba Wilderness may be unoccupied because the highway acts as a barrier to sheep movement. The Service included this area in critical habitat because the Service hopes to create corridors under or over I-8, enabling the California bighorn sheep populations to intermingle with Mexican populations. 2.3 RELEVANT BASELINE INFORMATION 39. This section provides relevant information about existing regulations and requirements that exist in the baseline, i.e., the "without critical habitat" scenario. In addition,relevant information about the socio-econornic characteristics of regions that include critical habitat are provided. 2.3.1 Baseline Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 40. The baseline requirements include regulations regarding the listing of thebighorn sheep and other species, the draft Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan, and relevant statutes, regulations and memoranda. Listing 41. In March 1998, the Service listed the bighorn sheep as an endangered species. Under the listing, Federal agencies must consult with the Service regarding any actions they ftrnd,authorize, or carry out that could potentially jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed species. The listing of the bighorn sheep is the most significant aspect of baseline protection, as it provides the most protections since it makes it illegal for any person to "take" a listed species,which is defined by the Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. This analysis seeks to recognize those impacts or potential modifications to activities above and beyond Those attributable to the listing of the bighorn sheep. 11 Draft-October 2000 Overlap with Other Listed Species 42. Service Field Office staff in California indicate that habitat for the federally listed Least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise, triple-ribbed milk vetch, and desert slender salamander overlap with much of the proposed bighorn sheep critical habitat. The Service currently requires consultations associated with these species'listing. Generally, if a consultation is triggered for any listed species,the consultation process will then consider all species known or thought to occupy areas on or near the project lands. This has the potential to reduce the total nurnber of consultations necessary for a project. Yet, even when consultations include more than one species,the Service and the Action agencymust consider all potential impacts on each species and their habitats separately. Therefore,the amount of reseainh and time spent in consultation will be same regardless of whether consultations are held jointly for several species. The net effect of the presence of other federally listed species in the proposed bighorn sheep critical habitat is that the number of separate section 7 consultations may be reduced,but the total amount of research and time spent in consultation will remain approximately the same. Recovery Plan 43. An important componentofthebaseline scenario istheDraft Recovery Planfor the Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges(Recovery Plan)published in December 1999' The RecoveryPlan includes a map delineating "essential habitat" for the bighorn sheep as well as the methodology employed in determining its extent. The essential habitat is contained within the proposed critical habitat designation, which establishes a legally defused boundary around essential habitat. While this draft Recovery Plan imposes no binding restrictions on landowners and managers in the proposed critical habitat designation, it serves as an important information source for landowners regarding bighorn sheep habitat. 44. The Service has and likely would require section 7 consultations for projects that have a Federal nexus and occur within the essential habitat boundary delineated in the Recovery Plan. Thus, on critical habitat areas that are also considered essential habitat, nearly all economic costs or benefits associated with section 7 consultations may be attributed to the designation of essential habitat in the draft Recovery Plan. Similarly,anyindirect effects of the designation and publishing of habitat for the bighorn sheep,such as changes in propertyvalues or biological surveys conducted to dispute the occupied status of a portion of land, can be attributed to the publishing of the boundaries of the essential habitat in the Recovery Plan(i.e.,the effects would have occurred even in the absence of the designation of critical habitat). 'U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Draft Recovery Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in Peninsular Ranges, 1999. 12 Draft-October 2000 State Statutes and Regulations 45. In addition to Federal listing of the bighorn sheep as endangered, the California Fish and Game Conunission listed the Peninsular bighorn sheep as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act on June 27, 1971.' Legally,the California Endangered Species Act forbids any loss of habitat for endangered or threatened species without a permit. The Service is unaware of any restrictions or modifications that have been enacted by the State of California to date for projects that could degrade or diminish the extent of the bighorn sheep habitat. 46. Other relevant State statutes include the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires identification of significant environmental effects of proposed projectsthat have the potential to harm the environnent. The lead agency(typically the California State agency in charge of the oversight of a project)must determine whether a proposed project wouldhave a"significant" effect on the environment. Section 15065 of Article 5 of the CEQA regulations states that a finding of significance is mandatory if the project will"substantiallyreduce the habitat of a fish and wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory." If the lead agency finds a project will cause significant impacts, the landowners must prepare a Environmental Impact Report(EIR)e Any economic impacts identified by the EIR process are due to the presence of a particular species on the project land,regardless if it is designated critical habitat. Review of the CEQA statute and conversations with the California Resources Agency(one of the agencies responsible for administering CEQA)revealed that when a species is known to occupy a parcel of land, the designation of critical habitat alone does not require a lead agency to pursue any incremental actions.' In the case of the bighorn sheep, the designation of "essential' habitat in the recovery plan made public the lands occupied by the bighorn sheep. Therefore,economic impacts generated byCEQA on essential habitat areas are part of the baseline and not attributable to the designation of critical habitat. 'California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, "State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of Califonia," hdy 2000, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdabl Aninia12000 July.pdf,August 22, 2000. California Resources Agency, "Summary and Overview of the California Environmental Quality Act",November 12, 1998,h1tp://cores.cagov/topic1env_law/cega/sttmn7ary.htm1, August 23, 2000. 'Personal commmiication with the California Resources Agency Office on September 11, 2000. 13 Drat-October 2000 47. Relevant case law supports the idea that the designation of critical habitat for a species does not require any additional actions by a lead agency or an applicant when the project is on land that is known to be occupied by a species. The October 1995 Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Deparhnent of Health Services (38 Cal.AppAth 1574) concerns the CA Department of Health Services (DHS) approval of an FIR for the construction and operation of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. In this case the Plaintiff argued that the DHS should have resubmitted the EIR for public connnent after the Service designated the project site as critical habitat for the Desert tortoise. Their argument centers around the idea that the designation of critical habitat constituted new circumstances requiring the DHS to recirculate the EIR or prepare it supplemental EIR. The court found that this contention lacked merit, because the designation of critical habitat did not present evidence of significant new or enhanced environmental effects of the project. The presence of the Desert tortoise was already Imown and addressed in the original EIR. Thus,the designation of critical habitat did not introduce any new information of effects into the CEQA review process. 48. The designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep is similar to the designation of critical habitat for the Desert tortoise in this court case. Almost all of the critical habitat is known to be occupied by the bighorn sheep due to the designation of essential habitat in the Recovery Plan. However, on critical habitat areas that are not part of essential habitat, the designation of critical habitat may trigger effects associatedwith CEQA. A discussion and quantification of these effects are presented in Section 3. Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 49. Department of the Interior Secretarial Order#3206,Arnerican Indian TribalRights,Federal- Tribal Trust Responsibilities,and the Endangered Species Act,clarifies the Service responsibilities when actions taken under the authority of the Endangered Species Act affect Indian lands and tribal trust resources.' The Order regrures the Service to work with Indian Tribes to promote healthy ecosystems;recognize that Indian lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands; assist Indian Tribes in managing their own resources by providing information resources and technical resources;and respect hndian culture,religion,and spiritriality. These principles provide guidelines for interactions between the Service and Indian Tribes in reference to critical habitat. 50. The Appendix to the Order provides specific policy guidance. Section 3 (C) of the Appendix states that the Service: Solicit information and knowledge from affected Indian Tribes duringthe 'Department of the Interior Secretarial Order #3206, "American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act," http://endangere,d.fws.gov/triballEsatribe.htm, August 29, 2000. 14 Draft-October 2000 consultation process; Notify affected Tribes about Federal agency actions subject to formal section 7 consultations that might affect tribal rights or tribal trust resources; Provide copies of Biological Opinions to affected Tribes; When the service enters a formal consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), to treat the affected Tribe as a licence or permit applicant; Notify affected Indian Tribes and provide for participation when the Service enters into formal consultation with Federal agencies other than the BIA; and, In developing reasonable and prudent alternatives for project modifications, give fall considerations to all comments and information received from any affected Tribe. 51. The Service is currently precluded from implementing the above guidance under its current appropriations. However, the Service does implement the policy set forth in the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994 as part of its current program to protect the bighorn sheep.' This Presidential Memorandum requires the Service to consult with the Tribes on matters that affect them. In addition, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to gather information regarding the designation of critical habitat and the effects thereof from all relevant sources, including the Tribes. 2.3.2 Socioeconomic Profile of the Critical IIabitat Areas 52. To provide context for the discussion of potential economic impacts due to proposed critical habitat,this section summarizes key economic and demographic information for the three counties containing proposed critical habitat for the bighorn sheep.10 County level data are provided to 'Presidential Memorandum, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, April 29, 1994. 1°Population and housing summaries are derived mainly from: State of California, Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census Counts. Other statistics are derived from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Facts, httpJ/www.bea.doe..gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/bf10/06/index.htm, September 6, 2000, and the 1997 Coamry and City Extra,George Hall and Deirdre Gaquin,editors(Bernrn Press,MD) 1997. 15 Draft-October 2000 convey the nature of the regional economy. However, these data may not accurately reflect the socioeconomic characteristics of the critical habitat area because the majority of the proposed critical habitat is in the sparsely populated or uninhabited regions of the counties. Therefore,when available,data from areas within or bordering on the proposed designation are provided in addition to the county level data. Riverside 53. The majority ofthe proposed critical habitat for the bighom sheep lies within the Coachella Valley, located in Riverside County. The Valleyhas undergone a significant economic transition during the last 40 years. Specifically,the agricultural economy has given wayto an economy based primarily on tourism. The area's growing popularity as a resort community,principally marketed around golf,has prompted a dramatic increase in the retail and service sectors. Currently,the retail and services industry accounts for almost 60 percent of total employment." 54. Riverside ranks as the sixth most populous county in the State of California. Riverside's 2000 population exceeds 1.5 million and accounts for about 5.5 percent of the State total. This population is spread over 7,200 square miles with an average density of212 people per square mile. Since 1990, its average annual population growth rate has been about 3.0 percent,which is twice the State average of 1.5 percent. For the most part,Riverside County has been experiencing rapid development compared to the rest of California Over the past year, while its population growth rate fell slightly to 2.8 percent,the housing stock growth rate continued to rise to 2.3 percent. 55. In 2000,Riverside County had approximately 582,419 housing units.12 This represents an average annual growth rate of about 2.0 percent since 1990,whichis about twice the State average of0.9percent.. Several municipalities within the vicinity of proposed Bighorn sheep critical habitat exceed the County's average growth rate. These include Coachella(2.8 percent),La Qunita(8.9 percent), and Palm Desert (5.8 percent). The housing growth rate in other Riverside County municipalities within the vicinity of proposed critical habitat for the sheep include Cathedral City (1.8 percent), Indian Wells (2.4 percent), and Rancho Mirage (1.3 percent). "Rancho Mirage, "Community Economic Profile, Riverside County," http:// wrvw.ranchomirage.org/econornic.him, September 6,2000. 12State of California, Department of Finance, "City/County Population and Housing Estimates," 1991-2000, with 1990 Census Counts. 16 Draft-October-2000 56. In 1998,Riverside had a total personal income(TPI)of$33.2 billion,which equates to aper capita personal income(PCPI)of$22,451.13 Riverside's PCPI ranked 29`h in the State and was 80 percent of the State average ($28,163) and 83 percent of the national average($27,203). In 1988, the PCPI of Riverside was $17,872 and ranked 20' in the State. The average annual growth rate of PCPI over the past ten years was 2.3 percent,which is below the average annual growth rate for the State (3.6 percent) as well for the nation(4.6 percent). 57. Total earnings of persons employed in Riverside increased from about$8.6 billion in 1988 to $16.3 billion in 1998, an average annual growth rate of 6.6 percent. The largest industries in 1998 were services(23.3 percent of earnings),State and local goverment(16 percent of earnings), and construction(12.8 percent of earnings).In 1988,the largest industries were fann(32.4 percent); State and local government(17.2 percent); and services (12.3 percent). 58. Riverside County's tremendous growth in housing units and transition from an agricultural economy to an economy based on tourism has significant implications for the economic activity within and around the proposed critical habitat designation. Due to spatial constraints on the Coachella Valley floor,developers are planming resort and housing developments near the base of the mountains and in the foothills, encroaching on bighorn sheep habitat. Because of this intense development pressure, most of the potential impacts of the critical habitat designation for the bighorn sheep are likely to occur in Riverside County, as opposed to the other counties. San Diego 59. San Diego is the second most populous county in the State of California. In 2000, its population of slightly more than 2.9 million accounted for about 8.5 percent of the State total. The estimated average population density for San Diego County is 671 people per square mile. Since 1990,its average annual population growth rate has been about 1.7 percent,which is similar to the State average of 1.5 percent. In 2000, San Diego Countyhad a little more than one million housing units.' This represents an average annual growth rate of about 1.0 percent since 1990, which is about equal to the State average. San Diego's growth is focused on the western region of the County. The eastern region, which is where the proposed critical habitat is being designated, is mostly California State Parkland. 13Total personal income includes the earning (wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietor's income); dividends, interest, and rent; and transfer payments received by the residents of Imperial. 14State of California, Department of Finance, "City/County Population and Housing Estimates," 1991-2000, with 1990 Census Counts. 17 Draft-October 2000 60. In 1998, San Diego had a TPI of$76.5 billion, which equates to a PCPI of$27,657. San Diego's PCPI ranked 15`h in the State and was 98 percent of the State average($28,163) and 102 percent of the national average($27,203). Over the past ten years,the average annual PCPI growth rate was 3.7 percent compared to a State average of 3.6 percent and national average of4.6 percent. 61. Total earnings of persons employed in San Diego increased from$32.8 billion in 1988 to $54.4 billion in 1998, an average annual growth rate of 5.2 percent. The largest industries in 1998 were services(30.7 percent of earnings);State and local govermnent(10.8 percent);and retail trade (9.4 percent). In 1988,the largest industries were services(24.5 percent of earnings);military(13.3 percent); and durable goods manufacturing(10.6 percent). 62. A vast majority of San Diego County's economic activity described above occurs in the western coastal regions of the Cormty. Over 90 percent of the land within the critical habitat designation is State park land or Bureau of Land Management wilderness area Only a few small housing developments near Borrego Springs exist within the critical habitatborders. Thus,critical habitat will most likely have limited effects on the population and regional economy of San Diego County. Imperial County 63. As of January 1,2000Imperial County's populationwas 145,28 5 residents,with an average population density of35 people per square mile. Since 1990,its average annual population growth rate has been about 3.3 percent, which is greater than the State average of 1.5 percent. In fact, Imperial Comity has experienced the greatest population percentage growth of any county in the region over the past decade. In 2000, Imperial County had approximately 43,470 housing units. This represents an average annual growth rate of about 1.9 percent since 1990,more than the State rate of 0.9 percent. The fastest growing cities within Imperial County, in terns of housing units, were Imperial (9.0 percent average annual growth rate) and Calexico(4.0 percent),which are not located within the vicinity of proposed critical habitat. Recently, Imperial Colmty's growth has slowed. Over the past year, population has grown only 0.5 percent, while housing has grown by only 0.9 percent. 64. In 1998,Imperial had a TPI of$2.5 billion,which equates to a PCPI of$17,353. Imperial's PCPI was only 62 percent of the State average ($28,163)and 64 percent of the national average ($27,203). Over the past ten years,the average annual PCPI growth rate for Imperial Comity was 1.3 percent compared to the State average annual PCPI growth rate of 3.6 percent and the nation's 4.6 percent rate. 65. Total earnings of persons employed in Imperial County increased from$1.2 billion in 1988 to$1.8 billion in 1998,an average annual growth rate of 4.0 percent. The largest industries in 1998 were State and local government(23.9 percent of earnings);faun(22.5 percent);and services(12.2 18 Draft-October 2000 percent). In 1988, the largest industries were fanu (32.4 percent of earnings); State and local government(17.2 percent); and services (12.3 percent). 66. Similar to San Diego County, the economic activity within the proposed critical habitat designation in Imperial County is currently limited. A few small housing developments exist near Desert Shores on the Salton Sea. However,Imperial County's large population growth may increase development pressures in areas adjacent to or within the proposed critical habitat designation. 19 Draft-October 2000 3 ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK AND RESULTS SECTION 3 67. This section provides an overview of the framework for the analysis, a description of information sources used,and a discussion ofpotential economic costs and benefits associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. 3.1 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS 68. This economic analysis examines the impacts of modifications to specific land uses or activities within those areas designated as critical habitat. The analysis evaluates impacts in a "with" critical habitat designation versus a "without" critical habitat designation framework, measuring the net change in economic activity attributable to the critical habitat proposal. The "without"critical habitat designation scenario,which represents the baseline for analysis, includes all protection already accorded to the species under State and Federal laws, such as the National Environnental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. The difference between the two scenarios is a measurement of the net change in economic activity that mayresult from the designation of critical habitat for the species.The listing of the bighorn sheep is the most significant aspect of baseline protection, as it provides the most protections since it makes it illegal for any person to "take" a listed species, which is defined by the Act to mean harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, hap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. 3.1.1 Categories of Economic Impacts 69. The focus of this economic analysis is to determine the incremental costs and benefits to land uses and activities from the designation of critical habitat that are above and beyond those that result from existing Federal,Tribal,State,and local laws. This analysis considers any incremental costs and benefits resulting from the proposed critical habitat designation. Exhibit 3-1 outlines the general categories of costs and benefits considered in this analysis. 20 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit 3-1 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS THEORETICALLY DUE TO CRITICAL HABITAT Categories of Costs and Benefits Examples Costs Costs associated with section 7 Administrative costs(e.g.,phone calls, lctterwriting, consultations: meetings,travel time,biological assessment)required new consultations to conduct consultation. reinitiated consultations extended consultations Costs associated with uncertainty and Transitory dechne in value of properties within critica perceptions of critical habitat effects: habitat,based on the public's perception that critical project it clays habitat will result in project modifications. changes in property values Costs of modifications to projects, Opportunity costs associated with seasonal change of activities, and land uses. project (e.g., activity limited to non-breeding seasons) Benefits Benefits associated with uncertainty and Transitory increases in value or properties w ithin perceptions of critical habitat effects. critical habitat,based on the public's perception that critical habitat will slow development. Recreational and other use benefits. Improvements to wildlife viewing. Non-use benefits. Enhancements to resource preservation (increased biodiversity, ecosystem health) and existence values. 70. Potential costs associated with section 7 consultations due to proposed critical habitat include: (1)the value of time spent in conducting section 7 consultations beyond those associated with the listing of the species, and (2) modifications to land uses and activities as a result of consultations. The Service has recognized that there are approximately three different scenarios associated with the designation of critical habitat that could trigger incremental consultation costs: Some consultations that have already been "completed" may need to be reinitiated to address critical habitat; Consultations taking place after critical habitat designation may take longer because critical habitat issues hill need to be addressed; New consultations that would not have taken place but for designation of critical habitat. 21 Draft-October 2000 71. Critical habitat could also result in economic costs triggered by the public's perception about the impact of critical habitat on particular parcels subject to the designation. Public perception that critical habitat results in project modifications could lead to real reductions in property values and increased costs to landowners. For example, a perception held by potential buyers that crime is high in a given neighborhood, though the area may actually be safe, can negatively influence the value of individual properties in the neighborhood. Often,a single event or series of events(for example,the publication of a newspaper article or a succession of crimes) create a change in public attitudes which in turn cause a change in the value of property. As more information on actual neighborhood attributes becomes available to the market over a period of time, the influence of the public's initial perception subsides. Although originating in perceived (as opposed to actual)changes, a similar pattern of public attitudes about the influence of critical habitat could cause real economic effects. They may occur even in cases in which additional project modifications on land uses within critical habitat are unlikely to be imposed. 72. Uncertainty about the impacts of critical habitat also could result in costs to landowners. For example, uncertainty surrounding the definition of critical habitat could prompt some landowners to undertake steps to reduce that uncertainty, thereby incurring transaction costs. Specifically, landowners may elect to retain legal and technical counsel, surveyors and other specialists to determine whether specific parcels lie within critical habitat boundaries, and/or whether the primary constituent elements are present on parcels. Thus,uncertainty over the critical habitat status of lands has the potential to create real economic losses as land owners incur costs to reduce and/or mitigate the effects of this uncertainty. Moreover,uncertaintymay create delays, or in some cases, may lead to changes in land use decision-making, and may thereby result in opportunity costs. 73. In addition to considering potential economic impacts attributable to the proposed critical habitat,this analysis also considers economic benefits that may result from designation of critical habitat. Resource preservation or enhancement,which is aided by designation of critical habitat, may constitute an increase in the values provided directly by the species and indirectly by its habitat. Categories of potential benefits for the bighorn sheep include enhancement of wildlife viewing, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health, and intrinsic (passive use) values. Furthermore,designation of critical habitatcould potentiallylead to earlier recovery of the species, thus decreasing regulatory costs associated with listing. Finally, the public's perception of the potential importance of critical habitat may result in increases in someproperty values,just as the perception of modifications may result in property value reductions,regardless of whether critical habitat generates such impacts." "For example,a development that abuts State park land may benefit if the public perceives critical habitat as providing additional conservation protection to the park. 22 Draft-October 2000 3.1.2 Methodological Approach 74. As discussed in Section 1, critical habitat can only affect current or planned land uses where a Federal nexus is involved. Where current or future activities on State,county,municipal, or private lands involve Federal funding,Federal permitting,or other Federal involvement, section 7 consultation with the Service is required. Activities on Trust, State, county, municipal, and private lands that do not involve a Federal nexus are not affected by the designation of critical habitat.As a result, this report assesses potential economic impacts from critical habitat by first identifying those activities that will likelyinvolve a Federal nexus. Once probable Federal nexuses are identified,specific examples of these nexuses within the proposed critical habitat are identified and evaluated to determine the likelihood of incremental consultations and the probability of resultant project modifications or other costs or benefits. Below, the specific steps used in this methodology are described: First, identify potential Federal nexuses in area of concern. Develop comprehensive list of possible nexuses on Federal, Trust, State, county, municipal,and private lands in and around proposed critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. i. For federally owned lands,review current and future activities that may impact the proposed critical habitat. Since all activities on Federal lands are subject to section 7 consultation, identify major activities that could result in adverse modification ii. For non-Federal lands, review whether proposed activities on affected State,county,municipal or private lands potentially involve Federal pennits, Federal finding, or other Federal involvement. Second,review historical patterns for section 7 consultations inthe proposed critical habitat area to determine the likelihood that nexuses are likely to result in consultations with the Service. However, as historical patterns are not totally accurate predictors of future events, also use current information and professional judgement of the Service and other Federal agency staff, regarding the likelihood of new, reinitiated, or extended incremental consultations. Third,identify specific projects and activities that involve a Federal nexus in proposed critical habitat area and will likely result in section 7 consultations with the Service,based on current and historical information. 23 Draft-October 2000 Fourth, evaluate the probable impacts of any modifications resulting from consultation outcomes, as well as other incremental costs and benefits that may originate from the proposed designation(e.g.,project delays, change in property values, enhanced recreational opportunities). 3.1.3 Information Sources 75. The methodology outlinedabove relies primarily on input and information from the Service staff. Because the Proposed Determination.of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (65 FR 41405)(Proposed Rule)designating critical habitat was released just prior to the time ofthis analysis,only limited numbers of public comments and detailed information from landowners on specific activities and land uses were available. As such,this preliminary analysis relies primarily on meetings and telephone conversations with staff atthe Service, and other Federal, Tribal, State and local government agencies rather than on written comments or public hearing testimony. The final analysis will consider additional public continents and more detailed interviews with key Federal, State, and local government stakeholders. Relevant contacts will be identified in coordination with the Service to ensure that the most relevant and knowledgeable parties are consulted. 3.2 POTENTIAL FEDERAL NEXUSES WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT 76. As outlined above,the first step in assessing potential impacts due to critical habitat for the Perinsularbighorn sheep involves identification of the potential Federal nexuses withnithe affected area. This step includes a review of land ownership within the critical habitat. Proposed critical habitat for the bighorn sheep,which includes areas in Riverside, San Diego and huperial Counties is comprised of a mix of Federal, Trust, State and local, and private land. In addition, potential Federal nexuses within the proposed critical habitat are identified based on guidance from field and regional Service staff in California. Both current and future nexuses potentially occurring within critical habitat for the bighorn sheep are identified,in order to develop a comprehensive list of all activities in the affected area that require Federal involvement in some form. 77. Beyond identifying all potential Federal nexuses on the lands proposed as critical habitat for the bighorn sheep,this analysis assesses the likelihood that section 7 consultations for different categories of Federal nexuses will be exercised. This assessment is a critical part of the overall economic analysis of critical habitat because historical evidence suggests that there are categories of Federal nexuses for which section 7 consultation rarely,if ever,occurs. The information for this assessment is based on input and guidance from field and regional the Service staff, as well as historical patterns in consultations between the Service and Federal agencies in the proposed areas. Exhibit 3-2 identifies Federal agencies with nexuses in the proposed critical habitat, describes the individual nexuses, and evaluates whether each nexus has historically resulted in section 7 24 Draft-October 2000 consultation. This analysis focuses on identifying specific land use activities in the affected areas that are most likely to result in section 7 consultation. Exhibit 3-2 POTENTIAL FEDERAL NEXUSES WITHIN CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Federal Agency Potential Federal Nexus Has Nexus Historically Occurred and/or Resulted in Consultation? Bureau of Land Management of recreational nails and grazing Yes Management allotments, road maintenance,permitting land use, and research activities U.S. Forest Service Management of recreational trails,grazing Yes allotments, and research activities Department of Maintenance of interstate highways, funding of Sometimes Transportation California Department of Transportation, and licensing of railroads Bureau of Indian Management of trails, roads,and development on Sometimes Affairs Tribal lands Army Corps of Authorization and permitting of dredging and filling Yes Enginecis of wetlands, channelization of streams, flood control actions, and sand and gravel operations under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Bureau of Authorization, licensing, and operation ofwater Rarely Reclamation pipelines and reservoirs. Environmental Permitting of municipal and industrial discharges Rarely Protection Agency under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES). Source: Personal communication with Field Biologist, Carlsbad, CA Office on August 24,2000 78. Having identified allpotential nexuses within the proposed critical habitat,the analysis then focuses on identifying potential consultations and modifications to land use activities. Specific examples of activities involving a Federal nexus and likely to require a consultation are discussed along with those activities that have not historically resulted in consultations with the Service. 25 Draft-October 2000 3.3 POTENTIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS DUE TO CRITICAL HABITAT 79. This section identifies specific costs and benefits associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. The discussion of potential costs identifies specific land uses and activities within proposed critical habitat designation that create a Federal nexus. The analysis then examines all formal and informal section 7 consultations that have occurred since the Service listed the bighorn sheep in March 1998 and identifies any project modifications the Service required as a result of the consultation. Using the consultation history and guidance from the Service and land owners and managers, the analysis predicts possible future activities that could trigger a section 7 consultation, as well as any future project modifications. These predictions are used to determine which section 7 consultations or modifications(if any)could result in economic impacts attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation." This analysis assumes compliance among landowners and Federal agencies with respect to responsibilities required by section 7 of the Act. 80. In some cases, the designation of critical habitat for a species can cause the Service to reinitiate a consultation that has already been'completed"in order to address critical habitat. The Service states that reinitiations would be unlikely to occur within the bighorn sheep critical habitat. This is because new information has not become available that indicates past agreements would be affected by a critical habitat designation or that biological situations have changed 81. The analysis estimateseconomic benefits rising a similar methods. Bighorn sheep viewing, existence and non-use benefits attributable to the listing are determined and used as a guide to predict flrture benefits. Current and future benefits are attributed to the proposed critical habitat designation when appropriate. 3.3.1 Economic Costs 82. Exhibit 3-3 identifies the frarnework used to determine the economic costs attributable to the designation of critical habitat. The top bar represents the entire acreage of proposed critical habitat. A large majority of the critical habitat was designated "essential habitat' in the Recovery Plan. As mentioned in the Baseline Regulations section, land designated as essential habitat is essential to the recovery of the bighorn sheep, and all Federal agencies must consult with the Service regarding actions they fund, authorize, or carry out that may affect the bighorn sheep. Therefore, all section 7 consultations and associated project modifications are attributable to the listing of the species and the information about bighorn sheep habitat provided in the Recovery 16Quantitative estimates of economic costs were only estimated when the designation of critical habitat would result in an economic effect beyond the economic effect arising from the listing. 26 Draft-October 2000 Plan, i.e. the baseline scenario. No incremental econonnic costs associated with critical habitat designation are anticipated on essential habitat land. 27 Draft-October 2000 Exhiibit 3-3 FRAMEWORK FOR IDENTIFYING ECONOMIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGNATION OF BIGHORN SHEEP CRITICAL HABITAT Proposed Critical Habitat Designation � . _ .., .. - . y ... ... Essential habitat(all inipiiets'due tolating) No Federal nexus, economic activity,or A� Primary Constituent Landowner/Manageris Elements(PCEs) uncertainwhether site (no impacts). contains PCEs and contacts the Service for informational conversation. ........... / Uncertain Land Service confirms site does Service is unable not contain one or more to determine PCEs(no impacts). whether the land supports PCEs and suggests landowner orinanager conduct a habitat evaluation of site Surveyed Land Service visits . site or requires second habitat evaluation. Site does not contain Site contains PCEs. Potential one or more PCEs impacts include section 7 (no impacts). consultation,projectmodijlcatzon, andproject delay 28 Draft-October 2000 83. The essential habitat line cannot be specifically described in legal ortechnicaltennsbecause it follows geographical and topographical features. In order to make a legal definition of critical habitat,the Service used a quarter-section grid based onthe Public Land Survey township,section, range coordinate system to include all of the land designated essential habitat in the Recovery Plan. In order to include all of the essential habitat using tlnis method, some land that is outside of essential habitat is included within the critical habitat designation. Portions of this land have no Federal nexus, economic activity, or primary constituent elements and thus will have no impacts under the proposed critical habitat designation. "Uncertain Land" 84. Critical habitat outside of essential habitat with a Federal nexus is called"uncertain land" in this analysis. This land is called "uncertain" is because it is unclear whether this land contains one or more primary constituent elements essential for the recovery of the bighorn sheep. Landowners or managers of uncertain land are likely to contact the Service in order to determine if their land contains primaryconstituent elements. The economic cost of the informal information conversation is a real economic cost incremental to the designation of critical habitat. The breakdown of the economic cost is presented in Exhibit 3-4. The cost analysis suggests a range between$75 and$260 per conversation." "Informational conversations also have educational benefits to the landowner or manager -aid to the Service. This incremental benefit will be discussed in below in the benefits section. 29 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit 3-4 ECONOMIC COST OF INFORMATIONAL CONVERSATION Estimate Length Assumed Assumed Other Total Total Total of opportunity opportunity expenses cost, cost,the cost per toner- cost of time, cost of time, private Service conver- sation private the Service party sation (hours) party biologist Low Estimate 1.0 $23 $50 $5 $28 $50 $78 (landowner or manager perfo rms conversation)* nigh Estimate(legal 1.0 $200 $50 $10 $210 $50 $260 professional/other hired professional performs conversation) Source: 1998 Occupational Fimployment Statistics Survey,http-//www.calnus ca gov,September 12,2000 and Federal Government General Schedule(GS)Rates, 1999,bttp://immw.govexec.mm/careers/99prry/gs99.htin, September 13,2000. *Note:The landowner or manager hourly wage was derived fiom an average of the mean hourly wages for the Riverside-San Bernardino PMSA an d the San Diego PMS A. Note.Average wage rates include adjustments for benefits. 85. The informational conversation could result in two possible outcomes. The Service could state that the uncertain land does not contain one or more primary constituent elements as discussed in the Proposed Rule. For a majority of landowners or managers of micertain land,the Service will be able to confirm the lack of one or more primary constituent elements on the uncertain land during the informational conversation. For these sites, the designation of critical habitat will likely have no impact beyond the informational conversation. "Surveyed Land" 86. For portions of the micertain land,the Service may not be able to determine if one or more primary constituent elements exist on the land during the informational conversation and may require a habitat evaluation. These evaluations can be conducted by ecological consultants and represent an incremental economic cost of critical habitat designation to landowners and managers. Conversations with ecological consultants in the region of the proposed critical habitat who are recognized by the Set-vice as qualified to perform bighorn sheep habitat evaluations revealed 30 Draft-October 2000 survey costs ranging from$750 to$1,000 per day per surveyor." Site visits for small to midsized land parcels(10 to 100 acres)generally include one to two person-days of surveys and one person- day to write up the findings in a report. The total cost of a such an evaluation ranges from$1,500 to $3,000. Larger land parcels may require five to ten person-days for field surveys and two pers on-days for report preparation. These evaluations are estimated to cost in the range of$5,000 to $12,000. 87. After a habitat evaluation is completed, the evaluated land could fall into three possible categories. Occasionally,the Service may disagree with the methodology and techniques used in preforming the habitat evaluation. hi this case,the Service may require another habitat evaluation, m conduct the evaluation using its own biologists. This second evaluation is likely to cost the same as the first, or somewhere between$1,500 and$12,000 depending on the size of the site. 88. Alternatively, the habitat evaluation(s) may find that the land lacks conservation value because it does not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. In this case, the Service would review the evaluation report(s) and likely agree with a detennination of no effect or no adverse modification of critical habitat. Therefore, these sites would have no incremental impacts of critical habitat designation beyond the cost of the informational conversation and the habitat evaluation. 89. On the other hand,the habitat evaluation(s)may determine that the land has conservation value because it contains one or more primary constituent elements essential for the recovery of the bighorn sheep. In this case, the landowner or manager should consult with the Service to determine the extent to which an action will cause jeopardy to the species or adversely modify critical habitat. Because these sites are outside the essential habitat identified in the Recovery Plan,it is unlikely that the landowner or manager would have consulted with the Service under the listing of the species. Therefore, the economic impacts of these consultations and associated project modifications and/or delays are considered to be incremental to the designation of critical habitat. 90. The economic costs of performing a section 7 consultation can vary widely depending on the type and scope of a project and the level of detail required in the consultation. Some consultations can be completed informally with one meeting and no project modifications. Other consultations can last 18 months and require the preparation of a Biological Opinion. Economic costs are incurred by the Service, the Federal Action agency, and (on non-Federal lands) the applicant. Preliminary estimates of the total cost of consultation reveal a range of $1,100 to "Personal communications with Dames and Moore,Inc.,Dudek&Associates,Inc.,Environ Associates, and Jones & Stokes on September 7-8, 2000. 31 Draft-October 2000 $7,400 per consultation for the Service and Action agency, and$400 to $1,400 per consultation for the applicant.19 91. The section 7 consultation process sometimes regrures a landowner or manager to modify the proposed project in order to minimize impacts on the bighorn sheep. The economic costs of project modifications vary widely. In order to reflect that range,this analysis provides estimates of the economic costs of three types of bighorn sheep project modifications. Based on these examples, the economic cost of a project modification could range from$5,000 to $80,000. Habitat markers: The costs associated with the installation of habitat markers likely would involve a landowner or manager hiring a biological consultant to survey the land and place habitat markers in sensitive areas. Based on estimates of the costs of biological surveys given above,the total cost is likely to be $5,000. Recreational restrictions: A section 7 consultation may require a land manager to place restrictions on recreational activities. These restrictions could include, for example,voluntary seasonal access restrictions and the prohibition of dogs in bighorn sheep habitat. To enforce these restrictions, the land manager may print and install signs and hire a part-time ranger to monitor trail use. The total cost of these activities could reach approximately$10,000 to $15,000 20 Private party conservation measures: A section 7 consultation may require private parties to perform on-site and off-site conservation measures to bighorn sheep habitat. Examples of conservation measures include planting seed,filling in holes,and blocking off access trails. The total cost of these activities, along with associated biological consultant fees and maintenance over a 10 year time span, could reach$80,000.21 92. In addition to project modifications, the section 7 consultation process may delay some projects. Often, the section 7 consultation process only takes a few months and does not delay a 9Preliminmy estimate based on statistical analysis of historical consultation information provided by the Service. By law, formal consultations can last longer that 18 months. 2°Personal conuimnication with Outdoor Recreations Planner,BLM Palm Springs Office on August 23, 2000. "Personal cone mmication with Regional Permitting/Compliance Specialist, Granite Construction Company on October 10, 2000. 32 Draft-October 2000 project longer than other planning and permitting processes. In other cases, the section 7 consultation process can take several months and cause delays in projects that cause applicants to incur real economic costs (for a more detailed discussion of project delays, please see the "Potential Impacts Associated with Project Delays and Property Values" section). Based on the past bighorn sheep consultations, the estimated incremental economic cost of a project delay due to the section 7 consultation process ranges between$0 and $100,000" California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) 93. As discussed the"Relevant Baseline Information"section(section 2.3),the designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep is not likely to cause any incremental costs associated with CEQA for lands that are known to be bighorn sheep habitat (i.e., lands identified as essential habitat in the Recovery Plan). Yet,as Exhibit 3-3 demonstrates,the current designation of critical habitat includes some land outside of the land designated essential habitat ("uncertain land"). Thus,the designation of critical habitat may increase the knowledge about the range of the bighorn sheep for project developers and Federal agencies. As a result,the designation of critical habitat may result in some incremental activities and economic costs associated with CEQA. 94. Section 15065 of Article 5 of the CEQA regulations state that a lead agency must prepare art Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for projects that"reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,rare or threatened species." This analysis assumes that a lead agency will rely on the Service's determination of the range of the bighorn sheep. Thus, a lead agency will not prepare an EIR for sites on uncertain land where the Service confirms the lack of one or more bighorn sheep primary constituent elements. This assumption is made because land that does not contain primary constituent elements is not likely to be considered part of a species range by a lead agency. Even if the lead agency does not prepare an EIR, it mayhave to contact the Service in order to determine weather a parcel of land contains primary constituent elements. This conversation is likely to result in a economic cost similar to the economic costs of informational conversations described above. Thus, the incremental cost associated with CEQA of the designation of critical habitat for each site on "uncertain land" is between $50 and$250. 95. As identified in Exhibit 3-3, certain sites on "uncertain land" may have bighorn sheep primary constituent elements. The identification of these sites increase the known extent of the bighorn sheep range beyond the lands included in essential habitat. This analysis makes the conservative assumption that a lead ageneywill prepare an EIR for all of these sites, and that the economic costs associatedwith the preparation of the EIR are fully attributable to critical habitat. To develop an estimate of these costs,this analysis considered the results of a mail survey that asked California respondents to estimate the total preparation cost of all EIRs completed in 1990. 22Ibid. 33 Draft-October 2000 For the 188 respondents who answered the question, the average 1990 cost of an EIR was $38,124.23 Adjusting for inflation, this analysis assumes that the incremental economic cost for each project that requires an EIR is approximately$50,000 24 96. The remainder of this analysis identifies the Federal, Tribal, State, local and private landowners and managers and the Federal nexuses that exist on their land. The landowner or manager's consultation history is used as a guide to predict future consultation frequency. Finally, Exhibit 3-3 is used to detenninethe total economicimpact attributable to the designation of critical habitat. 3.3.2 Federal Landowners and MBnaQers 97. Twenty-nine percent, or approximately 250,000 acres, of the proposed critical habitat designation is managed by the Federal government. The major agencies managing this land are the Bureau of Land Management(BLM),the U.S. Forest Service(USFS), and the Department of Transportation(DOT). Bureau of Land Management-Riverside County 98. A majority of the BLM land in Riverside County is contained within the 64,340-acre Santa Rosa Wilderness. Since this land is designated wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act, economic activity on the land primarily is limited to primitive recreation and ecological research" Residents of the Coachella Valley and visitors to the region use the network of trails for hitting and sightseeing. The Bighorn Institute conducts research on the bighorn sheep within BLM lands. 99. BLM in Riverside County has conducted one formal section 7 consultation and several informal consultations withthe Service. The formal section 7 consultation began in March 1998 "John D. Landis et al. Fixing CEQA: Options and Opportunities for Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act (Brie), California Policy Research Center, University of California,November 1995. hitp:llwww.ucop.edu/Cprcicega.htmL October 9, 2000. 2'This analysis recognizes that the CEQA regulations can cause project developers to incur legal fees and the economic costs associated with project modifications and mitigation measures suggested by the lead agency. These costs are a result of the CEQA regulations and are part of the baseline and thus are not considered attributable to the designation of critical habitat in this analysis. "Bureau of Land Management, "Santa Rosa Wilderness", http://www.ca.blm.gov/caso/ santar.htm,August 18, 2000. 34 Draft-October 2000 and was completed in July 1999. The consultation involved a private eco-tourism provider who used BLM land in their tours. The consultation included research on baseline levels of human disturbance, several meetings and negotiations between BLM and the Service, and the Service's preparation of a Biological Opinion. BLM and the Service estimate that this consultation was significantly longer than average. 100. The Biological Opinion issued in the formal consultation required a reduction in the maximum number of tours from 600 per month to 300 per month. The Biological Opinion also restricts BLM land access to two caravans of vehicles per day andrestricts the tours from stopping while traveling throughasevenmilecorridorof prime sheep habitat26 These project modifications are designed to minimize impacts and disturbances on the bighorn sheep while allowing tourism to continue to operate in a profitable manner. 101. BLM has completed or is currently involved in several infonnal section 7 consultations. In 1997, BLM and the Coachella Valley Water District consulted with the Service on the placement of a water storage tarok in La Quinta, but this consultation was completed as a conference prior to the listing of the bighorn sheep. In 1999, BLM and the Agua Caliente Tribe consulted with the Service regarding access to the Duren Road. This consultation took about three months and consisted of a meeting and the writing of a letter. BLM also conducts ongoing informal consultations regarding recreational trail use. 102. BLM estimates that future consultation frequency and duration will follow the established historical pattern. Future consultations will likely be conducted in reference to a new recreation management plan developed in accordance with the Recovery Plan, the management of the proposed Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, recreational trial modifications,and the issuance of land use permits similar to the process that prompted the formal eco-tourismconsultation." Many of these future consultations will likelybe completed informally, but some may require formal section 7 consultations. 103. BLM and the Service both indicatethat the future consultations would have been conducted tinder the listing and the Recovery Plan, regardless of whether critical habitat was designated. Therefore,BLM andthe Service bothbelieve the proposed critical habitat designation in Riverside County will create no economic impact beyond the economic impacts of the listing of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Several residents of Riverside County apparently disagree with this indication. They have expressed concern that the designation of certain areas such as the Coral "Personal communication with Outdoor Recreations Planner,BLM Palm Springs Office on August 23, 2000. 27Personal communication with Field Manager, BLM Palm Springs Office on August 23, 2000. 35 Draft-October 2000 Reef Mountains in La Quinta as critical habitat will result in restrictions on recreation that will have economic impacts on the residents and business that rely on the tourism in those areas.28 104. While restrictions on recreation can create adverse economic effects, these effects camiot be attributed to the designation of critical habitat. The Coral Reef Mountains were designated essential habitat in the Recovery Plan. This means that the Coral Reef Mountains were known to be bighorn sheep habitat prior to the designation of critical habitat. Federal agencies must consult with the Service regarding any action that has a Federal nexus and may affect the bighorn sheep. Thus, the listing of the bighorn sheep would require section 7 consultations and recreational restrictions in the Coral Reef Mountains,and therefore these economic effects cannot be attributed to the designation of critical habitat(i.e., they would have occurred in the absence of the critical habitat designation). Similarly,restrictions on recreation in other regions of the proposed critical habitat are not likely to be a result of the designation of critical habitat. Current restrictions, such as the banning of dogs from bighorn sheep habitat and voluntary seasonal trail closure, were recomriended by a trail advisory group in December 1999 as a result of the listing of the bighorn sheep. The designation of critical habitat does not require land managers to put any additional restrictions on activities above and beyond those required under the listing. Therefore, the incremental econonuc impact of the designation of critical habitat on BLM land in Riverside County is likely to be small. Bureau of Land Management-San Diego and Imperial Counties 105. A majority of the land managed by BLM in San Diego and Imperial Counties that lies within the critical habitat designation is classified as wilderness areas. These wilderness areas include Carrizo Gorge, Sawtooth Mountains, Coyote Mountains, Fish Creek Mountains, and Jacurnba Wilderness. Activity on these lands is restricted to primitive recreation,except for a few areas where cattle grazing allotments existed prior to the wilderness designation. Cattle grazing occurs outside the wilderness areas as well,in addition to mining and open area off-road vehicle use. 106. BLM has conducted one formal section 7 consultation with the Service regarding the Jimenez Sand and Gravel Pit owned by the Granite Construction Company near the Fish Creek Mountains. The Service involvement in the consultation lasted approximately six months,but the entire pennitting process with BLM tools approximately three years. The consultation was conducted in reference to the Desert tortoise as well as the bighorn sheep.The Biological Opinion issued in this consultation required the Granite Construction Company to restore the abandoned ''Letter from Vice President of Planning and Entitlements,KSL Development Corporation to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on August 4, 2000. 36 Draft-October 2000 Jimenez gravel pit to its natural condition by filling in areas and planting seed and to block off several trails leading into the adjacent wilderness area. 107. BLM also has conducted or is conducting several informal consultations. AT&T, Level 3 Connmunications, and BLM are consulting the Service about laying fiber optic cables across bighorn sheep habitat in an ongoing informal consultation. The Service is also currently in informal consultations with BLM and the ranchers that utilize the McCain Valley grazing allotment regarding potential allotment modifications. BLM has not conducted a section 7 consultation on the off-road vehicle use open area because only a small portion overlaps with bighorn sheep habitat and motorists generally refrain from entering the mountains. The informal consultations to date have resulted in project modifications consisting of constraints on certain activities, such as test drilling for fiber optic cable, to minimize bighorn sheep disturbance. 108. BLM predicts consultations in the fiitire will be similar to the ones conducted inthe past. BLM predicts that it will conduct a formal section 7 consultation regarding the use of the McCain Valley grazing allotment, as well as one regarding the Cane Break grazing allotment, in the near future. Installation of gap fencing,cattle monitoring and reducing the amount of acreage open to cattle grazing are potential project modification. The Service and BLM agree that these section 7 consultations and potential project modifications are attributable to the listing and are not a result of the proposed critical habitat designation." United States Forest Service 109. Approximately one percent of the entire proposed critical habitat designation lies onlJSFS lands. These lands are on the fringes of the San Bernardino National Forest. Over half of the USFS land within critical habitat is designated wilderness in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Wilderness areas. Land uses within the wilderness areas are limited to primitive recreation. Critical habitat lands outside the wilderness areas are used for cattle grazing (the Wellman allotment), hiking,biking and equestrian trails, and research activities. 110. As part of a settlement order in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, the USFS issued a prograrmnatic Biological Assessment on January 27, 1999. This Biological Assessment defined specific actions for the USFS to complete, including the removal of cattle from portions of allotments that overlap with bighorn sheep habitat,the modification of fences within and adjacent to bighorn sheep habitat, and a review of guidelines for management of hiking biking, and equestrian trails. The Service was not involved in these discussions or in the preparation of the Biological Assessment. A subsequent consultation was conducted regarding recreational use on "Personal communication with Ecologist/Botanist, BLM El Centro Office on August 25, 2000. 37 Draft-October 2000 USFS land. Assuming the USFS implements the actions described in the Biological Assessment and terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion, FWS and USFS do not anticipate effects or costs beyond those attributable to the listing in the finure, Ill. If the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act of2000(H.R.3676) is enacted, BLM and USFS will likely work cooperatively in the management of the newly established National Monument. The Act requires the two agencies to develop a managememplan within three years after the date of the enactment of the Act. The USFS and BLM will likely consult with the Service during the preparation of this management plan. The Service indicates that this consultation would have happened regardless of weather critical habitat was designated and thus is attributable to the fisting of the bighorn sheep. Department of Transportation 112. The Department of Transportation(DOT)maintains a section of Interstate 8 that traverses the proposed critical habitat designation in Imperial County and a small portion of San Diego County. Any activity that could affect the bighorn sheep, such as road repair,road constriction, and installation of fencing, would constitute a Federal nexus and may require a section 7 consultation. 113. The Service has not undergone formal or informal consultations with DOT in the past. The Service estimates that fiihure consultations may occur, especially if the Service pursues concepts to create passes over ortuider the road to allow bighorn sheep to pass from the Anza-Borrego State Park region into the .lacumba Wilderness and ultimately into Mexico. The concepts to create highway passes for the bighorn sheep are outlined in the Recovery Plan. Thus, these potential future consultations would have occurred under the listing of the bighorn sheep and the implementation of the Recovery Plan,and are not attributable to the designation of critical habitat. 3.3.3 Trust Lands 114. The proposed critical habitat designation includes parts of three Indian reservations. The Morongo Indian reservation includes approximately 640 acres of critical habitat in the northwestern portion of the proposed designation. The Agun Caliente Tribe manages approximately 15,650 acres in and around Palm Springs and the Torres Martinez Tribe manages 4,170 acres in Imperial County near the Salton Sea. 38 Draft-October 2000 Mormrgo Tribe 115. The critical habitat proposal on the Morongo reservation is predominantly very steep terrain,with the potential for up to 100 acres of flatter topography that could be developed. The Service has coordinated with the Tribe but potential future land uses have not been discussed in detail. The Service estimates that consultations with the Morongo Tribe are unlikely in the near future" Agua Caliente 116. Approximatelyhalfof the 32,000-acre Agua Caliente Indian Reservation is prime bighorn sheep habitat. Land uses within the reservation include private residential and commercial development in the fringe areas of the proposed critical habitat designation around Palm Springs and Cathedral City. Private development issues will be addressed in the Private Landowner section below. Other uses include liking, horseback riding, and mountain biking. The Agua Caliente Tribe also maintains the Indian Canyons park. This popular park has an admission fee and provides a trading post,guided tour of the canyons,andpicnic areas.The undeveloped nature of the park attracts tourists and thus provides an incentive for the Tribe to preserve the area's natinal quality. 117. The Agua Caliente Tribe is curently developing the Indian Canyons Master Plan to guide fixture development and use of the park. In accordance with Presidential Memorandum described above, the See-vice has provided technical and informational support for the development of the Master Plan in informal regular meetings. The Service is also conducting several informal discussions with the Agua Caliente Tribe as they develop a Habitat Management Plan. The Agua Caliente Tribe and the Service have similar goals to refrain from disturbing the bighom sheep and to preserve the bighorn sheep habitat" 118. Because the Service has been working with the Agua Caliente to develop the Indian Canyons Master Plan and the Habitat Management Plan,the Service anticipates the final plan will be sufficient to preserve the designated critical habitat and will not require a formal section 7 consultation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Service also predicts it will continue to hold informal discussions with the Agua Caliente regarding any issues not covered by the Habitat Management Plan. Most importantly from the perspective of economic impacts, the Service 30A representative of the Morongo Tribe was not available for cormnent at the time of this analysis. "Personal communication with Director of Planning for the Agua Caliente Indian Tribe on August 28, 2000. 39 Draft-October 2000 believes that all future consultations and any associated project modifications would have occurred due to the listing of the bighorn sheep and are not attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation. This is a reasonable prediction based on the fact that the Agua Caliente Reservation land that the Service is proposing to designate as critical habitat is prime bighorn sheep habitat and was included in the essential habitat boundaries in the Recovery Plan. Torres Martinez Tribe 119. The Torres Martinez Indian Reservation lands within the proposed critical habitat designation are mountainous and contain no major roads." The Service has conducted informal discussions with the Tribe in thepast,and is currentlyin cormnunication with the Tribe regarding a habitat analysis. The Service would like to be involved in future conversations regarding a Habitat Management Plan, but recognizes this may not be a high priority for the Tribe. Because any future conversations would have occurred with the listing of the bighorn sheep, they are not attributable to the critical habitat designation. 3.3.4 State and Local Lands 120. Over half, or approximately 450,000 acres, of the proposed critical habitat designation is managed by State and local governments. The major agencies responsible for this land are the California Departments of Parks and Recreation, Fish and Game,and Transportation, Coachella Valley Water District and the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District. California Department of Parks and Recreation 121. All of the land managed by the Parks and Recreation Department within critical habitat is contained within the Anza-Borrega Desert State Park The park contains 500 miles of dirt roads, two County roads,one State highway,two dozen hiking trails, 12 wilderness areas,nine primitive camping sites, two developed camping sites, and a visitor's center. Activities within the park consist of hiking, camping,wildlife viewing and research. 122. The Anza-Borrega has not conducted any formal or informal consultations regarding the bighorn sheep because its habitat management goals mirror those of the Service and it has very few Federal nexuses. The park has asked for the Service support for several actions pertaining to "The Torres Martinez Tribe disputes the finding that any of their land is bighorn sheep habitat. The Service is aware of the Tribe's views but continues to rely on other evidence introduced in the Recovery Plan that states the land in question is suitable for and used by the bighorn sheep. 40 Draft-October 2000 bighorn sheep, such as the removal of feral horses From bighorn habitat and a road closure for motorized vehicles in Coyote Canyon. The Service wrote letters of support for these actions. 123. The Anza-Borrega predicts that very few, if any, of its planned actions will result in a section 7 consultation. The park is considering using some DOT grants to acquire lands along State highway 78. These actions may prompt a Federal nexus. However,because the acquisitions will be made to enhance bighorn sheep habitat,the park assumes a section 7 consultation will not be necessary." California Department of Fish and Game 124. The California Department of Fish and Game manages over 25,000 acres of land within the proposed critical habitat designation. The majority of these lands are designated as wildlife areas, ecological reserves, and State wildlife refuges. Limited primitive recreation and research are the primary land uses for California Fish and Game lands. 125. Because the Department of Fish and Game shares similar conservation goals with the Service and rarely have performed an action with a Federal nexus, they have not performed any section 7 consultations withthe Service in thepast 34 While Federal funding of academic pursuits and research may constitute a Federal nexus for future consultations,these activities are normally addressed under sections 6 and 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. California Department of Transportation 126. State Highways 74, 78, and I I I cross parts of the proposed critical habitat designation. The Proposed Rule indicates that road and railway rights-of-way that bighorn sheep must traverse in order to maintain connectivity between sub-populations are considered critical habitat. The major activities that occur on these roads are motorized transportation and road maintenance. 127. The Service has conducted an informal consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding road maintenance work on Route 74 south of Palm Desert. This consultation consisted of a brief meeting during which the Service requested that work be done outside of certain windows of time to reduce the bighorn sheep disturbance. "Personal communication with Anza-Borrega Desert State Park Resource Ecologist on August 25, 2000. 34Personal conum mication with Senior Biologist for the Lands and Facilities Division, California Department of Fish and Game on August 25, 2000. 41 Draft-October 2000 128. The Service predicts that any firture consultations with Caltrans will be similar to the Route 74 informal consultation. Caltrans activities do have a Federal Nexus because it receives DOT funding for road maintenance and construction. Because the State highways traverse land that is "essential habitat" as described in Exhibit 3-3, future section 7 consultations would have been required under the listing of the bighorn sheep and are not attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation. Coachella Valley Water District 129. The Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD or the District) mission is to protect groundwater resources and provide supplemental sources of water to residents of Riverside, Imperial and Sand Diego Counties. The CVWD's present activities include the delivery of irrigation water, delivery, production and storage of domestic water, collection of wastewater, constricting and maintaining storm-water flood protection works and operating and maintaining irrigation drainage works. 130. The CVWD activities prompt several Federal nexuses because marry of the District's facilities are located on Federal land. This nexus resulted in an informal section 7 conference with the Service in 1997 regarding a water storage tank in La Quinta on BLM land 35 This conference did not result in any significant project modifications. Many of CVWD's activities also affect waters of the United States and are thus subject to regulation by the Army Corps of Engineers. 131. The CVWD predicts that fature consultations and associated project modifications could require alterations in the location and design of current and proposed facilities, seasonal restrictions on access to sites, seasonal restrictions on constriction activities, and restrictions on groundwater percolation sites on alluvial fans. The CVWD estimates these potential project modifications would result in large economic costs for the District and its customers' 132. The CVWD states that critical habitat will subject the CVWD to an"unwarranted new tier of imposed Federal regulation," and that critical habitat "is anticipated to interfere with the District's ability to operate and maintain its facilities,"but does not define how critical habitatwill impose incremental Federal regulations beyond the regulations associated with the listing of the bighorn sheep. Conversations with the CVWD Biologist reveal that the estimates of large "Since this conference was held prior to the listing of the bighorn sheep, it is called a conference and not a consultation. The conference process is very similar to the consultation process. 'Letter from General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley Water District to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on August 31, 2000. 42 Draft-October 2000 economic costs associated with the proposed critical habitat designation were made under the assumption that critical habitat would impose restrictions above and beyond those associated with the listing of the bighorn sheep. This analysis implies that on lands included in essential habitat as identified in Exhibit 3-3, the designation of critical habitat will not impose any incremental impacts on current or proposed projects. 133. It is likely that the CV WD owns and operate facilities on"uncertain" land as identified in Exhibit 3-3. CVWD has the potential to incur the economic costs of conducting informational conversations,biological surveys, consultations and project modifications for facilities on these uncertain lands. Such costs would be incremental to the designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. Riverside Comity Regional Parks and Open Space District 134. Riverside County Regional Parks manages Lake Cahuilla Recreational Area located within the proposed critical habitat designation. This park covers 710 acres four miles southeast of La Quinta. Lake Cahuilla is used for hiking,fishing,camping,and equestrian camping,and contains 50 developed camping sites, a swimming pool, and recreational vehicle hookups 37 135. the Service has not conducted any section 7 consultations with Lake Cahuilla in the past, but identified the use of Bureau of Reclamation land or water as a potential Federal nexus. If any section 7 consultations occur in the future, the Service believes they would have been required under the listing of the bighorn sheep and would not be attributable to critical habitat designation. 3.3.5 Private Lands 136. Seventeen percent, or approximately 150,000 acres, of the proposed critical habitat designation is owned or managed by private landowners. While private lads make up a small percentage of the critical habitat designation in San Diego and Imperial Counties, over one third of the critical habitat designation in Riverside County is owned by private entities. "Riverside County Regional Parks, "Desert Parks," http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/activity/ parks/desert.hini, August 30, 2000. 43 Draft-October 2000 Private Lands in San Diego and Imperial Counties 44 Draft-October 2000 137. Private lands in San Diego and Imperial Comities included within the proposed critical habitat designation have little development potential because of remote location and lack of water. The major land uses that could create a Federal nexus are grazing,railroad operation,and isolated development. 138. The Service has not conducted any formal section 7 consultations regarding private lands in San Diego and Imperial Comities, The Service currently is involved in informal discussions with the owners of a 260-acre private parcel of land within the BLM Cane Break cattle allotment. Domestic cattle are a potential threat to bighorn sheep through the transmission of disease. Since bighorn sheep have been seen using a water source on the property, the private landowner may apply for a section 10 incidental talcepennit. Alternatively,the private land owner may choose to include his land in the planned BLM cattle allotment section 7 consultation discussed above. The Service would consider theBLM land and private land in one consultation and may suggest project modifications for BLM and the private landowner jointly. The Service indicates that this consultation would have occurred under the listing of the bighorn sheep and is not attributable to the critical habitat designation. 139. The Service may consult with a private landowner who is considering re-opening the San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad line in the southern most portion of the Anza-Borrego State Park. This project may create a Federal nexus if theprivate landowners consult with the Federal Railroad Administration within the Department of Transportation. This future consultation would occur on essential habitat land. As identified in Exhibit 3-3, this impact is attributable to the listing of the species and not to the designation of critical habitat. 140. A land parcel described at a public hearing held in response to the Proposed Rule may be an example of"uncertain"land as identified in Exhibit 3-3. This parcel is located on the fringe of the proposed critical habitat designation. The property owner indicates that he has plans to develop the land, and thus may need a Federal pennit." This land could be subject to the economic costs of informational conversations,biological surveys,consultations and proj ect modifications;or the Service could determine there is no adverse effect or destraction/adverse modification of critical habitat if it finds the land does not contain one or more primary constituent elements. An estimate of the total number of"uncertain"sites similar to the one described in this example, as well as the economic costs associated with the potential informational conversations, biological surveys, consultations and project modifications on these sites are estimated in the "total economic costs" section below. 38Public comment at the Public Hearing Regarding a Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat ,for the Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, July 20, 2000. 45 Draft-October 2000 Private Lands in Riverside County 141. The Coachella Valley is experiencingrapid development growth,particularlyin Riverside County. Principal towns in this area include Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and Indian Wells. These towns cater to golfing enthusiasts, and marry golf courses and resorts are located in the area. Specifically, the Coachella Valley has over 100 golf courses, with more planned.' Several major shopping centers are also being planned to farther enhance the area's reputation as a tourist destination. 142. Accordingly,this area's economy depends heavily on service and retail jobs to cater to the demands of visitors and retirees who are visiting and relocating to the Coachella Valley. As a result, the housing stock has rapidly grown over the past decade at a rate that has exceeded the State average. Some of the housing has been built to accormnodate the new employment, while the rest of the housing has been built to cater to the demand for vacation and retirement homes. According to the 1990 Census, the construction industry accounted for about ten percent of the labor force, or about 10,000 employees. 143. Many construction activities within the Coachella Valley require a Federal pen-nit of some kind to proceed with development. Typical Federal permits include a Section 404 pen-nit issued by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, which is required when development activities affect wetlands and waterways, and an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which is required to ensure that storm water runoff from constriction sites is minimized.the Service indicates that the EPA rarely consults with the Service in this area and that the majority of the past consultations have been with the Anny Corps. 144. The Service has conducted two formal consultations and several informal consultations with private developers since the listing of the bighorn sheep. The Service conducted the first consultation with the Artily Corps inregards the to Ritz-Carlton's Rancho Mirage golf course plan. The consultation lasted approximately one year. The Service prepared a Biological Opinion and proposed a reasonable prudent alternative (RPA) that altered the footprint of the original golf course plan. After some negotiation, the Ritz-Carlton developer agreed to the RPA footprint. 145. The second formal consultation was also with the Anny Corps and addressed the Mirada housing project. This consultation lasted about 6 months and resulted in the Service issuing a Biological Opinion with a non jeopardy finding. The Service agreed to a combination of on-site and off-site conservation measures,including installation of fencing and the provision of finding for bighorn sheep research and monitoring. In addition to the two formal section 7 consultations, 39Town of Palm Desert, "Coachella Cormnunity Profile," http://palm-deso-t.orglbolhtmll community.html, September 7, 2000. 46 Draft-October 2000 the Service has also conducted several informal consultations since the listing that involved discussions and/or meetings. 146. The Service predicts that similar consultations and project modifications will occur in the future in cormection with the bighorn sheep. The Service has identified several residential/golf courseprojects that are in the planning stages(Mountain Falls,Shadow Rock,and Palm Hills)that may require section 7 consultations. These consultations may require significant project modifications similar to the ones described above. W. The Service believes that a majority of the future section 7 consultations with private developers would have occurred on essential habitat land are attributable to the listing of the bighorn sheep and are not attributable to the critical habitat designation. Some private landowners have voiced concerns that critical habitat designation will severely limit their activities on private lands and that the proposed critical habitat designation contains developed lands that are not occupied by the sheep.40 Any of these lands with a Federal nexus represent "uncertain" land identified in Exhibit 3-3. If Federal nexuses exist,these private landowners may incur the cost of an informational conversation and potentially the cost of a biological survey. The Service mentioned that a large portion of the uncertain land in Riverside Comity with a Federal nexus is within urban and residential development areas. the Service will generally be able to identify the lack of primary constituent elements on these developed lands during the informational conversation. Thus, the potential for the Service to require private landowners to conduct biological surveys is low in this region. 3.3.6 Total Economic Cost 148. The proceeding analysis of the section 7 consultation history of the landowners and managers affected by the proposed critical habitat reveals that since the listing in 1998,the Service has performed four formal consultations and approximately 10-20 informal consultations. Using the consultation history as a reference point and the break-down of land in Exhibit 3-3, this analysis predicts the following numbers of incremental impacts that could be caused by the designation of critical habitat over the next ten years: The Service and landowners or managers are likely to conduct approximately 50 informational conversations. Of these, approximately 20 may require a habitat evaluation (five may require two evaluations). 40Public comment at the Public Hearing Regarding a Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, on July 20, 2000. 47 Draft-October 2000 Of these, approximately ten may contain one or more primary constituent elements and require a section 7 consultation. Of these,approximately five may involve project modifications and delays. 149. hn addition to incremental conversations, habitat evaluations, consultations, project modifications, and project delays, the designation of critical habitat may trigger incremental impacts due to the CEQA regulations. Based on the number of impacts presented above, this analysis assumes that all 50 projects that require an informational conversation will also trigger conversations between the lead agency and the Service regarding the extent of the bighorn sheep range. This analysis further assumes that, as a conservative estimate, all ten of the incremental section 7 consultations will also trigger the lead agency to prepare an EIR. 150. Based on the estimates of economic impacts derived above, Exhibit 3-5 provides an estimate for the total incremental economic impact of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the bighorn sheep for the next ten years. These estimates range from$500,000 to nearly$2 million. 48 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit 3-5 TOTAL ESTIMATED ECONOMIC COST INCREMENTAL TO THE PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION Low Estimate High Estimate Impact Number of Impacts Cost per Total Cast Cost per Case Total Cost Case Informational 50 $75 $3,750 $260 $I3,000 conversation Habitat evaluation 20 $1,500 $30,000 $12,000 $240,000 Second evaluation 5 $1,500 $7,500 $12,000 S60,000 Consultation 10 $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $100,000 Project 5 $5,000 $25,000 $80,000 $400,000 modification Project delay 5 $0 $0 $100,000 $500,000 CEQA 40 $75 $3,000 $260 $10,400 conversation CEQA EIR 10 $50,000 $500,000 550,000 $500,000 Totals $579,250 $1,823,400 3.3.7 Benefits 151. To determine the incremental benefits of the critical habitat designation, this analysis considers those categories of benefit that will be erthanced as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation. These benefits represent incremental benefits of the designation of critical habitat, above and beyond those provided by the listing. 152. The primary goal of listing a species as endangered is to preserve the species from extinction. However, various,more specific economic benefits result from species preservation as well,measured in terns of regional economic performance as well as enhanced national social welfare. Regional economic benefits can be expressed in teens of jobs created, regional sector revenues,and overall economic activity. For example, the presence of a species may result in a successful local eco-tourism operation.National social welfare values reflect both use and non-use (i.e.,existence)values,and can reflect various categories of value. For example,use values might include the opportunity to see a sheep while on a hike,or the recreational use of ahabitat preserved 49 Draft-October 2000 as a result of the sheep. Existence values are not derived from direct use of the species,but instead reflect the satisfaction and utility people derive by the knowledge that a species exists. 153. While little researchhas been done on the various categories of benefits associated with preservation of bighorn sheep populations,several studies have attempted to quantify the existence and use vahues of bighom sheep. One relevant study used contingent valuation methods to determine the total value of a herd of 70-100 desert bighorn sheep in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area, 14 kilometers north of Tucson, Arizona. This study focused on existence values and non- consumptive use values, such as recreational viewing, and excluded consumptive values such as hurting. The study asked Tucson residents how much they would pay to ensure the survival of the nearby desert bighorn sheep herd. The study determined the average response was within the range of$14.27 and $25.61 per household." 154. If it is assumed that the mean non-consumptive current and future use and existence values are the same for the residents of Tucson, Arizona and the residents of the Coachella Valley, the total listing value of the Peninsular bighorn sheep herd can be estimated as done in Exhibit 3-6. This exhibit shows that the total value ranges from $1.6 million to $2.9 million. This estimate does not include residents outside of the Coachella Valley or the values residents of other regions of the countryplace on the existence of the bighorn sheep. Note that various factors will influence the accuracy of this benefit measure,and thus it should be viewed solely as a reasonable order-of- magnitude estimate of the benefit of preserving a single herd of bighorn sheep. Exhibit 3-6 TOTAL NON-CONSUMPTIVE AND EXISTENCE VALUE FOR BIGHORN SHEEP Scenario Tucson study Population Average Coachella Total Value total value/ of Coachella household Valley household Valley size households Low Estimate $14.27 319,000 2 85 111,930 $1,597,241 High $25.61 319,000 2.85 111,930 $2,866,527 Estimate Sources: California South Coast Air Quality Management District, "1997 Air Quality Management Plan," htrp://wwu+.agmd.gov/agmp/77agnip/c%apters/v7-chap8.hbn1, September 21,2000, and U.S.Dept of Housing and Urban Development, 'Riverside County, CA Consolidated Plan," http'//voww.hud.gov/cpes/ca/nversca html, September 13,2000 "David King,Deborah Flynn and William Shaw, "Total and Existence Values of a Herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep," Western Regional Research Publication, W-I33, Benefits & Costs in Natural Resources Planning, 1988. Adjusted to 1999 dollars using the consumer price index. 50 Draft-October 2000 155. In addition to the benefits addressed in the study described above,the following represents additional potential benefits accruing from the protection from extinction offered by the listing of the bighorn sheep and,potentially, critical habitat: Non-Resident wildlife viewing. People derive satisfaction and utility from seeing bighorn sheep in their natural environment. Such benefits can be expressed in tenns of gains in social welfare,or improvements in regional economic performance.This magnitude of these benefits can be judged by the amount of time and money people spend to travel to see bighorn sheep (for example, an individual might choose to drive an hour or more out of their way to take in the opportunity to see a sheep). Park admission fees and fees paid to tour operators that provide bighorn tours are other examples of regional economic benefits created by such recreational opportmities.42 Regional economy effects. If people's decision to come to areas like Palm Springs or Borrego Springs are influenced by the possibility of seeing a bighorn sheep, than the money they spend for lodging, food, services and retail items represent incremental benefits to the local community derived from the existence of the bighorn sheep. In addition, to the extent that habitat conservation measures result in changes in the attractiveness of a community as a place to live, critical habitat may increase the overall desirability of a region as a place to live and do business. Ecosystem health. Bighorn sheep are part of a natural functioning desert ecosystem. Without their presence in the ecosystem, other natural organisms may suffer. Each one of these organisms may provide direct or indirect benefits to people. In addition, actions to protect the sheep may benefit other organisms. Real estate value effects. Real estate values may be enhanced by critical habitat designation. For example, such enhancement may occur if open space is preserved and/or if allowable densities are reduced or kept at current levels as a result of critical habitat designation. "The proposed Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument is likely to enhance national awareness of the unique natural resources of the area andthus increase the number of visitors per year. This has the potential to increase the number of people who see the bighorn sheep and thus will likely enlarge the non-resident wildlife viewing benefit. 51 Draft-October 2000 Spiritual values. The bighorn sheep is a symbol of the desert wilderness. Native American Tribes and other groups of people benefit from the existence of the bighorn sheep in symbolic and spiritual ways." Designation of critical habitat may provide all of these benefits. However,it is difficult at this time to estimate the total benefit afforded by critical habitat,since too little is known about(1)the likely benefits of each consultation and modification, and (2) the extent to which such modifications would result from critical habitat. Critical Habitat Benefits 156. The benefits identified above arise from the protection afforded to the bighorn sheep under the Federal listing. hi the Proposed Rule, the Service states that critical habitat designation will provide some incremental benefits beyond the listing benefits. Critical habitat designation provides some educational benefit by increasing awareness of the extent of bighorn sheep habitat. The 50 incremental informational conversations identified in Exhibit 3-3 are one example of this educational benefit. In addition,any incremental surveys,consultations,and project modifications conducted due to the designation of critical habitat are likely to increase the probability that the bighorn sheep will recover. Critical habitat also provides a legal definition of the extent of bighorn habitat. This reduces the amount of uncertainty Federal agencies face when determining if a section 7 consultation is necessary for an activity with a Federal nexus. 157. Several land mangers in the region have expressed their support for the proposed critical habitat designation. The Anza-Borrega Desert State Park mentioned that critical habitat will increase the amount of support for its current habitat uses and management practices. The California Department of Fish and Game mentioned that critical habitat will increase its ability to focus on sensitive areas. Several private citizens have also written letters in support of the proposed critical habitat designation. By supporting the critical habitat designation,these organizations and individuals are expressing that they receive some level of benefit from the proposed designation. 158. The quantification of total economic benefits attributable to the designation of critical habitat is, at best,difficult. The number of additional section 7 consultations predicted to occur as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation is more that double the number formal consultations that have occurred to date. Yet, without knowing the exact nature of these consultations and the associated project modifications, it is difficult to predict the incremental increase in the probability that the bighorn sheep will recover. Even one project modification associated with the designation of critical habitat has the potential to save the bighorn sheep. While "Public comment at the Public Hearing Regarding a Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, on July 20, 2000. 52 Draft-October 2000 unlikely,this hypothetical project modification would have the entire economic value of the listing of the species mentioned above. The total existence and non-consumptive use values for residents and non-residents could reach ten million dollars or more. Alternatively, the additional consultations may have no impacts on the probability of recovery for the species. In this scenario, the incremental benefits of the bighorn sheep would be limited to the educational benefits,increased support for existing conservation efforts, and the reduced uncertainty regarding the extent of bighorn sheep habitat. 3.3.8 Summary of Economic Impacts 159. Exhibit 3-7 below summarizes potential economic impacts of the proposed designation. First, it indicates current or fithue activities of the landowners and managers within the proposed critical habitat designation that may require section 7 consultation. In addition, it identifies the Federal nexus of each activity. Finally, Exhibit 3-7 assesses the potential for new or reinitiated consultations or other impacts and benefits attributable to the designation of critical habitat. 53 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit 3-7 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributableto Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical HabitW Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Federal Bureau of Land Recreational trail Federal land ownership Law Increased support for current bighorn sheep arrangement Management management activities Land use permits Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support for current bighom sheep management activities Management ofgraziug Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat allotments United States Forest Management of grazing Federal land ownership Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Service allotments Recreational trail Federal land ownership Low Low management Research activities Federal land ownership Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management activities Department of Maintenance of Interstate 8 Federal land Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation ownership/easement Trust Morongo Tribe None anticipated Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Low oversight Agra Caliente Recreational trail Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Tribe maintenance oversight activities Management of Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep management Canyons oversight activities Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support for current bighorn sheep nnagement oversight activities 54 Draft-October 2000 Exhibit 3-7 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACTS WITHIN PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP Potential for New or Reinitiated Consultations or Type of Land Current or Future Other Impacts Owner or Land Owner or Activities that May Attributablem Manager Manager Require Consultation Federal Nexus Critical Habitat* Potential Benefits Attributable to Critical Habitat Trust Tones Martinez Habitat management Bureau of Indian Affairs Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep management Tribe oversight activities state and CA Departmentof Acquisition of land along Use of Deparment of Low Increased support forcurrent bighom sheep management Local Parks and highways Transportation grants activities Recreation CA Departmentof Research activities University of California Low Increased support forcurrent bighorn sheep nnagement Fish and Game system Federal funding activities CA Department of Road maintenance Use of Department of Low Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Transportation Transportation funding Coachella Valley Delivery of irrigation and Section 404 permit Low Low Water District domestic waters Construction and Located on BLM lands Moderate- informal Reduced uncertainty about extent of bighom sheep habitat, maintenance of water works and formal educational benefits of conversations,potential increase in consultations and the probability of recovery for the bighom sheep project modifications Riverside County Recreation activities Use of Bureau of Low Increased support for current bighom sheep management Regional Parks Reclamation water activities 55 F. U d U H a F. O U x W i O Draft-Octo4vi-2000 a W z v ,n c o j v a d 5 c4 w U a Private Private landowners Residential and commercial Section 404 permit Moderate-informal and Reduced development formal consultations uncertainty about and project extent of bighorn modifications sheep habitat, educational benefits of conversations, potential increase in the probability of recovery for the bighorn sheep Railroad operation Department of Low Reduced Transportation licencurg uncertainty about extent of bighorn sheep habitat Sources:Information in table based on personal communications with Field Biologist,the Service Carlsbad,CA Office,August-October 2000,and other stakeholders(see footnotes and References) *Note:Anypotential new or reinitiated consultation or other impact attributable to critical habitat presumes a preexisting Federal nexus as identified in the preceding colunui. 56 Draft-October 2000 3.4 ADDITIONAL IMPACTS DUE TO PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT 160. This section considers additional economicand socioeconomic impacts of designating critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. Specifically, this section addresses: Potential impacts to small businesses; Potential impacts associated with project delays; and Potential impacts on propertyvalues attributable to public perception and/or uncertainty about proposed critical habitat. 3.4.1 Potential Impacts to Small Businesses 161. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act(SBREFA)of 1996)whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions)." However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule willnot 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 rile will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 162. Because proposed critical habitat for the bighorn sheep consists primarily of mountains and wilderness areas, the small businesses likely to be affected by the proposed designation are those involved in livestock grazing,inning, and construction. The designation theoretically could affect small business activities by causing delays associated with consultations and modifications to projects. One possible scenario is that the designation could reduce the amount of grazing allowed in a certain area. This could force grazing operations to shift to other, less desirable grazing areas. A required shift to new grazing land could also lead to increased transportation costs. Similarproject delays and modifications theoretically could be required for other small businesses that operate within the proposed critical habitat. 163. A small region in the vicinity of the south-easterly border of the proposed critical habitat designation is used for agricultural activities. While the critical habitat border is drawn to exclude almost all existing farmlands, a few abandoned fields are contained within the border. Critical "" 5 U.S.C. 601 et.seq. 57 Draft-October 2000 habitat may also affect any small agricultural businesses planning on expanding their operations into the foothills. In general, land suitable for fanning is not bighorn sheep habitat, and thus the operations of small agricultural businesses should not affect bighorn sheep critical habitat. In addition,the Service believes that any adverse economic effects caused by restrictions on farmland extension into the foothills would be attributable to the listing of the species and not an additional impact of critical habitat designation due to jeopardy concerns. 164. The affected Federal agencies indicate that any private economic activities taking place on proposed critical habitat would already be subject to consultation as the result of Recovery Plan implementation on the lands. In addition,the scale of most of these activities is generally not large enough to warrant project modification. In sum,the designation of critical habitat should not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. 3.4.2 Potential Impacts to Native American Tribes 165. Critical habitat designation currently is proposed for 29,461 acres of land belonging to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliennte Band of CahuillaIndians,and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. As previously mentioned, these Tribes are currently working with the Service in accordance with the Presidential Memorandum to develop land management plans that provide protection for the bighorn sheep. 166. The designation of critical habitat has the potential to intensify disagreements between the Tones Martinez Tribe and the Service. The Torres Martinez Band of Cuhilla Indians desire more evidence on the potential value of their hued to bighorn sheep. The designation of critical habitat establishes the Service claim that the land has conservation value. This has the potential to intensify the disagreement between the Tribe and the Service, which may have implications for future cooperation regarding the protection of bighorn sheep. 167. As mentioned above, the critical habitat proposal on the Morongo reservation is predominantly very steep terrain, with the potential for up to 100 acres of flatter topography that could be developed. The Service has coordinated with the Tribe but potential future land uses have not been discussed in detail. The Service estimates that consultations with the Morongo Tribe are unlikely in the near fature.45 168. Bighorn sheep critical habitat is not anticipated to impact the Agua Caliente Tribe in a significant manner. The Tribe is currently involved in conversations with the Service regarding bighorn sheep and plans to continue conversations. The Director of Planning for the Agua Caliente "SA representative of the Morongo Tribe was not available for conmient at the time of this analysis. 58 Draft-0etaher 2000 Tribe mentioned frustration over the lack of clear data regarding bighorn sheep habitat"" The designation of critical habitat may reduce some of this frustration by legally defining the extent of critical habitat. 169. Overall, critical habitat is not anticipated to have large effects on the affected Tribes and Tribal lands. Regulations in the baseline scenario such as the Presidential Memorandum and the listing of the bighorn sheep appear to have much larger effects on the Tribes than the designation of critical habitat. 3.4.3 Potential Impacts Associated with Project Delays and Property Values 170. The incremental effect of the proposed designation of critical habitat on project delays is dependent on the specific nature of the project in question. Based on the proceeding analysis,many of the projects that undergo section 7 consultations are large development projects that require severalpenmits and licenses. These additional requirements include CEQA,National Environmental Policy Act,and approvals by local zoning boards and city councils. Often,a section 7 consultation can be held at the same time as these other permitting processes. If the consultation is completed before the other processes are completed, any project delays would not be attributed to the consultation with the Service. For example, the Ritz-Carlton's Rancho Mirage golf course plan mentioned above has completed a formal section 7 consultation. As of October 2000, construction has not yet begun on the project as it was delayed by the Rancho Mirage City Council pennitting process"' Thus,the project delay associatedwilhtheRitz-Carlton's golf course plan can notbefully attributed to the section 7 consultation with the Service. 171. On the other hand,some project delays maybe attributable to section 7 consultations. When a project has all of the other necessary permits and licenses, or it is waiting for the completion of a the Service consultation to proceed with other permitting processes,the section 7 consultation can cause project delays. The Service indicates that formal section 7 consultations are supposed to last 135 days or less, but that occasionally the nature of the project requires consultations to last a year or more. These project delays represent potential impacts for property owners and developers. 172. The proposed critical habitat designation may require section 7 consultations beyond those required under the listing of the species. In this case, these incremental consultations have the potential to create additional project delays for land owners and managers. Estimations of the "Personal communication with Director of Planning for the Agua Caliente Indian Tribe on August 29, 2000. "Natalie Singer, "Rancho Mirage development killed," The Desert Sun, July 22, 2000. 59 Draft-October 2000 economic costs of these project delays are quantified in the "Potential Costs and Benefits Due to Critical Habitat" section above. 173. The proposed critical habitat designation may affect private property values due to public perceptions about the development limitations. Public comments and public testimony received to date about the critical habitat proposal indicate that some people do not know what kind of restrictions will result if their land is included in the final critical habitat designation.4e The Palm Springs Planning Department indicates that some residents are unsure whether they can water their lawns due to uncertainty about critical habitat."9 The educational benefits of informational phone calls may reduce this uncertainty. Until clear and correct information regarding the implications of the proposed critical habitat designation can be distributed,this uncertainty may result in transient reductions in property values. 174. On the other hand,many landowners are aware of the areas that the bighorn sheep occupy. Local newspapers have printed stories about prime sheep habitat on private property and sheep have been sighted in residential and urban areas 5° Thus,many people know that bighorn sheep exist in the area and are endangered. Based on public comments received and public testimony,people are also aware that the presence of bighorn sheep may cause restrictions on activities that require a Federal involvement. This,the impacts on property values beyond the impacts of the listing of the bighorn sheep are likely to be limited. 175. The Service believes that critical habitat may increase the property values of lands outside the critical habitat designation. Because bighorn sheep have been seen in urban areas,many private landowners are unsure about whether they should consult with the Service over activities on their land. The critical habitat designation excludes most of these urban areas and thus reduces uncertaintyabout which landowners need to consult. This reduction in uncertainty mayinerease the property values of certain properties outside of the critical habitat designation. In addition, critical habitat designation may add to the overall conservation"feel'of the region. These impacts have the potential to raise certain property values. 176. The proposed designation of critical habitat may increase project delays and reduce property values in the region. Yet, some project delays are attributable to other permitting processes and "Public comments recorded at the Public Hearing Regarding A Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep in Palm Springs, CA on July 20, 2000. "Personal communication with Director of Planning and Building,City of Palm Springs,CA on September 12, 2000. 'OLucas Velush, 'Battle brews over choice desert land," The Desert Sun, May 7, 2000. 60 Draft-October 2000 critical habitat may increase certain property values. The overall impacts will be negative for some landowners and managers and positive for others. As a result, this analysis does not attempt to quantify these effects due to their highlyspeculative nature and propensityto have offsetting effects. 61 Draft-October 2000 REFERENCES Bureau of Land Management, "Santa Rosa Wilderness",http://www.ca.bhn.govlcasolsantar.htm, August 18, 2000. California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, "State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California," July 2000, http://www.dfg.ca.govlwhdabl Animal2000 July.pdf, August 22, 2000 California Resources Agency, "Summary and Overview of the California Environmental Quality Act,"November 12, 1998,http://ceres.ca.govltopiclenv_law/cega/samimary.html,August23,2000. David King, Deborah Flynn and William Shaw, "Total and Existence Values of a Herd of Desert Bighorn Sheep," Western Regional Research Publication, W-133, Benefits & Costs in Natural Resources Planning, 1988. Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 43206,"American Indian Tribal Rights,Federal-Tribal Tiust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act," http://endangeredfws.govl trihal/Esatribe.htm, August 29, 2000. George Hall and Deirdre Gaquin, editors, 1997 Cotany and City Extra, Beman Press, MD, 1997. John D. Landis et al. Fixing CEQA: Options and Opportunities,for Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act (Brie, California Policy Research Center, University of California, November 1995. http://www.ucop.edu/cprc%ega.html. October 9, 2000. Letter from Vice President of Planning and Entitlements,KSL Development Corporation to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on August 4, 2000. Letter from General Manager-Chief Engineer,Coachella Valley Water District to Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office on August 31, 2000. Lucas Velush, 'Battle brews over choice desert land," The Desert Sun,May 7, 2000. Natalie Singer, "Rancho Mirage development killed," The Desert Sun, July 22, 2000. Personal communication Ecologist/Botanist,BLM El Centro Office on August 25, 2000. Personal connnunications with Dames and Moore, hic., Dudek & Associates, Inc., Environ Associates, and Jones & Stokes on September 7-8, 2000. 62 Draft-October 2000 Personal connintmications with Biologist,Carlsbad,CA Office between September 24 and October 12, 2000 Personal communication with Field Manager, BLM Palm Springs Office on August 23, 2000. Personal communication with the California Resources Agency Office on September 11, 2000. Personal communication with Outdoor Recreations Planner,BLM Palm Springs Office on August 23, 2000. Personal communication with Senior Biologist for the Lands and Facilities Division, California Department of Fish and Game on August 25,2000. Personal communication with Director of Planning and Building, City of Palm Sprigs, CA on September 12, 2000. Personal communication with Director of Planning for the Agua Caliente Indian Tribe on August 28, 2000. Personal communication with Anza-Borrega Desert State Park Resource Ecologist on August 25, 2000. Personal communication with Regional Permitting/Compliance Specialist, Granite Construction Company on October 10, 2000. Presidential Memorandum, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,April 29, 1994. Proposed Determination of Critical Habitatfor the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep,July 5,2000(65 FR 41405). Public comments at the Public Hearing Regarding a Proposal to Designate Critical Habitat for the Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, July 20, 2000. Rancho Mirage,"Cormmnity Economic Profile,Riverside County,"http://www.ranchomirage.org/ economic.htm, September 6, 2000. Riverside County Regional Parks, 'Desert Parks," http://www.co.riverside.ca.tis/activitylparlcsl desert.htm, August 30, 2000. State of California, Department of Finance, "City/County Population and Housing Estimates," 1991-2000,with 1990 Census Counts. 63 Draft-October 2000 Town of Palm Desert, "Coachella Community Profile," http:11palm-desert.org/ bo/html/community.html, September 7,2000. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Facts, hitp://www.bea.doe.gov/bea/regional/ bearfacts/bf101061index.htm, September 6, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Draft Recover,Plan for the Bighorn Sheep in Peninsular Ranges, 1999. 64 / UNITED STATES f� DEPARTMENT THE INTERIOR t F FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SIIEEP HABITAT All AND OBSERVATIONS IN THE g ~ PENINSULAR RANGES , Palm Springs a s-- - -- to I , LEGEND 1 • 1 • r ,— t U.S.FS11 AND WILL kiD T 0 Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Observations' ' i 191Cathedraaabi M Approximate Peninsular Bighorn Sheep cda.bdl • ,• r --r Localities'° , • • ;� 0 Peninsular Bighorn Sheep etomyycomun: I • •• •� o $ ! Habitat Essential for Recovery cis Cenlun t yl I-f -' " �•' Major Roads p �••• ,;a�irn Des County Boundaries Man nmraeoby t. !'. i' •q" �' 'The Pennsumr hotel sheep looabon: potlrayed on this p is dewed from a RP a' sources Some points are relabvelY We. others are approximations from b smr r; '°'y..i°°a�W, O�Y �• This map does not attempt to d'sr,colot .� • • .o ".'*, O. OQ I,,: `\ levels of accuracy for the sheep lacator Ili `I "The Peninsular bighorn sheep lorelle Vvial amounts are from variant accaunl vital ear sheep obSeNa ®, sometimes Sean several decades plat of this map should consider these areas and not as preose lnoordns 08• m W dd ' °i '''ea yam • °° 'v'yroir all • i° t•, i ° • •% o • G91'�rP • ✓erside County 00 o 0i'l ,°o-� -------------------------- .�' ° ° n Diego County s• • • • �' e ° • ° Salton m sheep numbers have declined dramatically in recent years. '' ��,•� •' •, • ) m' ties in the 1970's exceeded 1,000 adults,but recent aerial Q• o • y rat only about 300 anmals range north ofthe Mexican border. • °O p• T long-term population decline,highom sheep in the of A' he s were federally listed as an endangered species in March 1998. ,• ,x• °','o• G '` you pine-juniper woodlands,vegetation types to which •8 .o i °• in shcep are not well adapted,define the western or • o ° Y ��p o �' o „ oundary ofbighom sheep habitat in the Peninsular Ranges. •'' • o - 0 'F1e •d• . edge,bighorn sheep habitat is being converted to as housing developments,golfcomses,and agriculture. ® �'_ `,• have restricted Peninsular bighorn sheep to aO bunt,especially in the norther portion ofthe range. al habitat loss,managing the remaining habitat in ampatible with bighorn sheep recovery will he vital __ U% i lemthy highom sheep population. * ? ) Borrego Springs ; sort environment,bighorn sheep require a variety of net types. Therefore,bighorn sheep are wide-ranging 'Iy• t ( M. rootsofhabital, They need rugged terrain to escape _- „- ' utilize gentle washes and alluvial fans to obtain 1 O t key times ofthe year,such as lambing. Many ofthese • n ieveloped. Ewes with Iambs are very sensitive to disturbance I ��' O nr pets,which are viewed as predators. Bighorn sheep •• y " Z: rwisc suitable habitat ifthey are inordinately disturbed, � • °• .times to contract,bighorn sheep my not be able to Find to escape terrain they need to survive. _i• a ' 000 observations an this map,each representing one or So • ��'" p perlwation. Most of these observations were obtained f �'1 • • � chance animals during ground and aerial surveys. +•s • •'' Q-' were documented by the Bighorn Institute and State attempted to contact other researchers and members • •' O. • - • lad direct experience with bighorn sheep,and when • • • � 8 " • ---� ow made by these individuals were also included. Some of • _ `b• ' tomcat observations are depicted on this map as large • \ • _. • 'r,�4,o . •' .a static map. Additional bighom sheep locations will be ` " '� • '• •! !' �,,, me available. S •-' •• • o • '. p rations onthis map should be interpreted with several caveats neutered and observed animals represents subset ofthe enure ° COO. less than 30%ofthe animals were radiocollared,with the • • •; • i s. Therefore,the observations represented on the map '! ! • o•• S ''��s' m ofthe activities and habitat utilized by bighorn sheep. • •, '' �, ° over greaser geographic areas,and may use different habitat \, -Yti� J'' -�J•_ '' • o� o more rams had been radiocollared,observations upersed over a greater geographic area. as have focused on only select portions ofthe overall range ram sheep,thus giving the impression that bighorn sheep • i in particular areas. There has never been an attempt t, - � m 1� • ' acollar and track equal proportions ofbighom sheep r o' nimsular Ranges. For example,a large number of animals may ared and tracked in one area,while animals in another area red. The presence of a large number ofdots in one area mean that a large number ofbighom sheep use that area t • • �•.' iy have been tracked intensively). Similarly,a small r Q• • " ofdots in anotherareadoes nolmcan that Ingham sheep .area;their presence may simply not yet have been recorded. • \ , II f o' `�• • • i' p� 0 ofpast auiml surveys has been to measure the abundance l �`��� °° ther than to imp their distribution in detail. For N is did not comprehensively survey some portions II lip, Y° ^ i r90 oo bite[. Consequently,some areas on the map �,• 0 8, � d ons because they were not regularly surveyed. it characteristics ofthese areas match those required by sheep. Aenal counts do cover most ofthe range •�' ile tool for monitoring overall population trends. 0, cations do not represent all habitat used by radiocollared • I are recorded on regular schedules,ranging from once �C�tj� year,depending on the organization and purpose of j - • o ire,the observations shown on this map mmderrepresent the i\ radiocollared animals in these mountains 1, •0 sec. shoos have been recorded in the 1990's,arch a long-term -{ • red contraction in geographic extent. Historical records dices,that bighorn sheep may have inhabited a larger area - . . • $,�'r°V., �+.' i �i°i,+,,iJb �' tondeclined. Consequently,the recovery area boundary was ng on historical documents and the consensus ofscientists -horn sheep in the Peninsular ranges over the last several p."...... Iwnyt"m ons shown on this ma were used only as a means of us taxwlm t=sw« r ,> P Y areas used by bighorn sheep within the past 251a 30 Cullr"mulkpnnenl ort,J,W Gu,u within the recovery area boundary (please see - a,umn,,.ixiw�.m ara.unes«rwn"" � � w{ tecovery Plan for details), x I C 0 . ' The Planning Associates Jonathan Petke,Inc. Hardy M. Strozier, Inc. 3151 AIRWAY AVENUE,SUITE R-1 COSTA MESA,CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE: (714)556-5200 TELECOPIER (714)556-3905 E-Mall: HardyEsq@aol.com November 15, 2000 Mr. Doug Evans, Director Department of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS P.O. Box 2743 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Concerning the Palm Hills and Canyon South (Brandenburg) Projects Dear Mr. Evans: This letter presents the general continents of the Palm Hills and the Canyon South (Brandenburg) projects on the Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. We will be providing more extensive comments to the Service on or before November 20, 2000. In the meantime, we want to set forth our reasons on why the Proposed Determination of Critical Habitat and more particularly, the Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for PBS are inadequate. When combined with other adopted and pending Critical Habitat designations, the affected area of increased federal jurisdiction according to these Critical Habitat rules is enormous. Yet the United States Fish and Wildlife Service declares that this new PBS Critical Habitat will have little or no economic impact. Does the City of Palm Springs really believe the Service position? The Service comes to this conclusion based on their fundamental and incorrect belief that there is no economic impact of the Critical Habitat designation because whatever economic impacts are caused, were done as a consequence of the "listing" of the PBS as endangered. The Service concludes that the economic impacts, if any at all, were caused by previous Service listing of PBS. The Service notes that this previous Service action, "the listing of PBS as endangered", is not required under federal law to have an economic analysis. The Service reasons that their first listing action caused the economic impacts but because federal law does not require economic disclosure, according to the Service interpretation, they were not required to analyze or disclose the economic consequences at the time of "listing". Is this really what the public expects from our federal government? This Service "logic" fails to follow neither the letter of the federal law or the congressional intent of the Endangered Species Act. Congress clearly intended that g4Q during the process of listing animals as endangered, there be a "concurrent" designation of critical habitat and a concurrent economic study. The concurrency of the Service I activities, listing and critical habitat according to the Congressional listing would insure that there would be disclosure to the public, states and cities, that economic consequences of this ESA action would be analyzed and disclosed. The ESA notes as follows in Sec. 4 (3) (A): "The Secretary...shall, concurrently with making a determi- nation under paragraph (1) that a species is an endangered Species or a threatened species, designate any habitat of such Species, which is then considered to be critical habitat, " The ESA goes on in Section 4 (B)(2) to direct economic studies: "The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the best scientific data available and after taking into con- sideration the economic impact, and any other relevant Impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat" The Secretary of the Interior is empowered to "bypass" the designation of critical habitat when he/she makes certain legally defensible findings that the critical habitat designations may further jeopardize the species by weighing the "benefits" of critical habitat designation. The current Secretary of the Interior made a policy decision to discontinue critical habitat designations throughout the U.S., allegedly to save the Service time and money, concurrent with the endangered listing. This Service policy to forgo the Critical Habitat designation was for a broad range of animals not just the PBS. The Service, therefore, circumvented the economic analysis by not conducting timely critical habitat reviews concurrent with listing as required by law. The Secretary was recently ordered by a federal judge in San Diego to begin anew the critical habitat reviews. Now the public has the deferred PBS critical habitat assessment with the economic study being conducted late in the environmental process. The Service indicates to all of us at this late stage that they do not now have to perform the required economic study because it's too late in the process. A late process that the Service, through the Secretary, set up in contravention of law, as we later find out from a San Diego federal judge. The Service's Draft Economic Analysis only evaluates impacts above and beyond those imposed by listing. Established principles of environmental law obligate the Service's economic calculations to include the impacts of listing. The National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA), regulations, for example, require federal agencies to evaluate the impacts of the proposed action when combined with "past, present and reasonably foreseeable" actions. Congress has indicated its intent that the Service follows NEPA law on cumulative effects in the Service's evaluation of economic impacts. There is no sound public policy reason why the Service should take one approach for the evaluation of environmental impacts and a completely different approach entirely for the evaluation of economic impacts. This above noted broad contravention of federal law by the Service is our main objection to the approach set forth in the October 2000 Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The Service is attempting to "bootstrap" their argument on a failed logic that is clearly out of step with the conventional wisdom of congressional intent to the detriment of the general public and local government. Nevertheless, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asserts (without any quantified analysis) that the designation of this large PBS Critical Habitat area will have little or no economic impact! The PBS critical habitat proposal in fact does the following: • Ignores the requirement of the ESA to take into consideration economic and other impacts; • Ignores the ESA requirement to balance economic impacts against the benefits of the critical habitat designation; • Uses the wrong legal standard to designate critical habitat; • Fails to utilize the best available scientific and commercial data as required by the ESA; • Fails to contain findings and evaluations required by the ESA; • Fails to list for each area designated the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of PBS; • Fails to contain an adequate description and evaluation of the activities that may be affected by the designation; and • Fails to include a summary of the data on which it is based or to show the relationship of that data to the proposed rule. The Service is required, as a matter of law, to revise significantly and recirculate for additional public review and comment the proposed critical habitat determination and draft economic analysis for the following reasons: 1. The Service's Draft Economic Analysis is fundamentally flawed. It is based on the demonstrably false assumption that the designation of critical habitat will not impose any new regulatory restrictions on the use of land. The Service's own data establishes that the designation will, for the first time, impose ESA regulatory restrictions on hundreds of thousands of acres of land unoccupied by PBS. Contrary to the Service's flawed assumption, it has been documented that the Service has imposed greater restrictions on the use of land within critical habitat than on land that is not within critical habitat. 2. Independent review of the federal Draft Economic Analysis for a recent "companion" Critical Habitat economic study for the California gnatcatcher by Dr. Joseph Janczyk demonstrates that the direct and indirect effect of the guatcatcher critical habitat designation may impact 175,000 jobs and 160,000 housing units. Using extremely conservative assumptions, Dr. Janczyk estimates an incremental economic impact solely attributable to the critical habitat 3 designation ranging from over S300 million to $5.5 billion. The direct, indirect and cumulative economic impacts adding the PBS will escalate this cost. 3. The Service's Draft Economic Analysis does not use the best scientific and commercial data available as required by the ESA. It ignores official jobs/housing data adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG"). It also ignores data in the Service's own files which indicates that the designation of critical habitat may result in impacts above and beyond the impact associated with the listing of PBS. 4. The Draft Economic Analysis completely ignores the cumulative effects of the critical habitat determination and the effect of the other pending and proposed critical habitat designations in Southern California. The above noted independent study completed by Dr. Joseph Janczyk's documents cumulative impacts of the PBS and just two of these other critical habitat proposals could impact up to 217,000 jobs and 180,000 housing units. 5. The Service has failed to take economic and other impacts of the critical habitat designation into consideration as required by the ESA. For example, the Draft Economic Analysis completely ignores impacts on California's critical housing shortage recently underscored by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development in the report, "Raising the Roof — California Housing Development Projections and Constraints 1997-2020". This report documents that California is currently only producing housing to satisfy 60% of the State's housing need. The designation of critical habitat for PBS can only exacerbate this serious problem in the CVAG region. 6. The Service has ignored the impact of critical habitat on implementation of the SCAG, SANDAG and CVAG regional transportation plans, which are critical to the region's air quality compliance strategy and to continued mobility in the region. 7. The Service has ignored Congressional intent to narrowly circumscribe the designation of critical habitat. S. The critical habitat proposal will have a very negative impact on the willingness of local governments and private landowners to continue to participate in the NCCP and other CVAG habitat conservation planning programs. The Service should utilize the authority provided by Section 4(b)(2) to exclude from critical habitat those areas that are the subject of ongoing regional CVAG conservation planning efforts. If the Service is correct in is assertion that the designation of critical habitat will not materially provide additional conservation benefits beyond those provided by listing, then it should be an easy matter, under the balancing test of Section 4(b)(2), for the Service to exclude areas that are the subject of existing conservation planning efforts. Finally, both Palm Hills and Canyon South development projects have directly expended considerable sums of money in excess of$500,000 to date to consider the PBS issues on the project sites. Considerable sums of money are still expected with further on and off 4 site mitigation. For example, the recently approved Ritz Carlton project in Rancho Mirage has spent in excess of$3,000,000 to deal with the listed PBS! These costs are a matter of public record if the Service would provide proper economic impact review of PBS evaluation and mitigation effects on private projects. Both the direct and indirect costs of lost time and opportunity should have been evaluated by the Service and were not even considered. What is the cost to the City of Palm Springs due to ESA delays on "lost or delayed" transient occupancy taxes, (TOT), from proposed hotel projects in alleged PBS essential and critical habitat? Millions of dollars of lost "TOT" is a conservative estimate that is not evaluated by the Service. We will continue to evaluate the Critical Habitat analysis by the Service and provide additional comments to the federal government. We will keep the City of Pahn Springs copied on all correspondence regarding this matter. We appreciate the City of Palm Springs guidance and continued interest in these local and federal matters. Very Truly Yours, W� ardl Strozier,AICP CC: City Council James Schlecht, Esq. William B. Baron Marvin Roos Dave Aleshire, Esq. Kathy Jenson, Esq. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY C Las Palmas Plaza Mercado The Q:!;; Medical Plaza Plaza clel Sol Canyon f I : Canyon Plaza North and South Business P., ' Shopping Centers Rubidotix Plaza Tahqurtz Mess V:, ;,: Date Palm Square Chart House Restaurant Inch, °, , .,. Plaza [as Flores Plaza at Sunnse Tahqurtz S,: November 15, 2000 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Scott McCarthy Fish and Wildlife Biologist Re: Cahuilla Hills Property (Wessman and Ealy) Dear Mr. McCarthy: This letter represents both my comments and those of my neighbor, William C. (Curt) Ealy. I am the owner of several parcels of land in the Cahuilla Hills area. My parcels include the following APN's: 513-410-030-3 (2005 Camino Monte, existing single-family home) 513-440-005-4 (Abandoned water tank- site of f ture Wessman home) 5 B-440-012-0 (Site of future single-family home) 513-440-014-2 (Site of future single-family home) 513-440-016-4 (Site of future single-family home) 513-440-008-7 Curt Ealy owns APN 513-440-013-1, the site of his future single-fain ly home. All of the above parcels He within the Service's proposed Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat Line. Mr. Ealy and I have been hiking in this area for over 10 years and have never seen any sheep, sheep droppings, or other evidence of sheep. This area is an existing developed area of single-family homes. As shown on the attached topographical map, there is also an existing roadway and well as a water tank, previously used but now abandoned. Obviously, human life has existed in this region for decades. Any future plans for development of the parcels owned by Mr. Ealy and me only include a handful of single-family homes to add to those already existing in the area. e" ,i . M U.S. Fish& Game November 15, 2000 Page Two For these Cahuilla Hills properties, we are requesting that the Critical Habitat Line be moved to lie within the boundaries of our properties but west of the existing roadway. I have drawn a possible position for the Line on the attached topo map. It is my understanding that this will bring the Critical Habitat Line much closer to the Essential Habitat Line. By admission of the Service's own representative, Pete Sorenson, at a meeting on November 2, 2000, these two lines should coincide. As the owner of many downtown Palm Springs shopping centers, I must also comment that the Critical Habitat Line is currently proposed to run with Indian Canyon which would mean that most of the downtown area, commercial and residential, would find itself within the Critical Habitat. This should be reviewed to more accurately reflect a Critical Habitat Line within the mountain area adjacent to downtown, not in the middle of downtown. Perhaps this was just an oversight. Both Curt and I are thankful for any help and consideration that you may give our requests. You may reach either of us should you have any questions. I am available at the number shown above and Curt is available at 760-320-5977. Sincerely,/ John Wesstnan Curt Ealy cc: City Council, Palm Springs via fax ... ,.;.``res F..o,.r............ .•y`;•r>j.'n"'I,: -,Z•-P -'-'1'.;;'r�.•,-�_er.,..r^v{..:`..,C.v v^r-..,:;•. .�1».. -.3...-.q....t.r-_.-_..,``.........V-.-....-_._._�,_.__�.�..1 • r ,j' yV,(�It ��! �t'� 1 � 7 r �i,, eh �t f:ti 7�'�W1�1�1,A w� � "�� �� .,�, ,-•.-._.�_-._r��>v,a�\s�-�rt.:v\i.�'. n--b '*;}^. ,\.+n"S' '' C "4'�I' .i 7. ,,i'';.%...:.,is:• _ �i� r C.r_' �,�t?I:'.? . ' S. .1 :i' t .`.� ��] �J'\_�L r `'�„.ds Any Ile t,`�>;..r .-f � � _ r `4\ �,v+r .' ` �2/i : 11 \.. .' 1tt f r )� ` � ,����.i r��t�•1 / ' ov4's "r_ i''' / ;I ,�=. .: t\ Sq:o:.. L, I t l� �' r 1 :•�o. \ r , ^�1 -^.,3_�n='.'vy;zj ,Y' F . ., {�l. ` .it ,.•,•,x} . (:,/�•"ti: '\ �'' �..\N r / k4a�,y •n `t �� r- VON � �,�� \'`a�'- .sr �.—"t... _ ".il',/ PLO SUE - - :£vV .t'..•.i - �`i � ,4 t1 "i I'sr^ -r- � i :: ,�. 5 •. '" ,:�'*'i�"� `'s.r.,i^. / � .�� �\ I ,';.._.i5s: j J a/ �`wi: L i - , )t :_ .y'.'J-' � ems- `4r —'-� - �,� - \ �• a�'� 5 7� `v��� � �:��v ,�j .4�- r - 1t.I ..� - � f ) �r ./:.%�''. • � � _ \��� J � �r � Y Z - � f,}D S,I/ rr"� J � L4�� l ���. I {{ l Wd h•x:t!^''KY r i �' Y� J-[� , ' � I �J11 l"It `�y4 .,l rF j _� '`t,°n'}41, "'r-rt'r/'ss'�`%'.\.. .. .,i .:!•. / I I �I .r a •a 1 ,:-..... �'ri'!- `�-•;__ �`"?= �r ../.J;Hjt �t �/:J�j'_�.� /..�i ;1-'�'1 `eA�..�. �•:Py.t.�t.�f�-�+°.C''�ip.�__•;.-'�:��.'{[ •\\:..�},y5�-\�:.. fs. `� \ - _ o �° :•��:� ice`• � t 1.0dP L rl��f'�'- r - - _+ \ l `'VKv� , �i p`- - f.�, I, .. ':'�`` � _�,`�,�,.^ 13�7 t• � y� tt,u}` saRJ. r N r1 .,- 4} � �� �1�\��,t7- ; :}�- �`;'} Rc,`l;;\ � I r i.;i ;�'� �\.^�� V Np ti.`4y `•.5 /� �.�, � r`-' ,,jjs< ��>�.,�r\'-\.�� \t i- ` \' ��� \S', 1 \5 \V 1E �'-\. \� � ) tV t_.. •sn_.:.�:�..:`' :::._....,.,. (7r -u.y,'y, - _..._..-.s__ '1:.,.1..�...-s�-.�..+:_..:....�5...].._�: . . __ . �.1L - T7 ,I ....... w re 1�:1A -INV Z\i w� f4", C . , .01 IF Vol Z i� MA, X� N N� 21) " M; u.YM TW URWI up CITY ILI-�2-2— Ut"QfaxixRonoid K. fdf/�, P.E. 52250— MINUTE ORDER NO. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OBJECTING TO THE DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP. ----------------- I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order, authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter to the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service objecting to the Draft Economic Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep was adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, in a meeting thereof held on the 150' day of November, 2000. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk