[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48547-48652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19178]
[[Page 48547]]
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 158
August 15, 2014
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-
Billed Cuckoo; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48548]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AZ44
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the western distinct population segment
of the yellow-billed cuckoo (western yellow-billed cuckoo) (Coccyzus
americanus) under the Endangered Species Act. In total, approximately
546,335 acres (221,094 hectares) are being proposed for designation as
critical habitat in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The effect of this regulation, if
finalized, is to designate critical habitat for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
October 14, 2014. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by September 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0011, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011, and at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may
develop for this critical habitat designation will also be available at
the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and field office set out above,
and may also be included in the preamble of this rule or at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jen Norris, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825; by telephone
916-414-6600; or by facsimile 916-414-6712. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
any species that is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species requires critical habitat to be designated, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. Designations and revisions of critical
habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. On October 3, 2013, we
proposed listing the western yellow-billed cuckoo as a threatened
species (78 FR 61621).
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The critical habitat areas we
are proposing to designate in this rule constitute our current best
assessment of the areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
This is a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the
western yellow-billed cuckoo. This proposed designation of critical
habitat identifies areas based on the best scientific and commercial
information available that we have determined are essential to the
conservation of the species. The proposed critical habitat is located
in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts,
we have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related factors. The supporting
information we used in determining the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat is summarized in this proposed rule (see Consideration
of Economic Impacts) and is available at http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011 and at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
We are seeking peer review and public comment. We are seeking
comments and soliciting information from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise to review our analysis of the best available
science and application of that science and to provide any additional
scientific information to improve this proposed rule. Because we will
consider all comments and information we receive during the comment
period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly
seek comments concerning:
(1) The western yellow-billed cuckoo's biology and range; habitat
requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering; and the locations
of any additional populations.
(2) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), including whether
there are threats to the western yellow-billed cuckoo from human
activity that can be expected to increase due to the designation, and
whether that increase in threat
[[Page 48549]]
outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent.
(3) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat;
(b) What areas occupied at the time of listing (i.e., are currently
occupied), that contain features essential to the conservation of the
western yellow-billed cuckoo, should be included in the critical
habitat designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in areas we are proposing as critical habitat, including
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo and why.
(4) For Unit 52 (NM-8 Middle Rio Grande 1; New Mexico), we have
determined that it is appropriate to propose critical habitat into the
conservation pool area of Elephant Butte Reservoir down to
approximately river-mile (RM) 54. This is based on the number of
yellow-billed cuckoo breeding pairs identified in the area, the amount
of habitat available, and the relationship and importance of the
Elephant Butte Reservoir and Rio Grande River to other yellow-billed
cuckoo habitat in New Mexico and the southwest. Additional habitat and
western yellow-billed cuckoo breeding occurrences are located
downstream to approximately RM 42. We seek information on whether the
area or portions of the area to RM 42 at Elephant Butte Reservoir in
New Mexico is essential to the conservation of the species and whether
we should include the area as critical habitat for the species and why.
(5) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and for those specific areas whether the benefits
of potentially excluding them outweigh the benefits of including them,
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. For specific lands that we
should consider for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, please
provide us management plans, conservation easements, agreements,
habitat conservation plans (HCP), or other appropriate information,
that describe the commitment and assurances of protection of the
physical or biological features of western yellow-billed cuckoo
critical habitat; property boundaries; western yellow-billed cuckoo
status, distribution, and abundance; and management actions to protect
the physical or biological features of the western yellow-billed
cuckoo.
(6) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas, and their possible impacts on the proposed critical
habitat.
(7) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the western yellow-billed cuckoo and proposed
critical habitat.
(8) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating as critical habitat any particular area that may
be included in the final designation and the benefits of including or
excluding areas where these impacts occur.
(9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or email address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
All previous Federal actions are described in the proposal to list
the western yellow-billed cuckoo as a threatened species under the Act
published previously in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61621). Please see that document for actions leading to this proposed
designation of critical habitat.
Background
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo. For a thorough assessment of the species' biology and
natural history, including limiting factors and species resource needs,
please refer to the proposal to list this species as threatened
published previously in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61621) (available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0104).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation does not allow
[[Page 48550]]
the government or public access to private lands. Such designation does
not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement
measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests
Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a
listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of
section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. In the event of a destruction
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species, and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species (such as space,
food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical and
biological features within an area, we focus on the principal
biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent
elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water
quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the
species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of
the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing and which is outside the
geographical area (range) considered occupied at the time of listing
may be essential for the conservation of the species and may be
included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at
the time of listing only when a designation limited to its range would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available.
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to
designate critical habitat.
When we determine which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated
with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and
Lovejoy 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial
areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et
al. 2004, p. 1015; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504).
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For this
reason, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation
of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any
individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that
affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed
species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and
conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this
species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of
the best available information at the time of designation will not
control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat
conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning
efforts if new information available at the time of these planning
efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, and which
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
[[Page 48551]]
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
the western yellow-billed cuckoo from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history, as described below. Additional information
can be found in the proposed listing rule published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61621). The physical or biological
features identified here focus primarily on breeding habitat and
secondarily on foraging habitat because most of the habitat
relationship research data derive from studies of these activities.
Much less is known about migration stopover or dispersal habitat within
the breeding range, but based on the best scientific evidence we
conclude that these additional activities require the same types of
habitat as breeding and foraging and that conservation of sufficient
habitat for breeding and foraging will also provide sufficient habitat
for the other activities. We have determined that the following
physical or biological features are essential to the western yellow-
billed cuckoo.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The western yellow-billed cuckoo breeds in riparian habitat along
low-gradient (surface slope less than 3 percent) rivers and streams,
and in open riverine valleys that provide wide floodplain conditions
(greater than 325 ft (100 m)). Within the boundaries of the distinct
population segment (DPS) (see Figure 2 at 78 FR 61631, in the proposed
listing rule (78 FR 61621; October 3, 2013)) these riparian areas are
located from southern British Columbia, Canada, to southern Sinaloa,
Mexico, and may occur from sea level to 7,000 feet (ft) (2,154 meters
(m)) (or slightly higher in western Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) in
elevation. Because critical habitat only applies to areas within the
United States, we did not examine areas in Canada and Mexico. The moist
conditions that support riparian plant communities that provide western
yellow-billed cuckoo habitat typically exist in lower elevation, broad
floodplains, as well as where rivers and streams enter impoundments.
The species does not use narrow, steep-walled canyons. In the extreme
southern portion of their range in the States of Sonora (southern
quarter) and Sinaloa, Mexico, western yellow-billed cuckoos also nest
in upland thorn scrub and dry deciduous habitats away from the riparian
zone (Russell and Monson 1988, p. 131), though their densities are
lower in these habitats than they are in adjacent riparian areas.
At the landscape level, the available information suggests the
western yellow-billed cuckoo requires large tracts of willow-cottonwood
or mesquite (Prosopis sp.) forest or woodland for their nesting season
habitat. Western yellow-billed cuckoos rarely nest at sites less than
50 acres (ac) (20 hectares (ha)) in size, and sites less than 37 ac (15
ha) are considered unsuitable habitat (Laymon and Halterman 1989, p.
275). Habitat patches from 50 to 100 ac (20 to 40 ha) in size are
considered marginal habitat (Laymon and Halterman 1989, p. 275).
Habitat between 100 ac (40 ha) and 200 ac (81 ha), although considered
suitable are not consistently used by the species. The optimal size of
habitat patches for the species are generally greater than 200 ac (81
ha) in extent and have dense canopy closure and high foliage volume of
willows (Salix sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus sp.) (Laymon and Halterman
1989, pp. 274-275) and thus provide adequate space for foraging and
nesting. Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), a nonnative tree species, may be a
component of the habitat, especially in Arizona and New Mexico. As the
proportion of tamarisk increases, the suitability of the habitat for
the western yellow-billed cuckoo decreases. Sites with a monoculture of
tamarisk are unsuitable habitat for the species. Sites with strips of
habitat less than 325 ft (100 m) in width are rarely occupied, which
indicates that edge effects in addition to overall patch size influence
western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat selection for nesting. The
association of breeding with large tracts of suitable riparian habitat
is likely related to home range size. Individual home ranges during the
breeding season average over 100 ac (40 ha), and home ranges up to 500
ac (202 ha) have been recorded (Laymon and Halterman 1987, pp. 31-32;
Halterman 2009, p. 93; Sechrist et al. 2009, p. vii; McNeil et al.
2010, p. 75; McNeil et al. 2011, p. 37; McNeil et al. 2012, p. 69).
Western yellow-billed cuckoos may nest at more than one location in
a year. Some individuals may nest first in the northern area, such as
Arizona or New Mexico, and then nest a second time at more southern
locations in southern Sonora, Mexico (Rohwer et al. 2009, pp. 19050-
19055). However, data are lacking to confirm that the same individuals
are breeding in both locations within the same season. Some individuals
also roam widely (several hundred miles), apparently assessing food
resources prior to selecting a nest site (Sechrist et al. 2012, pp. 2-
11).
During movements between nesting attempts western yellow-billed
cuckoos are found at riparian sites with small groves or strips of
trees, sometimes less than 10 ac (4 ha) in extent (Laymon and Halterman
1989, p. 274). These stopover and foraging sites can be similar to
breeding sites, but are smaller is size, are narrower in width, and
lack understory vegetation when compared to nesting sites.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify rivers and
streams of lower gradient and more open valleys with a broad floodplain
to be an essential physical or biological feature for this species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Food
Western yellow-billed cuckoos are insect specialists but also prey
on small vertebrates such as tree frogs and lizards. They depend on an
abundance of large, nutritious insect prey (for example, sphinx moth
larvae (Family Sphingidae) and katydids (Family Tettigoniidae)) and, in
some cases, a high population density of tree frogs (e.g., Hyla sp. and
Pseudacris sp.). In the arid West, these conditions are usually found
in cottonwood-willow riparian associations along water courses. The
arrival of birds and the timing of nesting are geared to take advantage
of any short-term abundance of prey. In years of high insect abundance,
western yellow-billed cuckoos lay larger clutches (three to five eggs
rather than two), a larger percentage of eggs produce fledged young,
and they breed multiple times (two to three nesting attempts rather
than one) (Laymon et al. 1997, pp. 5-7). Diet studies of western
yellow-billed cuckoos on the South Fork Kern River in California showed
the majority of the prey to be large green caterpillars (primarily big
poplar sphinx moth larvae (Pachysphinx occidentalis)) (45 percent),
tree frogs (24 percent), katydids (22 percent), and grasshoppers
(Suborder Caelifera) (9 percent) (Laymon et al. 1997, p. 7). Minor prey
at that and other sites include beetles (Coleoptera sp.), dragonflies
(Odonata sp.), praying mantis (Mantidae sp.), flies (Diptera sp.),
spiders (Araneae sp.), butterflies (Lepidoptera sp.), caddis flies
(Trichoptera sp.), crickets (Gryllidae sp.), and cicadas (Family
Cicadidae) (Laymon et al. 1997, p. 7; Hughes 1999, pp. 7-8). In
Arizona, cicadas are an important food source (Halterman 2009, p. 112).
Small vertebrates such as lizards (Lacertilia sp.) are also eaten
(Hughes 1999, p. 8).
Western yellow-billed cuckoo food availability is largely
influenced by the health, density, and species of vegetation. For
example, the big poplar sphinx moth larvae are found only in
[[Page 48552]]
willows and cottonwoods and appear to reach their highest density in
Fremont cottonwoods (Oehlke 2012, p. 4). Desiccated riparian sites
produce fewer suitable insects than healthy moist sites. Western
yellow-billed cuckoos generally forage within the tree canopy, and the
higher the foliage volume the more likely yellow-billed cuckoos are to
use a site for foraging (Laymon and Halterman 1985, pp. 10-12). They
generally employ a ``sit and wait'' foraging strategy, watching the
foliage for movement of potential prey (Hughes 1999, p. 7).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the presence
of abundant, large insect fauna (for example, cicadas, caterpillars,
katydids, grasshoppers, large beetles, and dragonflies) and tree frogs
during nesting season to be an essential physical or biological feature
for this species.
Water and Humidity
Habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo is largely associated with
perennial rivers and streams that support the expanse of vegetation
characteristics needed by breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos. The
range and variation of stream flow frequency, magnitude, duration, and
timing that will establish and maintain western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat can occur in different types of regulated and unregulated flow
conditions depending on the interaction of the water feature and the
physical characteristics of the landscape.
Hydrologic conditions at western yellow-billed cuckoo breeding
sites can vary remarkably between years. At some locations during low
rainfall years, water or saturated soil is not available. At other
locations, particularly at reservoir intakes, riparian vegetation can
be inundated for extended periods of time in some years and be totally
dry in other years. This is particularly true of reservoirs like Lake
Isabella in California, Roosevelt and Horseshoe Reservoirs in Arizona,
and Elephant Butte Reservoir in New Mexico, all of which have
relatively large western yellow-billed cuckoo populations. This year-
to-year change in hydrology can affect food availability and habitat
suitability for western yellow-billed cuckoos. Extended inundation
reduces habitat suitability because larvae of sphinx moths pupate and
eggs of katydids are laid underground, and prolonged flooding kills the
larvae and eggs (Peterson et al. 2008), thus removing important food
sources.
In some areas, managed hydrologic cycles above or below dams can
create temporary western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, but may not be
able to support it for an extended amount of time, or may support
varying amounts of habitat at different points of the cycle and in
different years. Water management operations create varied situations
that allow different plant species to thrive when water is released
below a dam, held in a reservoir, or removed from a lakebed, and
consequently, varying amounts of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat
are available from month to month and year to year as a result of dam
operations. During wet years, habitat within a lake and below a dam can
be flooded for extended periods of time and vegetation can be stressed
or killed. During dry years, vegetated habitat can be desiccated and
stressed or killed because of lack of water.
Humid conditions created by surface and subsurface moisture appear
to be important habitat parameters for western yellow-billed cuckoo.
The species has been observed as being restricted to nesting in moist
riparian habitat in the arid West because of humidity requirements for
successful hatching and rearing of young (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965,
pp. 427; Gaines and Laymon 1984, pp. 75-76; Rosenberg et al. 1991, pp.
203-204). Western yellow-billed cuckoos have evolved larger eggs and
thicker eggshells, which would help them cope with potential higher egg
water loss in the hotter, dryer conditions (Hamilton and Hamilton 1965,
pp. 426-430; Ar et al. 1974, pp. 153-158; Rahn and Ar 1974, pp. 147-
152). A study on the South Fork Kern River showed that lower
temperatures and higher humidity were found at nest sites when compared
to areas along the riparian forest edge or outside the forest (Launer
et al. 1990, pp. 6-7, 23). Recent research on the lower Colorado River
has confirmed that western yellow-billed cuckoo nest sites had
significantly higher daytime relative humidity (6-13 percent higher)
and significantly lower daytime temperatures (2-4 degrees Fahrenheit
(1-2 degrees Celsius) lower) than average forested sites (McNeil et al.
2011, pp. 92-101; McNeil et al. 2012, pp. 75-83).
Subsurface hydrologic conditions are equally important to surface
water conditions in determining riparian vegetation patterns. Depth to
groundwater plays an important part in the distribution of riparian
vegetation and western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. Where groundwater
levels are elevated so riparian forest trees can access the water,
habitat for nesting, foraging, and migrating western yellow-billed
cuckoos can develop and thrive. Goodding's willows (Salix gooddingii)
and Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii) do not regenerate if the
groundwater levels fall below 6 ft (2 m) (Shafroth et al. 2000, pp. 66-
75). Goodding's willows cannot survive if groundwater levels drop below
10 ft (3 m), and Fremont cottonwoods cannot survive if groundwater
drops below 16 ft (5 m) (Stromberg and Tiller 1996, pp. 123). Abundant
and healthy riparian vegetation decreases and habitat becomes stressed
and less productive when groundwater levels are lowered (Stromberg and
Tiller. 1996, pp. 123-127).
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify flowing
rivers and streams, elevated subsurface groundwater tables, and high
humidity as essential physical and biological features of western
yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.
Conditions for Germination and Regeneration of Riparian Zone Trees
The abundance and distribution of fine sediment deposited on
floodplains is critical for the development, abundance, distribution,
maintenance, and germination of trees in the riparian zone that become
western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. These sediments become seedbeds
for germination and growth of the riparian vegetation upon which
western yellow-billed cuckoos depend. These sediments must be
accompanied by sufficient surface moisture for seed germination and
sufficient ground water levels for survival of seedlings and saplings
(Stromberg 2001, pp. 27-28). The lack of stream flow processes, which
deposit such sediments, may lead riparian forested areas to senesce and
to become degraded and not able to support the varied vegetative
structure required for western yellow-billed cuckoo nesting and
foraging.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify flowing
perennial rivers and streams and deposited fine sediments as essential
physical and biological features of western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat.
Cover or Shelter
Riparian vegetation also provides the western yellow-billed cuckoo
with cover and shelter while foraging and nesting. Placing nests in
dense vegetation provides cover and shelter from predators that would
search for adult western yellow-billed cuckoos, their eggs, nestlings,
and fledged young. Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) have been
observed preying on western yellow-billed cuckoo nestlings at open
riparian restoration sites. Dense foliage
[[Page 48553]]
precludes the entry of northern harriers into the habitat patch (Laymon
1998, pp. 12-14). Likewise, within the breeding range, western yellow-
billed cuckoos also use riparian vegetation for cover and shelter as
movement corridors between foraging sites and as post-breeding
dispersal areas for adults and young. Movement corridors provide a
place to rest and provide cover and shelter from predators during
movement from one foraging area to another. These movement corridors
within the breeding range, even though not used for nesting, are
important resources affecting local and regional western yellow-billed
cuckoo productivity and survival.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify riparian
trees including willow, cottonwood, alder (Alnus sp.), walnut (Juglans
sp.), sycamore (Platanus sp.), boxelder (Acer sp.), ash (Fraxinus sp.),
mesquite, and tamarisk that provide cover and shelter for foraging and
dispersing western yellow-billed cuckoos as essential physical or
biological features of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
The western yellow-billed cuckoo utilizes nesting sites in riparian
habitat where conditions are cooler and more humid than in the
surrounding environment. Riparian habitat characteristics, such as
dominant tree species, size and shape of habitat patches, tree canopy
structure, vegetation height, and vegetation density, are important
parameters of western yellow-billed cuckoo breeding habitat. Throughout
the range, most nests are placed in willows (72 percent of 217 nests),
and willows generally dominate nesting sites. Willow species used for
nest trees include Goodding's black willow, red willow (Salix
laevigata), and coyote willow (Salix exigua) (Laymon 1998, p. 7; Hughes
1999, p. 13).
Nests have also been documented in other riparian trees, including
Fremont cottonwood (13 percent), mesquite (7 percent), tamarisk (4
percent), netleaf hackberry (Celtis laevigata var. reticulata) (2
percent), English walnut (Juglans regia) (1 percent), box elder (less
than 1 percent), and soapberry (Sapindus saponaria) (less than 1
percent). They have also nested in Arizona walnut (Juglans major),
alder (Alnus rhombifolia and A. oblongifolia), and Arizona sycamore
(Platanus wrightii) (Laymon 1980, p. 8; Laymon 1998, p. 7; Hughes 1999,
p. 13; Corman and Magill 2000, p. 16; Launer et al. 2000, p. 22;
Halterman 2001, p. 11; Halterman 2002, p. 12; Halterman 2003, p. 11;
Halterman 2004, p. 13; Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005, p. 202; Halterman
2005, p. 10; Halterman 2007, p. 5; Holmes et al. 2008, p. 21). Five
pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos were found nesting along the
Sacramento River in a poorly groomed English walnut orchard that
provided numerous densely foliaged horizontal branches on which western
yellow-billed cuckoos prefer to build their nests (Laymon 1980, pp. 6-
8). These orchard-nesting western yellow-billed cuckoos did not forage
in the orchard, but flew across the river to forage in riparian
habitat. Tamarisk is also a riparian species that may be associated
with breeding under limited conditions; western yellow-billed cuckoo
will sometimes build their nests and forage in tamarisk, but there is
always a native riparian tree component within the occupied habitat
(Gaines and Laymon 1984, p. 72; Johnson et al. 2008a, pp. 203-204).
Johnson et al. (2008a, pp. 203-204) conducted Statewide surveys in
Arizona of almost all historically occupied habitat of the western
yellow-billed cuckoo in the late 1990s, and found 85 percent of all
western yellow-billed cuckoo detections in habitat dominated by
cottonwood with a strong willow and mesquite understory and only 5
percent within habitats dominated by tamarisk. Even in the tamarisk-
dominated habitat, cottonwoods were still present at all but two of
these sites.
Nest site characteristics have been compiled from 217 western
yellow-billed cuckoo nests on the Sacramento and South Fork Kern Rivers
in California, and the Bill Williams and San Pedro Rivers in Arizona.
Western yellow-billed cuckoos generally nest in thickets dominated by
willow trees. Nests are placed on well-foliaged branches closer to the
tip of the branch than the trunk of the tree (Hughes 1999, p. 13).
Nests are built from 4 ft to 73 ft (1 m to 22 m) above the ground and
average 22 ft (7 m). Nests at the San Pedro River averaged higher (29
ft (9 m)) than either the Bill Williams River (21 ft (6 m)) or the
South Fork Kern River (16 ft (5 m)). Nest trees ranged from 10 ft (3 m)
to 98 ft (30 m) in height and averaged 35 ft (11 m). In older stands,
heavily foliaged branches that are suitable for nesting often grow out
into small forest openings or over sloughs or streams, making for ideal
nest sites. In younger stands, nests are more often placed in vertical
forks or tree crotches. Canopy cover directly above the nest is
generally dense and averages 89 percent and is denser at the South Fork
Kern River (93 percent) and Bill Williams River (94 percent) than at
the San Pedro River (82 percent). Canopy closure in a plot around the
nest averages 71 percent and was higher at the Bill Williams River (80
percent) than at the South Fork Kern River (74 percent) or San Pedro
River (64 percent) (Laymon et al. 1997, pp. 22-23; Halterman 2001, pp.
28-29; Halterman 2002, p. 25; Halterman 2003, p. 27; Halterman 2004, p.
42; Halterman 2005, p. 32; Halterman 2006, p. 34).
In addition to the dense, generally willow-dominated nesting grove,
western yellow-billed cuckoos need adequate foraging areas in the
vicinity of the nest. Foraging areas can be less dense with lower
levels of canopy cover and often have a high proportion of cottonwoods
in the canopy. Optimal breeding habitat contains willow-dominated
groves with dense canopy closure and well-foliaged branches for nest
building with nearby foraging areas consisting of a mixture of
cottonwoods and willows with a high volume of healthy foliage.
As discussed above, the habitat patches used by western yellow-
billed cuckoos vary in size and shape with optimal areal extent being
over 200 ac (81 ha) in size (see Space for Individual and Population
Growth for Normal Behavior). The larger the site, the more likely it
will provide suitable habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoos and
be occupied by nesting pairs (Laymon and Halterman 1989, pp. 274-275).
Sites can be relatively dense, contiguous stands or irregularly shaped
mosaics of dense vegetation with open areas.
Western yellow-billed cuckoos typically have large home ranges
during the breeding season, averaging more than 100 ac (40 ha) per
individual, and nest at low densities of less than 1 pair per 100 ac
(40 ha) (Laymon et al. 1997, p. 19; Laymon and Williams 2002, p. 5;
Halterman 2009, p. 93; Sechrist et al. 2009, p. vii; McNeil et al.
2010, p. 75; McNeil et al. 2011, p. 37; McNeil et al. 2012, p. 69). As
a result, a large amount of habitat is required to support even a small
population of western yellow-billed cuckoos.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify blocks of
riparian habitat greater than 200 ac (81 ha) in extent and greater than
325 ft (100 m) in width, with one or more densely foliaged, willow-
dominated nesting sites and cottonwood-dominated foraging sites, to be
a physical or biological feature for the species' habitat.
[[Page 48554]]
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
The occupied rivers and streams that are proposed for designation
contain physical and biological features that are representative of the
historic and geographical distribution of the species.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo in areas occupied at
the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements
of physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes including breeding, foraging and dispersing, we
determine that the primary constituent elements specific to the western
yellow-billed cuckoo are:
(1) Primary Constituent Element 1--Riparian woodlands. Riparian
woodlands with mixed willow-cottonwood vegetation, mesquite-thorn-
forest vegetation, or a combination of these that contain habitat for
nesting and foraging in contiguous or nearly contiguous patches that
are greater than 325 ft (100 m) in width and 200 ac (81 ha) or more in
extent. These habitat patches contain one or more nesting groves, which
are generally willow-dominated, have above average canopy closure
(greater than 70 percent), and have a cooler, more humid environment
than the surrounding riparian and upland habitats.
(2) Primary Constituent Element 2--Adequate prey base. Presence of
a prey base consisting of large insect fauna (for example, cicadas,
caterpillars, katydids, grasshoppers, large beetles, dragonflies) and
tree frogs for adults and young in breeding areas during the nesting
season and in post-breeding dispersal areas.
(3) Primary Constituent Element 3--Dynamic riverine processes.
River systems that are dynamic and provide hydrologic processes that
encourage sediment movement and deposits that allow seedling
germination and promote plant growth, maintenance, health, and vigor
(e.g. lower gradient streams and broad floodplains, elevated subsurface
groundwater table, and perennial rivers and streams). This allows
habitat to regenerate at regular intervals, leading to riparian
vegetation with variously aged patches from young to old.
Because the species exists in disjunct breeding populations across
a wide geographical and elevational range and is subject to dynamic
events, the river segments described below are essential to the
conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo, because they maintain
stability of subpopulations, provide connectivity between populations
and habitat, assist in gene flow, and protect against catastrophic
loss. The occupied rivers and streams that are proposed for designation
contain physical and biological features that are representative of the
historic and geographical distribution of the species. All river
segments proposed as western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat are
within the geographical area occupied by the species as defined by the
species' DPS at the time of listing (i.e., currently) and contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species. The features
essential to the conservation of the species and refined primary
constituent elements are present throughout the river segments
selected, but the specific quality of riparian habitat for nesting,
migration, and foraging will vary in condition and location over time
due to plant succession and the dynamic environment in which they
exist.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
We believe the areas proposed to be designated as critical habitat
will require some level of management or protection or both to address
the current and future threats to the western yellow-billed cuckoo and
maintain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. Areas in need of management include not
only currently suitable locations where the species may be present, but
also areas that may become suitable in the future. The critical habitat
sites that we are proposing are all occupied, but may include both
currently suitable habitat and adjacent habitat that will become
suitable in the near future.
The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the
conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo. The western yellow-
billed cuckoo may also be dependent upon factors beyond the critical
habitat boundaries that are important in maintaining ecological
processes such as hydrology; streamflow; hydrological regimes; plant
germination, growth, maintenance, and regeneration; sedimentation;
ground water elevations; plant health and vigor; or support of prey
populations. Individual or small populations of western yellow-billed
cuckoos may nest in habitat outside of the proposed critical habitat
units.
A detailed discussion of threats to the western yellow-billed
cuckoo and its habitat can be found in the Summary of the Factors
Affecting the Species section of the proposed listing rule for the
species published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR
61621). The features essential to the conservation of this species and
the activities which may require special management considerations or
protection are summarized below:
Threat: Disruption of hydrological processes that are necessary to
maintain a healthy riparian system.
Management Considerations: Hydrological elements and processes can
be managed to benefit riparian systems. Streamflows can be restored by
managing dams to mimic the natural hydrology to the greatest extent
possible, and to support the health and regeneration of native riparian
shrub and tree vegetation. Reservoirs can be managed to reduce
prolonged flooding of riparian habitat in the flood control drawdown
zone, which kills or damages native riparian vegetation. Restoration of
natural hydrological regimes or management of systems so that they
mimic natural regimes that favor germination and growth of native plant
species are important. Improving timing of water drawdown in reservoirs
to coincide with the seed dispersal and germination of native species
can be effective in restoring native riparian vegetation. Reducing
water diversions and ground water pumping that degrade riparian systems
can benefit the western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat. Reduction
of bank stabilization features, including rip-rap, levees, or other
structures, that limit natural fluvial processes can promote maturation
of the native riparian vegetation and prevent regular habitat
regeneration. Clearing channels for flood flow conveyance or plowing of
floodplains can be avoided. Projects can be managed to minimize
clearing of native vegetation to help ensure that desired native
species persist.
[[Page 48555]]
Threat: Loss of riparian habitat regeneration caused by poorly
managed grazing.
Management Considerations: Biotic elements and processes can be
managed to benefit riparian systems. Managed grazing areas, season, and
use in riparian zones can increase western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat
quality and quantity. Specifically, managing grazing so that native
riparian trees and shrubs will regenerate on a regular basis is
especially beneficial.
Threat: Loss of riparian habitat from development activities and
extractive uses.
Management Considerations: Limiting extractive uses, such as gravel
mining and woodcutting, in the vicinity of western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat is an important management tool. Clearing of riparian habitat
for agriculture, industrial and residential development, and road
building and maintenance is detrimental to the species and should be
moved from the floodplain management zone to the greatest extent
possible.
Threat: Degradation of riparian habitat as a result of expansion of
nonnative vegetation.
Management Considerations: Removal of nonnative vegetation in areas
where natural regeneration of native riparian species may be a valuable
management tool. On some sites, replacement of nonnative vegetation
with native riparian tree species through active restoration plantings
can speed up the habitat recovery process and more quickly benefit the
western yellow-billed cuckoo.
Threat: Destruction of riparian habitat by uncontrolled wildfire.
Management Considerations: Fire can be managed to maintain and
enhance habitat quality and quantity. Fires in the riparian zone can be
suppressed and the risk of wildlife fire can be reduced by restoring
ground water, base flows, flooding, and natural hydrological regimes.
Reduction of fires caused by recreational activities and the reduction
of fuel buildup and prevention of introduction of flammable exotic
species can also be beneficial.
Threat: Reduction of prey insect abundance by the application of
pesticides.
Management Considerations: Avoiding application of pesticides that
would limit the abundance of large insects and their larva on or in the
vicinity of riparian areas at any time of year would help to maintain
an adequate prey base for the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
These management activities would protect and enhance the physical
or biological features for the western yellow-billed cuckoo by reducing
or eliminating the above threats. Management activities that could
benefit the species are not limited to those listed above. Furthermore,
management of critical habitat would help provide additional and
improved habitat that would give the species the best possible chance
of recovery.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
reviewed the available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identified occupied areas at the time
of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species. If after identifying currently occupied areas, a
determination is made that those areas are inadequate to ensure
conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied--is
essential for the conservation of the species. We are defining the
geographical area (i.e., range) occupied at the time of listing as the
geographical area that encompasses the breeding range of the western
yellow-billed cuckoo based on breeding records between 1998 and 2012.
This timeframe was chosen because the last Statewide western yellow-
billed cuckoo surveys in Arizona were conducted in 1998 to 1999, and
the last Statewide western yellow-billed cuckoos surveys in California
were in 1999 to 2000. The majority of the sites have not been surveyed
since the 1998 to 2000 time period, though key sites such as the
Sacramento, Verde, Colorado, San Juan, and Rio Grande Rivers and
several other smaller sites have been surveyed more recently. The 1998
to 2012 time period represents the best scientific data available.
We are not currently proposing to designate any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species because the areas
proposed for designation encompass the vast majority of areas where the
species currently regularly occurs and nests. However, we are including
within the proposed units habitats that are intermittently used by the
species as areas for movement, dispersal, foraging, or connectivity. We
have determined that limiting the designation of critical habitat to
confirmed breeding sites within the units is insufficient to conserve
and recover the species because: (1) Some breeding habitat that is not
currently suitable will become suitable in the future; (2) the species
needs habitat areas that are arranged spatially to maintain
connectivity and allow dispersal within and between units; and (3) food
resources change both within and between years, and additional habitat
is needed to accommodate this change. We have not included critical
habitat units within Oregon or Washington because the species has been
extirpated as a breeder from those States for the past 90 years, and
recent observations of the species have not coincided with suitable
habitat and appear to be migrants. The habitat farther south in
California that is currently occupied at very low densities and is
being proposed as critical habitat is sufficient to address the far-
western part of the species' range for recovery of the species. Should
we receive information during the public comment period that supports
designating as critical habitat areas not included in the proposed
units (see Proposed Critical Habitat Designation section below), we
will reevaluate our current proposal.
We employed the following criteria to select appropriate areas for
this proposed designation. These criteria are based on well-accepted
conservation biology principles for conserving species and their
habitats, such as those described by Meffe and Carroll (1997, pp. 347-
383); Shaffer and Stein (2000, pp. 301-321); and Tear et al. (2005, pp.
835-849).
(1) Representation. Areas were chosen to represent the varying
habitat types across the species' range. Habitats in the arid Southwest
differ significantly from those in northern California. Additional
areas are included if they are considered a unique habitat or climate,
or they are situated to facilitate interchange between otherwise widely
separated units. By protecting a variety of habitats and facilitating
interchange between them, we increase the ability of the species to
adjust to various limiting factors that affect the population, such as
habitat loss and degradation or climate change.
(2) Resiliency and redundancy. Areas were selected throughout the
range of the western yellow-billed cuckoo to allow the species to move
and expand. By identifying a number of areas of appropriate size
throughout the species' range at the time of listing, we provide the
western yellow-billed cuckoo opportunities to move to adjust for
changes in habitat availability, food sources, and pressures on
survivorship or reproductive success. Designating
[[Page 48556]]
units in appropriate areas throughout the range of the western yellow-
billed cuckoo allows for seasonal migration and year-to-year movements.
We consider this necessary to conserve the species because it assists
in counterbalancing continued habitat loss and degradation, and
complements the dynamic nature of riparian systems. Having units across
the species' range helps maintain a robust, well-distributed population
and enhances survival and productivity of the western yellow-billed
cuckoo as a whole, facilitates interchange of individuals between
units, and promotes recolonization of any sites within the current
range that experience declines or local extirpations due to low
productivity or temporary habitat loss.
(3) Breeding areas. These areas were selected because they contain
the physical and biological features necessary for western yellow-
billed cuckoos to breed and produce offspring and are essential to the
conservation of the species. Selected sites include areas currently
being used by breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos. By selecting
breeding areas across the western yellow-billed cuckoo's range, we can
assist in conserving the species' genetic variability for long-term
sustainability of the species.
(4) Areas to maintain connectivity of habitat. While all units
contain all of the essential physical or biological features, some
portions of some units may lack certain elements or contain marginal
habitat. These areas are included within a unit if they are needed for
connectivity, have potential to become suitable habitat, or contribute
to the hydrologic and geologic processes essential to the ecological
function of the system. These areas are essential to the conservation
of the species because they maintain connectivity within populations,
allow for species movement throughout the course of a given year, allow
for population expansion into areas that were historically occupied,
and allow for species movement as a result of potential habitat changes
due to the dynamic nature of riparian systems and to climate change.
(5) Areas that provide for variable food resources or habitat.
Yellow-billed cuckoos are a migrant species keenly adapted to take
advantage of localized food resource outbreaks or habitat availability.
We include areas within the proposed designated units not currently
being used as breeding sites to provide spatial and temporal changes in
food abundance.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures, because such lands lack
physical or biological features for the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving these lands would not
trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in
adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate as critical habitat lands within the
geographical area occupied by the western yellow-billed cuckoo at the
time of listing and that contain the physical or biological features
necessary to support life-history processes essential to the
conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo. These areas have
sufficient primary constituent elements (PCEs) (described above) to
enable the western yellow-billed cuckoo to carry out its essential life
processes.
Compared to conditions historically, the areas currently used for
nesting by the western yellow-billed cuckoo are very limited and
disjunct. The breeding population is small, with 680 to 1,025 nesting
pairs (350 to 495 pairs in the United States and 330 to 530 nesting
pairs in Mexico), and with no site exceeding 60 nesting pairs.
Estimating numbers is problematic because an individual can nest in
more than one location in a single year, possibly causing overestimates
of the number of nesting pairs. The western yellow-billed cuckoo is
susceptible to random events such as major storms during migration or
prolonged drought, and is likely to be reduced in numbers in the future
according to current information on population trends. As such, all
known nesting areas are occupied at the time of listing and contain the
PCEs. We are proposing to designate as critical habitat all known
nesting areas greater than 200 ac (81 ha) in extent in the area
occupied by the western yellow-billed cuckoo for nesting north of the
border with Mexico and south of the border with Canada. Sites that
contain less than 200 ac (81 ha) of riparian habitat are not included.
These small, isolated sites with sufficient habitat for only one or two
pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos are not essential to the
survival and recovery of the species.
The amount and distribution of critical habitat we are proposing
will allow populations of western yellow-billed cuckoo the opportunity
to: (1) Maintain their existing distribution; (2) move between areas
depending on food, resource, and habitat availability; (3) increase the
size of the population to a level where the threats of genetic,
demographic, and normal environmental uncertainties are diminished; and
(4) maintain their ability to withstand local- or unit-level
environmental fluctuations or catastrophes.
Selecting Critical Habitat Sites Within the Range Occupied by Western
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo at the Time of Listing
We define proposed critical habitat as sites that contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species within the geographical area occupied by the species (range) at
the time of listing. These features include riparian habitat for
foraging with additional areas (one or more groves) of closed canopy
mesic (moist) habitat for nesting (200 ac (81 ha) minimum total). The
critical habitat units selected were either occupied by mated pairs of
western yellow-billed cuckoo in at least one year between 1998 and 2012
or were occupied by individual western yellow-billed cuckoos of unknown
mating status during the breeding season (late June, July, mid-August)
in at least 2 years between 1998 and 2012. For purposes of this
document, nesting pairs were determined based on factors including
actual nests located, pairs exhibiting nesting activity, and single
western yellow-billed cuckoos in suitable habitat during the breeding
season. Sites that currently contain less than 200 ac (81 ha) of
riparian habitat were not selected. These small, isolated sites less
than 200 ac (81 ha) with sufficient habitat for only one or two pairs
of western yellow-billed cuckoos tend to be occupied sporadically and
are not considered essential to the conservation and recovery of the
species.
To delineate the proposed units of critical habitat, we plotted on
maps all breeding season occurrences of the western yellow-billed
between 1998 and 2012. We used reports prepared by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS),
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation),
the Salt
[[Page 48557]]
River Project, State wildlife agencies, State natural diversity data
bases, researchers, nongovernment organizations, universities, and
consultants, as well as available information in our files, to
determine the location of specific breeding areas within the
geographical area occupied by the western yellow-billed cuckoo at the
time of listing. We then delineated riparian habitat around that
location, as well as riparian habitat upstream and downstream from the
occurrence location, until a break in the riparian habitat of 0.25
miles (mi) (0.62 kilometers (km)) or more was reached. Western yellow-
billed cuckoos rarely traverse distances across unwooded spaces greater
than 0.25 mi (0.62 km) in their daily foraging activities. Sites where
migrant western yellow-billed cuckoos were found, but where there is
less than 100 ac (40 ha) of riparian habitat with no suitable nesting
sites and suitable habitat is unlikely to develop in the future, are
not proposed as critical habitat (for example, Southeast Farallon
Islands or Furnace Creek Ranch in Death Valley).
The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section. We
include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011, and at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 80 units as critical habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoo. The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute
our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo. All of the units
located within the geographical area occupied at the time of listing
contain all of the identified elements of physical or biological
features and support multiple life-history processes. The approximate
area of each proposed critical habitat unit and ownership information
is shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of unit in
Critical habitat unit Name of unit Ac (Ha) Federal State Tribal Other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ CA-1 Eel River.................... 4,909 (1,987) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4,909 (1,987)
2................................ CA-2 Sacramento River............. 35,418 (14,333) 10,203 (4,129) 6,375 (2,580) 14 (6) 18,827 (7,619)
3................................ CA-3 Sutter Bypass................ 1,090 (441) 566 (229) 0 (0) 0 (0) 524 (212)
4................................ CA-4 South Fork Kern River Valley. 2,862 (1,158) 1,218 (493) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,644 (665)
5................................ CA-5 Owens River.................. 1,598 (647) 1 (<1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,597 (647)
6................................ CA-6 Prado Flood Control Basin.... 4,406 (1,784) 1,300 (526) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3,106 (1,257)
7................................ CA/AZ-1 Colorado River 1.......... 78,961 (31,954) 32,576 (13,183) 4,187 (1,695) 22,485 (9,099) 19,713 (7,978)
8................................ CA/AZ-2 Colorado River 2.......... 23,452 (9,491) 15,189 (6,147) 1 (<1) 4,730 (1,914) 3,532 (1,429)
9................................ AZ-1 Bill Williams River.......... 3,390 (1,372) 2,640 (1,068) 0 (0) 0 (0) 750 (304)
10............................... AZ-2 Alamo Lake................... 2,794 (1,131) 1,840 (745) 0 (0) 0 (0) 954 (386)
11............................... AZ-3 Lake Mead.................... 6,734 (2,725) 6,734 (2,725) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
12............................... AZ-4 Lower Gila River............. 12,047 (4,875) 7,413 (3,000) 1,086 (440) 0 (0) 3,548 (1,436)
13............................... AZ-5 Upper Santa Maria River...... 1,636 (662) 573 (232) 336 (136) 0 (0) 727 (294)
14............................... AZ-6 Hassayampa River............. 2,838 (1,148) 591 (239) 10 (4) 0 (0) 2,237 (905)
15............................... AZ-7 Gila and Salt Rivers......... 17,585 (7,116) 4,719 (1,910) 2,642 (1,069) 868 (351) 9,356 (3,786)
16............................... AZ-8 Agua Fria River.............. 3,337 (1,350) 1,802 (729) 235 (95) 0 (0) 1,300 (526)
17............................... AZ-9 Upper Verde River............ 4,531 (1,834) 2,217 (897) 776 (314) 0 (0) 1,538 (622)
18............................... AZ-10 Oak Creek................... 1,323 (535) 433 (175) 160 (65) 0 (0) 730 (295)
19............................... AZ-11 Beaver Creek and tributaries 2,082 (842) 1,491 (603) 0 (0) 3 (1) 588 (238)
20............................... AZ-12 Lower Verde River and West 2,053 (831) 447 (181) 31 (13) 43 (17) 1,532 (620)
Clear Creek.
21............................... AZ-13 Horseshoe Dam............... 626 (253) 626 (253) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
22............................... AZ-14 Tonto Creek................. 3,670 (1,485) 2,529 (1,023) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,141 (462)
23............................... AZ-15 Pinal Creek................. 419 (170) 30 (12) 0 (0) 0 (0) 389 (157)
24............................... AZ-16 Bonita Creek................ 929 (376) 828 (335) 0 (0) 0 (0) 101 (41)
25............................... AZ-17 San Francisco River 1....... 1,327 (537) 1,192 (482) 0 (0) 0 (0) 135 (55)
26............................... AZ-18 Upper San Pedro River....... 21,786 (8,816) 11,349 (4,593) 1,292 (523) 0 (0) 9,145 (3,701)
27............................... AZ-19 Hooker Hot Springs.......... 375 (152) 163 (66) 4 (2) 0 (0) 208 (84)
28............................... AZ-20 Lower San Pedro and Gila 23,399 (9,469) 2,957 (1,197) 2,282 (923) 729 (295) 17,431 (7,054)
Rivers.
29............................... AZ-21 Picacho Reservoir........... 2,789 (1,129) 335 (136) 941 (381) 0 (0) 1,513 (612)
30............................... AZ-22 Peritas Wash................ 894 (362) 170 (69) 724 (293) 0 (0) 0 (0)
31............................... AZ-23 Arivaca Wash and San Luis 5,765 (2,333) 4,662 (1,887) 89 (36) 0 (0) 1,014 (410)
Wash.
32............................... AZ-24 Sonoita Creek............... 1,610 (652) 0 (0) 775 (314) 0 (0) 835 (338)
33............................... AZ-25 Upper Cienega Creek......... 5,204 (2,106) 4,630 (1,874) 574 (232) 0 (0) 0 (0)
34............................... AZ-26 Santa Cruz River............ 3,689 (1,493) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3,689 (1,493)
35............................... AZ-27 Black Draw.................. 890 (360) 405 (164) 45 (18) 0 (0) 440 (178)
36............................... AZ-28 Gila River 1................ 20,726 (8,388) 780 (316) 216 (87) 10,183 (4,121) 9,547 (3,864)
37............................... AZ-29 Salt River.................. 2,590 (1,048) 2,469 (999) 0 (0) 0 (0) 121 (49)
38............................... AZ-30 Lower Cienega Creek......... 2,360 (955) 0 (0) 759 (307) 0 (0) 1,601 (648)
39............................... AZ-31 Blue River.................. 1,025 (415) 1,025 (415) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
40............................... AZ-32 Pinto Creek South........... 373 (151) 368 (149) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (2)
41............................... AZ-33 Aravaipa Creek.............. 1,209 (489) 470 (190) 1 (<1) 0 (0) 738 (299)
42............................... AZ-34 Lower Verde River........... 1,079 (437) 1,063 (430) 0 (0) 0 (0) 16 (6)
43............................... AZ-35 Gila River 3................ 2,194 (888) 1,126 (456) 1 (<1) 0 (0) 1,067 (432)
[[Page 48558]]
44............................... AZ-36 Pinto Creek North........... 427 (173) 415 (168) 0 (0) 0 (0) 12 (5)
45............................... AZ-37 Florida Wash................ 188 (76) 113 (46) 32 (13) 0 (0) 43 (17)
46............................... NM-1 San Juan River 1............. 6,354 (2,571) 680 (275) 177 (72) 1,041 (421) 4,456 (1,804)
47............................... NM-3 San Francisco River 2........ 2,039 (825) 738 (299) 10 (4) 0 (0) 1,291 (522)
48............................... NM-4 Gila River 2................. 4,179 (1,691) 975 (395) 201 (81) 0 (0) 3,003 (1,216)
49............................... NM-5 Mimbres River................ 260 (105) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 260 (105)
50............................... NM-6 Upper Rio Grande 1........... 1,830 (741) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,313 (532) 517 (209)
51............................... NM-7 Middle Rio Grande 2.......... 1,173 (475) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,173 (475) 0 (0)
52............................... NM-8 Middle Rio Grande 1.......... 61,959 (25,074) 19,559 (7,915) 938 (380) 9,509 (3,848) 31,953 (12,931)
53............................... NM-9 Upper Gila River............. 4,614 (1,867) 984 (398) 423 (171) 0 (0) 3,207 (1,298)
54............................... CO-1 Yampa River.................. 6,938 (2,808) 0 (0) 1,199 (485) 0 (0) 5,739 (2,322)
55............................... CO-2 Colorado River 3............. 4,002 (1,620) 31 (13) 418 (169) 0 (0) 3,553 (1,438)
56............................... CO-3 North Fork Gunnison River.... 2,326 (941) 115 (47) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2,211 (895)
57............................... CO-4 Uncompahgre River............ 4,506 (1,824) 2 (1) 7 (3) 0 (0) 4,497 (1,820)
58............................... CO-5 Gunnison River............... 937 (379) 16 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 921 (373)
59............................... CO-6 Rio Grande 3................. 9,765 (3,952) 14 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9,751 (3,946)
60............................... CO-7 Conejos River................ 8,986 (3,637) 330 (134) 47 (19) 0 (0) 8,609 (3,484)
61............................... UT-1 Green River 1................ 17,256 (6,983) 4,701 (1,902) 4,411 (1,786) 6,848 (2,772) 1,296 (524)
62............................... UT-2 Pigeon Water Creek and Lake 3,041 (1,231) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,340 (543) 1,701 (688)
Fork River.
63............................... UT-3 Colorado River 4............. 579 (234) 209 (85) 238 (96) 0 (0) 132 (53)
64............................... UT-4 Dolores River................ 401 (162) 115 (47) 150 (61) 0 (0) 136 (55)
65............................... UT-5 Green River 2................ 4,657 (1,885) 4,657 (1,885) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
66............................... UT-6 San Juan River 2............. 2,198 (889) 2,198 (889) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
67............................... UT-7 San Juan River 3............. 9,692 (3,922) 1,589 (643) 38 (15) 7,766 (3,144) 299 (121)
68............................... UT-8 Virgin River 2............... 1,390 (562) 32 (13) 6 (2) 0 (0) 1,352 (547)
69............................... ID-1 Snake River 1................ 9,294 (3,761) 3,692 (1,494) 2 (1) 2,257 (913) 3,343 (1,353)
70............................... ID-2 Snake River 2................ 11,439 (4,629) 5,861 (2,372) 106 (43) 0 (0) 5,472 (2,214)
71............................... ID-3 Big Wood River............... 1,129 (457) 88 (36) 85 (34) 0 (0) 956 (387)
72............................... ID-4 Henry's Fork and Teton Rivers 3,449 (1,396) 396 (160) 341 (138) 0 (0) 2,712 (1,098)
73............................... NV-1 Upper Muddy River............ 1,472 (596) 1,315 (532) 0 (0) 0 (0) 157 (64)
74............................... NV-3 Lower Muddy River............ 437 (177) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 437 (177)
75............................... NV-4 Carson River................. 4,348 (1,760) 1,149 (465) 13 (5) 0 (0) 3,186 (1,289)
76............................... NV/AZ-1 Virgin River 1............ 11,266 (4,559) 7,137 (2,888) 52 (21) 0 (0) 4,077 (1,650)
77............................... WY-1 Green River 3................ 7,471 (3,023) 5,705 (2,309) 629 (255) 0 (0) 1,137 (460)
78............................... WY/UT-1 Henry's Fork of Green 9,306 (3,760) 144 (58) 228 (92) 0 (0) 8,934 (3,615)
River.
79............................... TX-1 Arroyo Caballo, Rio Grande... 1,261 (510) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,261 (510)
80............................... TX-2 Terlingua Creek and Rio 7,792 (3,153) 7,792 (3,153) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Grande.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ .................................. 546,335 199,882 33,293 70,302 242,859
(221,094) (80,882) (13,473) (28,450) (98,282)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
Unit Descriptions
All units are within the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing. All units include the following physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the western
yellow-billed cuckoo: (1) Rivers and streams of low gradient with a
broad floodplain; (2) flowing rivers and streams, elevated subsurface
groundwater tables, and high humidity; (3) rivers and streams that
allow functioning ecological processes and support riparian habitat
regeneration (such as deposited fine sediments for riparian seed
germination); (4) areas of riparian woodlands with mixed willow-
cottonwood at least 200 ac (80 ha) in extent and 325 ft (100 m) in
width with one or more densely foliaged nesting groves; and (5) an
abundant large insect fauna during the nesting season. We present brief
descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of
critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo, below.
Special management considerations or protection may be required to
conserve the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species within each unit. These special management
considerations include actions to address the main threats from
alteration of hydrology from (A) dams, (B) surface water diversions,
(C) ground water diversions, and (D) fluctuating reservoir levels.
Encroachment into the floodplain may also need special management
considerations and can come from (E) agricultural and (F) other
development activities, (G) bank stabilization and (H) levee
construction and maintenance activities, (I) road and bridge
maintenance activities, and (J) gravel mining. Other threats that may
need special management considerations include (K) habitat degradation
associated with poorly managed livestock grazing (generally identified
as ``overgrazing''), (L) pesticide drift from adjacent agricultural
activities, (M) wood-cutting, and (N) recreation in the form of off-
highway vehicle use within the riparian zone. To ensure the continued
suitability of the unit, it may be necessary to implement special
management considerations including: (O) Manage the hydrology to mimic
natural riverflows and floodplain process, (P) prevent encroachment
into the floodplain, and (Q) control expansion of and habitat
degradation
[[Page 48559]]
caused by nonnative vegetation. These threats and special management
considerations are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2--Threats to Habitat and Potential Special Management Considerations
[See end of table for definition of codes]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threats from alteration of Threats from floodplain
Critical habitat unit Name of unit hydrology encroachment Other threats Special management
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................... CA-1 Eel River....... A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P.
2..................... CA-2 Sacramento River A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
3..................... CA-3 Sutter Bypass... B, C....................... E, F, G, H................. K, L, N................... O, P, Q.
4..................... CA-4 South Fork Kern A, B, C, D................. E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River Valley.
5..................... CA-5 Owens River..... A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
6..................... CA-6 Prado Flood A, D....................... F, I....................... N......................... P, Q.
Control Basin.
7..................... CA/AZ-1 Colorado A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River 1.
8..................... CA/AZ-2 Colorado A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River 2.
9..................... AZ-1 Bill Williams A, B, C.................... ........................... K, M, N................... O, Q.
River.
10.................... AZ-2 Alamo Lake...... B, C, D.................... F.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
11.................... AZ-3 Lake Mead....... B, C, D.................... ........................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
12.................... AZ-4 Lower Gila River A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M................... O, P, Q.
13.................... AZ-5 Upper Santa B, C....................... F, I....................... K, M...................... O, P, Q.
Maria River.
14.................... AZ-6 Hassayampa River B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
15.................... AZ-7 Gila and Salt A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... L, M, N................... O, P, Q.
Rivers.
16.................... AZ-8 Agua Fria River. A, B, C.................... F, G, I.................... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
17.................... AZ-9 Upper Verde B, C....................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
River.
18.................... AZ-10 Oak Creek...... B, C....................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
19.................... AZ-11 Beaver Creek B, C....................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
and tributaries.
20.................... AZ-12 Lower Verde A, B, C.................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
River and West Clear
Creek.
21.................... AZ-13 Horseshoe Dam.. B, C, D.................... ........................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
22.................... AZ-14 Tonto Creek.... B, C, D.................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
23.................... AZ-15 Pinal Creek.... B, C....................... F, G, I, J................. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
24.................... AZ-16 Bonita Creek... B, C....................... F, I....................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
25.................... AZ-17 San Francisco B, C....................... F, I....................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
River 1.
26.................... AZ-18 Upper San Pedro B, C....................... E, F, G, I................. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River.
27.................... AZ-19 Hooker Hot B, C....................... F.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
Springs.
28.................... AZ-20 Lower San Pedro A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
and Gila Rivers.
29.................... AZ-21 Picacho B, C, D.................... F.......................... K, N...................... O, P, Q.
Reservoir.
30.................... AZ-22 Peritas Wash... B, C....................... F.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
31.................... AZ-23 Arivaca Wash B, C....................... F, I....................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
and San Luis Wash.
32.................... AZ-24 Sonoita Creek.. B, C, D.................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
33.................... AZ-25 Upper Cienega B, C....................... F.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
Creek.
34.................... AZ-26 Santa Cruz B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River.
35.................... AZ-27 Black Draw..... B, C....................... F.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
36.................... AZ-28 Gila River 1... B, C....................... E, F, G, H................. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
37.................... AZ-29 Salt River..... B, C, D.................... F, G, I.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
38.................... AZ-30 Lower Cienega A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Creek.
39.................... AZ-31 Blue River..... A, B, C.................... G, I, J.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
40.................... AZ-32 Pinto Creek A, B, C.................... F, G, I, J................. K, N...................... O, P, Q.
South.
41.................... AZ-33 Aravaipa Creek. B, C....................... F, I, J.................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
42.................... AZ-34 Lower Verde A, B, C.................... F, G, I, J................. K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
River.
43.................... AZ-35 Gila River 3... A, B, C.................... F, G, I, J................. K, N...................... O, P, Q.
44.................... AZ-36 Pinto Creek B, C....................... F, I, J.................... K, N...................... O, P, Q.
North.
45.................... AZ-37 Florida Wash... B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
46.................... NM-1 San Juan River 1 A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
47.................... NM-3 San Francisco B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River 2.
48.................... NM-4 Gila River 2.... B, C....................... E, F, G, I, J.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
49.................... NM-5 Mimbres River... B, C....................... F, I....................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
50.................... NM-6 Upper Rio Grande A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
1.
51.................... NM-7 Middle Rio A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Grande 2.
52.................... NM-8 Middle Rio A, B, C, D................. E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Grande 1.
53.................... NM-9 Upper Gila River B, C....................... E, F, G, I, J.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
54.................... CO-1 Yampa River..... B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
55.................... CO-2 Colorado River 3 A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
56.................... CO-3 North Fork B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Gunnison River.
57.................... CO-4 Uncompahgre B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River.
58.................... CO-5 Gunnison River.. B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
59.................... CO-6 Rio Grande 3.... B, C....................... F, G, H, I, J.............. K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
60.................... CO-7 Conejos River... B, C....................... F, G, H, I, J.............. K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
61.................... UT-1 Green River 1... A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
62.................... UT-2 Pigeon Water B, C....................... F, G, H, I, J.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Creek and Lake Fork
River.
63.................... UT-3 Colorado River 4 B, C....................... E, G, H, I................. K, M...................... O, P, Q.
64.................... UT-4 Dolores River... B, C....................... G, I....................... K, M...................... O, P, Q.
65.................... UT-5 Green River 2... B, C....................... ........................... K, M...................... O, P, Q.
66.................... UT-6 San Juan River 2 B, C, D.................... ........................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
[[Page 48560]]
67.................... UT-7 San Juan River 3 B, C....................... I.......................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
68.................... UT-8 Virgin River 2.. A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
69.................... ID-1 Snake River 1... A, B, C, D................. E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
70.................... ID-2 Snake River 2... A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
71.................... ID-3 Big Wood River.. B, C....................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
72.................... ID-4 Henry's Fork and A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Teton Rivers.
73.................... NV-1 Upper Muddy B, C, D.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
River.
74.................... NV-3 Lower Muddy A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, N................... O, P, Q.
River.
75.................... NV-4 Carson River.... A, B, C, D................. E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, N................... O, P, Q.
76.................... NV/AZ-1 Virgin River B, C, D.................... E, F, G, H, I, J........... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
1.
77.................... WY-1 Green River 3... A, B, C.................... E, F, G, I, J.............. K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
78.................... WY/UT-1 Henry's Fork B, C....................... F, G, H, I................. K, M...................... O, P, Q.
of Green River.
79.................... TX-1 Arroyo Caballo, A, B, C.................... E, F, G, H I............... K, L, M, N................ O, P, Q.
Rio Grande.
80.................... TX-2 Terlingua Creek A, B, C.................... ........................... K, M, N................... O, P, Q.
and Rio Grande.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of Codes. Threats from alteration of hydrology: (A) Change in hydrology from upstream dams; (B) surface diversions; (C) groundwater
withdrawals; and (D) fluctuating reservoir levels. Threats from floodplain encroachment: (E) Agricultural development; (F) other development
(residential, industrial, etc.); (G) bank stabilization; (H) levee construction and maintenance; (I) road and bridge construction and maintenance; and
(J) gravel mining. Other threats: (K) Overgrazing; (L) pesticide drift; (M) woodcutting; and (N) recreation. Special management considerations: (O)
Manage hydrology to mimic natural flows and floodplain processes; (P) prevent encroachment into floodplain; and (Q) control expansion of and habitat
degradation caused by nonnative vegetation.
California (6 Units)
Unit 1: CA-1 Eel River; Humboldt County
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-1 is 4,909 ac (1,987 ha) in
extent. It is an 8-mi (13-km)-long continuous segment of the lower Eel
River from west of the town of Fortuna downstream to a point in the
estuary (mouth) of the lower Eel River in Humboldt County, California.
The entire proposed critical habitat unit is privately owned. The site
represents the northwestern limit of the known current breeding range
of the species.
Unit 2: CA-2 Sacramento River; Colusa, Glenn, Butte, and Tehama
Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-2 is 35,418 ac (14,333 ha) in
extent. It is a 69-mi (111-km)-long continuous segment of the
Sacramento River starting 5 mi (8 km) southeast of the city of Red
Bluff in Tehama County, California, to the downstream boundary of the
Colusa-Sacramento River State Recreation Area next to the town of
Colusa in Colusa County, California. The middle segment of the river
flows through Butte and Glenn Counties. Approximately 18,827 ac (7,619
ha), or 53 percent, of proposed unit CA-2 are privately owned; 6,375 ac
(2,580 ha), or 7 percent, are in State ownership and include Woodson
Bridge State Recreation Area, Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park, and
Colusa State Recreation Area managed by the California Department of
Parks and Recreation; 14 ac (6 ha) is Cachil Dehe Band of the Wintun
Indian tribal land; and 10,203 ac (4,129 ha), or 12 percent, are in
Federal ownership located on the Sacramento River National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State and
county road crossings account for less than 1 percent of total proposed
unit CA-2 ownership. This site has been a major nesting area for the
species in the recent past. It is an important area to maintain for
occupancy during species recovery.
Unit 3: CA-3 Sutter Bypass; Sutter County
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-3 is 1,090 ac (441 ha) in extent.
It is a 7-mi (11-km)-long continuous segment of the Sutter Bypass
starting upstream at a point on the Sutter Bypass 8 mi (13 km) west of
Yuba City in Sutter County, California, primarily on the Sutter NWR.
Approximately 524 ac (212 ha), or 48 percent, of proposed unit CA-3 are
privately owned, and 566 ac (229 ha), or 52 percent, are in Federal
ownership located on the Sutter NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The site has recently been one of the most regularly
occupied sites in the Sacramento Valley and provides a movement
corridor between larger habitat patches.
Unit 4: CA-4 South Fork Kern River Valley; Kern County
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-4 is 2,862 ac (1,158 ha) in
extent. It is a 8-mi (13-km)-long continuous segment of the South Fork
Kern River from west of the town of Onyx downstream to Lake Isabella,
and includes the upper 0.6 mi (1.0 km) of Lake Isabella in Kern County,
California. Approximately 1,644 ac (665 ha), or 57 percent, of proposed
Unit CA-4 are privately owned, and 1,218 ac (493 ha), or 43 percent,
are in Federal ownership located on the Sequoia National Forest managed
by the USFS. Numbers of breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos have
been stable at this site. The site provides a stopover area or movement
corridor between western yellow-billed cuckoos breeding on the Colorado
River and the Sacramento River.
Unit 5: CA-5 Owens River; Inyo County
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-5 is 1,598 ac (647 ha) in extent.
It is a 26-mi (42-km)-long continuous segment of the Owens River from
Steward Lane, located 3 mi (5 km) southeast of the town of Big Pine,
south to a point on the Owens River 4 mi (7 km) southeast of the town
of Independence, within Inyo County, California. Approximately 1,597 ac
(647 ha) are owned and managed by the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power (LADWP), and 1 ac (less than 1 ha) is in Federal ownership
managed by BLM. This site provides nesting habitat for multiple pairs
of western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also provides a movement
corridor to habitat farther north.
Unit 6: CA-6 Prado Flood Control Basin; Riverside County
Proposed critical habitat unit CA-6, the Prado Flood Control Basin,
is 4,406 ac (1,784 ha). It is located in Riverside County,
approximately 4 mi (7 km) west
[[Page 48561]]
of the city of Corona, Riverside County, California. The Prado Basin is
a wetland and riparian complex that is formed by the impoundment of the
Santa Ana River behind Prado Flood Control Dam (Prado Dam). Chino
Creek, Mill (Cucamonga) Creek, and Temescal Wash are tributaries to the
Santa Ana River that meet within Prado Basin. The dam is operated
primarily for flood control. The Prado Basin is not permanently
inundated. Instead, water is only temporarily impounded behind the dam,
leaving much of Prado Basin's area open most of the time, which has
allowed riparian vegetation to grow over much of the area. The Santa
Ana River forms a 4-mi (6-km)-long continuous segment of riparian
habitat. Approximately 1,300 ac (526 ha), or 30 percent, are in Federal
ownership managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 3,106 ac
(1,257 ha), or 70 percent, of proposed unit CA-6 are owned and managed
by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), or is privately owned. The
site provides a movement corridor between larger habitat patches.
Tamarisk and giant reed (Arundo donax), nonnative species that reduce
the quality of the habitat, are a major component at this site. The
site is important to the conservation of the species because it is the
largest remaining block of riparian habitat in this region into which a
recovering population can expand and the only remaining site in
southwestern California where the species has recently nested.
California-Arizona (2 Units)
Unit 7: CA/AZ-1 Colorado River 1; Imperial, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties, California; Yuma and La Paz Counties, Arizona
Proposed critical habitat unit CA/AZ-1 is 78,961 ac (31,954 ha) in
extent. It is a 139-mi (224-km)-long continuous segment of the Colorado
River from 2 mi (3 km) south of the town of Earp in La Paz County,
Arizona, south to the Mexican border in Imperial County, California.
This segment passes through Riverside and San Bernardino Counties in
California, and Yuma County in Arizona. Approximately 19,713 ac (7,978
ha), or 25 percent, of proposed Unit CA-AZ-1 are privately owned;
22,485 ac (9,099 ha), or 28 percent, are Tribal lands located on the
Colorado River Indian Reservation; 4,187 ac (1,695 ha), or 5 percent,
are in State ownership located on the Picacho State Recreation Area
managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and Mittry
Lake Wildlife Area managed by Arizona Game and Fish Department; and
32,576 ac (13,183 ha), or 41 percent, are in Federal ownership located
on Cibola NWR and Imperial NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The site has a small existing number of breeding western
yellow-billed cuckoos, but has great potential for riparian habitat
restoration, which is currently being implemented. Western yellow-
billed cuckoos are colonizing these restoration sites as soon as they
provide suitable habitat. It provides a movement corridor to habitat
patches farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 8: CA/AZ-2 Colorado River 2; San Bernardino County, California;
Mojave County, Arizona
Proposed critical habitat unit CA/AZ-2 is 23,452 ac (9,491 ha) in
extent. It is a 23-mi (37-km)-long continuous segment of the Colorado
River between the Interstate 40 Bridge, including Topock Marsh in San
Bernardino County, California, and upstream to the Arizona-Nevada
border in Mojave County, Arizona. Approximately 3,532 ac (1,429 ha), or
15 percent, of proposed Unit CA/AZ-2 are privately owned; 4,730 ac
(1,914 ha), or 20 percent, are Tribal lands located on the Fort Mojave
Indian Reservation; 1 ac (less than 1 ha), or less than 1 percent, is
owned by State governments; and 15,189 ac (6,147 ha), or 65 percent,
are in Federal ownership located on the Havasu NWR managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The site has a small existing number of
western yellow-billed cuckoos, and has great potential for riparian
habitat restoration, which is currently being implemented. It also
provides a movement corridor to habitat patches farther north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
major habitat component of this unit.
Arizona (37 Units)
Unit 9: AZ-1 Bill Williams River; Mojave and La Paz Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-1 is 3,390 ac (1,372 ha) in
extent and is a 11-mi (18-km)-long continuous segment of the Bill
Williams River, a tributary to the Colorado River, from the upstream
end of Lake Havasu upstream to Castaneda Wash in Mojave and La Paz
Counties, Arizona. Approximately 750 ac (304 ha), or 22 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-1 are privately owned, and 2,640 ac (1,068 ha), or 78
percent, are in Federal ownership located on the Bill Williams River
NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This site is
important for breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos as one of the
largest and most stable breeding areas over the past 40 years.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 10: AZ-2 Alamo Lake; Mojave and La Paz Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-2 totals 2,794 ac (1,131 ha) in
extent and is 9 mi (15 km) of continuous stream made up of a 6-mi (10-
km)-long continuous segment of the Santa Maria River and a 3-mi (5-km)-
long continuous segment of the Big Sandy River that feeds into the
Santa Maria River above Alamo Lake State Park in Mojave and La Paz
Counties, Arizona. Approximately 954 ac (386 ha), or 34 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-2 are privately owned, and 1,840 ac (745 ha), or 66
percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. No paved roads or
road crossings occur within this proposed unit. This is a regular
nesting area for western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site provides a
movement corridor to habitat sites farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative
species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major component of
habitat in this unit.
Unit 11: AZ-3 Lake Mead; Mohave County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-3 is 6,734 ac (2,725 ha) in
extent and is a 15-mi (24-km)-long continuous segment of the Colorado
River between the upstream end of Lake Mead and the Kingman Wash area
in Mohave County, Arizona. All of proposed unit AZ-3 is in Federal
ownership located on the Lake Mead National Recreation Area managed by
the NPS. No State or County road crossings occur with this proposed
unit. This site consistently has breeding western yellow-billed
cuckoos. The site also provides a movement corridor to breeding sites
to the north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's
value, is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 12: AZ-4 Lower Gila River; Yuma County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-4 is 12,047 ac (4,875 ha) in
extent and is a 22-mi (35-km)-long continuous segment of the lower Gila
River from the vicinity of the Town of Ligurta to upstream of the
confluence with Mohawk Wash, and including Quigley Pond Wildlife
Management Area in Yuma County, Arizona. Approximately 3,548 ac (1,436
ha), or 29 percent, of proposed unit AZ-4 are privately owned; 1,086 ac
(440 ha), or 9 percent, are in State ownership and
[[Page 48562]]
managed by the Arizona State Lands Department; and 7,413 ac (3,000 ha),
or 62 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. Several sites
in this unit have consistently had breeding western yellow-billed
cuckoos. The site provides stopover locations for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a major component of habitat in this
unit.
Unit 13: AZ-5 Upper Santa Maria River; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-5 is 1,636 ac (662 ha) in extent
and is a 15-mi (24-km)-long continuous segment of the upper Santa Maria
River from 1 mi (2 km) west of State Highway 93 upstream to near State
Highway 96 in Yavapai County, Arizona. Approximately 727 ac (294 ha),
or 44 percent, of proposed unit AZ-5 are privately owned; 336 ac (136
ha), or 21 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the Arizona
State Lands Department; and 573 ac (232 ha), or 35 percent, are in
Federal ownership managed by BLM. The site has been occupied
consistently by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding
season. The site also provides a migratory stopover habitat for western
yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative
species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component
of habitat in this unit.
Unit 14: AZ-6 Hassayampa River; Yavapai and Maricopa Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-6 is 2,838 ac (1,148 ha) in
extent and is a 13-mi (21-km)-long continuous segment of the Hassayampa
River in the vicinity of Wickenburg in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties,
Arizona. Approximately 2,237 ac (905 ha), or 79 percent, of proposed
unit AZ-6 are privately owned; 10 ac (4 ha), or less than 1 percent,
are in State ownership and managed by Arizona State Lands Department;
and 591 ac (239 ha), or 21 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by
BLM. This site consistently has breeding western yellow-billed cuckoos.
The site also provides a movement corridor for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 15: AZ-7 Gila and Salt Rivers; Maricopa County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-7 is 17,585 ac (7,116 ha) in
extent and is a 26-mi (42-km)-long continuous segment of the Gila and
Salt Rivers west of Phoenix in Maricopa County, Arizona. Approximately
9,356 ac (3,786 ha), or 53 percent, of proposed unit AZ-7 are privately
owned; 868 ac (351 ha), or 5 percent, are Tribal lands located on the
Gila River Indian Reservation; 2,642 ac (1,069 ha), or 15 percent, are
in State ownership and managed by the Arizona State Lands Department;
and 4,719 ac (1,910 ha), or 27 percent, are in Federal ownership
managed by BLM. This site has consistently been used by nesting western
yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also provides migrant stopover habitat
for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat value, is a major component
of habitat in this unit.
Unit 16: AZ-8 Agua Fria River; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-8 is 3,337 ac (1,350 ha) in
extent and is made up of a 17-mi (27-km)-long continuous segment of the
Agua Fria River (called Ash Creek above the confluence with Sycamore
Creek), which is joined by a 5-mi (8-km)-long continuous segment of a
tributary called Sycamore Creek. Together they form a total of 22 mi
(35.4 km) of continuous segments located approximately 2.5 mi (4.0 km)
east of Cordes Lakes in Yavapai County, Arizona. Approximately 1,300 ac
(526 ha), or 39 percent, of proposed unit AZ-8 are privately owned; 235
ac (95 ha), or 7 percent, are in State ownership and managed by Arizona
State Lands Department; and 1,802 ac (729 ha), or 54 percent, are in
Federal ownership managed by BLM. This site has consistently been used
by numerous breeding pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site
also provides migration stopover habitat for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a major component of habitat in this
unit.
Unit 17: AZ-9 Upper Verde River; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-9 is 4,531 ac (1,834 ha) in
extent and is a 45-mi (72-km)-long continuous segment of the upper
Verde River from the confluence with Granite Creek downstream to Oak
Creek below the Town of Cottonwood in Yavapai County, Arizona.
Approximately 1,538 ac (622 ha), or 34 percent, of proposed unit AZ-9
are privately owned; 776 ac (314 ha), or 17 percent, are in State
ownership and managed by the Arizona State Lands Department; and 2,217
ac (897 ha), or 49 percent, are in Federal ownership, which includes
lands primarily in the Prescott National Forest managed by the USFS and
a small portion in Tuzigoot National Monument managed by the NPS. This
site is a consistent breeding location for numerous pairs of western
yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also provides a movement corridor and
migration stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving
farther north to breed. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 18: AZ-10 Oak Creek; Yavapai and Coconino Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-10 is 1,323 ac (535 ha) in extent
and is a 21-mi (34-km)-long continuous segment of Oak Creek from the
vicinity of the Town of Cornville at Spring Creek in Yavapai County
upstream to State Highway 179 Bridge within the City of Sedona in
Coconino County, Arizona. Approximately 730 ac (295 ha), or 55 percent,
of proposed unit AZ-10 are privately owned; 160 ac (65 ha), or 12
percent, are in State ownership located in Red Rock State Park managed
by Arizona State Parks; and 433 ac (175 ha), or 33 percent, are in
Federal ownership located on the Coconino National Forest managed by
the USFS. Western yellow-billed cuckoos have consistently bred in this
unit. The site also provides a movement corridor and migratory stopover
habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther to the north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 19: AZ-11 Beaver Creek and Tributaries; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-11 is 2,082 ac (842 ha) in extent
and is a 23-mi (37-km)-long continuous segment of Beaver Creek from the
confluence with the Verde River near Camp Verde upstream to above the
Town of Rimrock in Yavapai County, Arizona. Approximately 588 ac (238
ha), or 28 percent, of proposed unit AZ-11 are privately owned; 3 ac (1
ha), or less than 1 percent, are Tribal lands located on the Camp Verde
Indian Reservation; and 1,491 ac (603 ha), or 72 percent, are in
Federal ownership, which includes lands in Montezuma Castle National
Monument managed by the NPS and Coconino National Forest managed by the
USFS. Numerous western yellow-billed cuckoos have consistently used
this site during the breeding season. The site also provides migratory
stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther
north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
[[Page 48563]]
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 20: AZ-12 Lower Verde River and West Clear Creek; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-12 is 2,053 ac (831 ha) in extent
and is made up of a 13-mi (21-km)-long segment of the lower Verde
River, which is joined by a 5-mi (8-km)-long continuous segment of a
tributary called West Clear Creek. Together they form an 18-mi (29-km)-
long continuous segment located in the vicinity of Camp Verde Indian
Reservation. Approximately 1,532 ac (620 ha), or 75 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-12 are privately owned; 43 ac (17 ha), or 2 percent,
are Tribal lands located on the Camp Verde Indian Reservation; 31 ac
(13 ha), or 2 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the State
of Arizona; and 447 ac (181 ha), or 22 percent, are in Federal
ownership located on the Prescott National Forest managed by the USFS.
Numerous western yellow-billed cuckoos have consistently used this site
during the breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover
habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 21: AZ-13 Horseshoe Dam; Yavapai County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-13 is 626 ac (253 ha) in extent
and is a 3-mi (5-km)-long continuous segment of the Verde River
immediately upstream of Horseshoe Dam in Yavapai County, Arizona. The
entire unit is in Federal ownership located on the Tonto National
Forest managed by the USFS. No State and County roads or road crossings
occur within this proposed unit. Western yellow-billed cuckoos have
consistently bred at this site. The site also provides migratory
stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther
north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value,
is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 22: AZ-14 Tonto Creek; Gila County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-14 is 3,670 ac (1,485 ha) in
extent and is made up of a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of
Tonto Creek upstream from the lakebed at Theodore Roosevelt Lake in
Gila County, Arizona. Approximately 1,141 ac (462 ha), or 31 percent,
of proposed unit AZ-14 are privately owned, and 2,529 ac (1,023 ha), or
69 percent, are in Federal ownership located on the Tonto National
Forest managed by the USFS. Numerous western yellow-billed cuckoos have
consistently bred in this unit. The site also provides a movement
corridor and migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat
in this unit.
Unit 23: AZ-15 Pinal Creek; Gila County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-15 is 419 ac (170 ha) in extent
and is a 3-mi (5-km)-long continuous segment of Pinal Creek location
north of the Town of Globe in Gila County, Arizona. Approximately 389
ac (157 ha), or 93 percent, of proposed unit AZ-15 are privately owned,
and 30 ac (12 ha), or 7 percent, are in Federal ownership located on
the Tonto National Forest managed by the USFS. This site has been
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor between
larger habitat patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 24: AZ-16 Bonita Creek; Graham County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-16 is 929 ac (376 ha) in extent
and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of the Gila River that
includes a continuous segment of a tributary called Bonita Creek
located northeast of the Town of Thatcher in Graham County, Arizona.
Approximately 101 ac (41 ha), or 11 percent, of proposed unit AZ-16 are
privately owned, and 828 ac (335 ha), or 89 percent, are in Federal
ownership, which includes lands in the Gila Box Riparian National
Conservation Area managed by BLM. This site has been consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides a movement corridor between larger habitat
patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's
value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 25: AZ-17 San Francisco River 1; Greenlee County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-17 is a 1,327 ac (537 ha) in
extent and is a 4-mi (6-km)-long continuous segment of the San
Francisco River that includes a continuous segment of a tributary
called Dix Creek located approximately 6 mi (9.6 km) west of the border
with New Mexico in Greenlee County, Arizona. Approximately 135 ac (55
ha), or 10 percent, of proposed unit AZ-17 are privately owned, and
1,192 ac (482 ha), or 90 percent, are in Federal ownership located on
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest managed by the USFS. No State or
County road crossings occur within this proposed unit. This unit has
been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor between
larger habitat patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 26: AZ-18 Upper San Pedro River; Cochise County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-18 is 21,786 ac (8,816 ha) in
extent and is a 83-mi (133-km)-long segment of the Upper San Pedro
River from the border with Mexico north to the vicinity of the Town of
Saint David in Cochise County, Arizona. Approximately 9,145 ac (3,701
ha), or 42 percent, of proposed unit AZ-18 are privately owned; 1,292
ac (523 ha), or 6 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the
Arizona State Lands Department; and 11,349 ac (4,593 ha), or 52
percent, are in Federal ownership located on the San Pedro Riparian
National Conservation Area managed by BLM. This unit has one of the
largest remaining breeding groups of the western yellow-billed cuckoo
and is consistently occupied by a large number of pairs. The site also
provides a movement corridor for Western yellow-billed cuckoos moving
farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's
value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 27: AZ-19 Hooker Hot Springs; Cochise County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-19 is 375 ac (152 ha) in extent
and is a 3-mi (5-km)-long forked segment of a tributary to the Lower
San Pedro River at Hooker Hot Springs in Cochise County, Arizona.
Approximately 208 ac (84 ha), or 55 percent, of proposed unit AZ-19 are
privately owned; 4 ac (2 ha), or 1 percent, are in State ownership and
managed by the Arizona State Lands Department; and 163 ac (66 ha), or
43 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. No State or County
road crossings occur within this proposed unit. This unit is
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a migratory stopover location.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
[[Page 48564]]
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 28: AZ-20 Lower San Pedro River and Gila River; Cochise, Pima, and
Pinal Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-20 is 23,399 ac (9,469 ha) in
extent and is a 59-mi (95-km)-long segment of the Lower San Pedro River
from above the Town of Mammoth in Pima County downstream to join the
Gila River, where it continues downstream to below the Town of Kearny
in Pinal County, Arizona. Approximately 17,431 ac (7,054 ha), or 75
percent, of proposed unit AZ-20 are privately owned; 729 ac (295 ha),
or 3 percent, are Tribal lands located on the San Carlos Indian
Reservation; 2,282 ac (923 ha), or 10 percent, are in State ownership
and managed by the Arizona State Lands Department; and 2,957 ac (1,197
ha), or 13 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. This is an
important breeding area for western yellow-billed cuckoos and is
consistently occupied by a number of pairs during the breeding season.
The site also provides a movement corridor and migratory stopover
location for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 29: AZ-21 Picacho Reservoir--Flood Control Basin; Pinal County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-21 is 2,789 ac (1,129 ha) in
extent and is a 2-mi (3-km)-long reservoir located 11 mi (18 km) south
of Coolidge in Pinal County, Arizona. Approximately 1,513 ac (612 ha),
or 54 percent, of proposed unit AZ-21 are privately owned; 941 ac (381
ha), or 34 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the Arizona
State Lands Department; and 335 ac (136 ha), or 12 percent, are in
Federal ownership managed by BLM. This unit is consistently occupied by
western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also provides migratory
stopover habitat. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 30: AZ-22 Peritas Wash; Pima County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-22 is 894 ac (362 ha) in extent
and is a 4-mi (6-km)-long continuous segment of Peritas Wash located
approximately 20 mi (30 km) west of the Town of Green Valley in Pima
County, Arizona. Approximately 724 ac (293 ha), or 81 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-22 are State-owned, and 170 ac (69 ha), or 19 percent,
are in Federal ownership located on the Buenos Aires NWR managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No State and County roads occur within
this proposed unit. This unit has been consistently occupied by western
yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also
provides a movement corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to
major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 31: AZ-23 Arivaca Wash and San Luis Wash; Pima County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-23 is 5,765 ac (2,333 ha) in
extent and is made up of two washes that join to form a 17-mi (27-km)-
long continuous segment that is comprised of 9 mi (15 km) of Arivaca
Wash and 8 mi (13 km) of San Luis Wash. The unit is located about 10 mi
(16 km) north of the border of Mexico near the Town of Arivaca in Pima
County, Arizona. Approximately 1,014 ac (410 ha), or 18 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-23 are privately owned; 89 ac (36 ha), or 2 percent,
are in State ownership and managed by the Arizona State Lands
Department; and 4,662 ac (1,887 ha), or 81 percent, are in Federal
ownership located on the Buenos Aires NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-
billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides a
movement corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative
species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component
of habitat in this unit.
Unit 32: AZ-24 Sonoita Creek; Santa Cruz County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-24 is 1,610 ac (652 ha) in extent
and is a 12-mi (19-km)-long segment of Sonoita Creek from the Town of
Patagonia downstream to a point on the creek approximately 4 mi (6 km)
east of the Town of Rio Rico in Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
Approximately 835 ac (338 ha), or 52 percent, of proposed unit AZ-24
are privately owned, and 775 ac (314 ha), or 48 percent, are in State
ownership located on Patagonia Lake State Park managed by the Arizona
State Parks. This is a consistent site for a number of pairs of western
yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also
provides a movement corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to
major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 33: AZ-25 Upper Cienega Creek; Pima County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-25 is 5,204 ac (2,106 ha) in
extent and is made up of two washes that join to form a 14-mi (23-km)-
long continuous segment and is comprised of 10 mi (16 km) of Cienega
Creek and 4 mi (7 km) of Empire Gulch located about 8 mi (12 km)
northeast of the Town of Sonoita in Pima County, Arizona. Approximately
574 ac (232 ha), or 11 percent, are in State ownership and managed by
the Arizona State Lands Department, and 4,630 ac (1,874 ha), or 89
percent, are in Federal ownership located on the Coronado National
Forest managed by the USFS. No State and County roads occur within this
proposed unit. This unit is consistently occupied by a number of pairs
of western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site
also provides a movement corridor for western yellow-billed cuckoos
nesting farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 34: AZ-26 Santa Cruz River; Santa Cruz County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-26 is 3,689 ac (1,493 ha) in
extent and is a 5-mi (8-km)-long segment of the Santa Cruz River in the
vicinity of the Town of Tubac in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This
proposed unit AZ-26 is entirely privately owned. This unit has
consistently been occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor for western
yellow-billed cuckoos nesting farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative
species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component
of habitat in this unit.
Unit 35: AZ-27 Black Draw; Cochise County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-27 is 890 ac (360 ha) in extent
and is a 4-mi (6-km)-long segment of Black Draw starting on the border
with Mexico and located approximately 17 mi (28 km) east of the City of
Douglas in Cochise County, Arizona. Approximately 440 ac (178 ha), or
49 percent, of proposed unit AZ-27 are privately owned; 45 ac (18 ha),
or 5 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the Arizona State
Lands Department; and 405 ac (164 ha), or 46 percent, are in Federal
ownership, which includes lands in the San Bernardino NWR managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No State or County road crossings
occur within this
[[Page 48565]]
proposed unit. This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-
billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides a
migratory stopover area. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 36: AZ-28 Gila River 1; Graham County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-28 is 20,726 ac (8,388 ha) in
extent and is a 66-mi (106-km)-long segment of the Gila River from 12
mi (19 km) upstream from Safford and downstream to San Carlos
Reservoir. Approximately 9,547 ac (3,864 ha), or 46 percent, of
proposed unit AZ-28 are privately owned; 10,183 ac (4,121 ha), or 49
percent, are Tribal lands located on the San Carlos Indian Reservation;
216 ac (87 ha), or 1 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the
Arizona State Lands Department; and 780 ac (316 ha), or 4 percent, are
in Federal ownership managed by BLM. No State or County road crossings
occur within this proposed unit. This unit is consistently occupied by
a number of pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding
season. The site also provides a migration stopover and movement
corridor habitat. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 37: AZ-29 Salt River; Gila County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-29 is 2,590 ac (1,048 ha) in
extent and is a 5-mi (8-km)-long continuous segment of the Salt River
upstream from the lakebed at Theodore Roosevelt Lake in Gila County,
Arizona. Approximately 121 ac (49 ha), or 5 percent, of proposed unit
AZ-29 are privately owned, and 2,469 ac (999 ha), or 95 percent, are in
Federal ownership located on the Tonto National Forest managed by the
USFS. This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides a movement
corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative species
that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of
habitat in this unit.
Unit 38: AZ-30 Lower Cienega Creek; Pima County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-30 is 2,360 ac (955 ha) in extent
and is an 11-mi (18-km)-long continuous segment of Cienega Creek about
15 mi (24 km) southeast of Tucson in Pima County, Arizona.
Approximately 1,601 ac (648 ha), or 68 percent, of proposed unit AZ-30
are privately owned, and 759 ac (307 ha), or 32 percent, are in State
ownership and managed the Arizona State Lands Department. This unit is
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor between
larger habitat patches. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 39: AZ-31 Blue River; Greenlee County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-31 is 1,025 ac (415 ha) in extent
and is an 8-mi (13-km)-long continuous segment of the Blue River in
Greenlee County, Arizona. The entire unit is in Federal ownership
located on the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest managed by the USFS.
This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos
during the breeding season. The site provides a movement corridor.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 40: AZ-32 Pinto Creek South; Gila County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-32 is 373 ac (151 ha) in extent
and is a 4-mi (6-km)-long continuous segment of Pinto Creek in Gila
County, Arizona. Approximately 5 ac (2 ha), or 1 percent, of proposed
unit AZ-32 are privately owned, and 368 ac (149 ha), or 99 percent, are
in Federal ownership located on the Tonto National Forest managed by
the USFS. The site also provides migratory stopover habitat. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to
major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 41: AZ-33 Aravaipa Creek; Pima and Graham Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-33 is 1,209 ac (489 ha) in extent
and is a 9-mi (15-km)-long continuous segment of Aravaipa Creek in Pima
and Graham Counties, Arizona. Approximately 738 ac (299 ha), or 61
percent, of proposed unit AZ-33 are privately owned; 1 ac (less than 1
ha) is in State ownership and managed by the Arizona State Lands
Department; and 470 ac (190 ha), or 39 percent, are in Federal
ownership managed by BLM. This unit has consistently been occupied by
western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also
provides a movement corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to
major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 42: AZ-34 Lower Verde River; Maricopa County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-34 is 1,079 ac (437 ha) in extent
and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of the Lower Verde River
downstream from Bartlett Dam in Maricopa County, Arizona. Approximately
16 ac (6 ha), or 1 percent, of proposed unit AZ-34 are privately owned,
and 1,063 ac (430 ha), or 99 percent, are in Federal ownership located
on the Tonto National Forest managed by the USFS. This unit is
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major
component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 43: AZ-35 Gila River 3; Graham and Greenlee Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-35 is 2,194 ac (888 ha) and 22 mi
(34 km) in extent. It is a 12-mi (18-km)-long continuous segment of the
Gila River, 9 mi (14 km) on Eagle Creek, and 1 mi (2 km) on the San
Francisco River in Graham and Greenlee Counties, Arizona. Approximately
1,067 ac (432 ha), or 49 percent, of proposed unit AZ-35 are privately
owned; 1 ac (less than 1 ha), or less than 1 percent, is in State
ownership and managed by the Arizona State Lands Department; and 1,126
acres (456 ha), or 51 percent, are in Federal ownership located on the
Gila Box Riparian National Conservation Area managed by BLM. This unit
has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during
the breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor for
migrating western yellow-billed cuckoos. Tamarisk, a nonnative species
that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor component of habitat in
this unit.
Unit 44: AZ-36 Pinto Creek North; Gila County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-36 is 427 ac (173 ha) in extent
and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of Pinto Creek in Gila
County, Arizona. Approximately 12 ac (5 ha), or 3 percent, of proposed
unit AZ-36 are privately owned, and 415 ac (168 ha), or 97 percent, are
in Federal ownership located on the Tonto National Forest managed by
the USFS. This unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-
billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides
migration stopover habitat. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces
the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat in this
unit.
[[Page 48566]]
Unit 45: AZ-37 Florida Wash; Pima County
Proposed critical habitat unit AZ-37 is 188 ac (76 ha) in extent
and is a 4-mi (6-km)-long continuous segment of Florida Wash and
tributaries in Pima County, Arizona. Approximately 43 ac (17 ha), or 23
percent, of proposed unit AZ-36 are privately owned; 32 ac (13 ha), or
17 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the Arizona State
Lands Department; and 113 ac (46 ha), or 61 percent, are in Federal
ownership managed by BLM. This unit has been consistently occupied by
western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site
provides a movement corridor between larger habitat patches. Tamarisk,
a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to
major component of habitat in this unit.
New Mexico (8 Units)
Unit 46: NM-1 San Juan River 1; San Juan County
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-1 is 6,354 ac (2,571 ha) in
extent and is a 35-mi (56-km)-long continuous segment of the San Juan
River between just downstream of Fruitland to just downstream of Blanco
in San Juan County, New Mexico. Approximately 4,456 ac (1,803 ha), or
70 percent, of proposed unit NM-1 are privately owned; 1,041 ac (421
ha), or 16 percent, are Tribal lands located on the Navajo Nation; 177
ac (72 ha), or 3 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the New
Mexico State Lands Office; and 680 ac (275 ha), or 11 percent, are in
Federal ownership managed by BLM. This unit has been consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoos breeding farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species
that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of
habitat in this unit.
Unit 47: NM-3 San Francisco River 2; Catron County
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-3 is 2,039 ac (825 ha) in extent
and is a 10-mi (16-km)-long continuous segment of the San Francisco
River near the Town of Glenwood in Catron County, New Mexico. This
segment includes 1.2 mi (2 km) up Whitewater Creek from the confluence
of the San Francisco River near the Town of Glenwood. Approximately
1,291 ac (522 ha), or 63 percent, of proposed unit NM-3 are privately
owned; 10 ac (4 ha), or less than 1 percent, are in State ownership and
managed by the New Mexico State Lands Office; and 738 ac (299 ha), or
36 percent, are in Federal ownership located on the Gila National
Forest managed by the USFS. This unit has been consistently occupied by
western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also
provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos
moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a minor component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 48: NM-4 Gila River 2; Grant and Hidalgo Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-4 is 4,179 ac (1,691 ha) in
extent and is a 24-mi (37-km)-long continuous segment of the Gila River
from 10 mi (16 km) downstream from the town of Cliff to 10 mi (16 km)
upstream of the town of Gila in Grant County, New Mexico. Approximately
3,003 ac (1,215 ha), or 72 percent, of proposed unit NM-4 are privately
owned; 201 ac (81 ha), or 5 percent, is in State ownership and managed
by the New Mexico State Lands Office; and 975 ac (395 ha), or 23
percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. This unit is
consistently occupied by a large number of western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season and is an important breeding
location for the species. The site also provides migratory stopover
habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor to major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 49: NM-5 Mimbres River; Grant County
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-5 is 260 ac (105 ha) in extent
and is a 3-mi (5-km)-long continuous segment of the Mimbres River south
of the town of Mimbres in Grant County, New Mexico. The entire proposed
unit NM-5 is privately owned. This unit is consistently occupied by
western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major
component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 50: NM-6 Upper Rio Grande 1; Rio Arriba County
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-6 is 1,830 ac (741 ha) in extent
and is a 10-mi (16-km)-long continuous segment of the upper Rio Grande
from the San Juan Pueblo to near Alcalde in Rio Arriba County, New
Mexico. Approximately 517 ac (209 ha), or 28 percent, of proposed unit
NM-6 are privately owned, and 1,313 ac (532 ha), or 72 percent, are
Tribal lands located on the San Juan Pueblo. This site is consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides a movement corridor for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat
in this unit.
Unit 51: NM-7 Middle Rio Grande 2; Santa Fe and Rio Arriba Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-7 is 1,173 ac (475 ha) in extent
and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of the Middle Rio Grande
starting from the Highway 502 Bridge at the south end of the San
Ildefonso Pueblo upstream to a point on the river in Rio Arriba County,
New Mexico. The entire proposed unit NM-7 is Tribal lands located on
the San Ildefonso Pueblo, Santa Clara Pueblo, and San Juan Pueblo. This
unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos
during the breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor
for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major
component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 52: NM-8 Middle Rio Grande 1; Sierra, Socorro, Valencia,
Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-8 is 61,959 ac (25,074 ha) in
extent and is an approximate 170-mi (273-km)-long continuous segment of
the lower Rio Grande from Elephant Butte Reservoir in Sierra County
upstream through Socorro, Valencia, and Bernalillo Counties to below
Cochiti Dam in Cochiti Pueblo in Sandoval County, New Mexico.
Approximately 31,953 ac (12,931 ha), or 52 percent, of proposed unit
NM-8 are privately owned; 938 ac (380 ha), or 2 percent, are in State
ownership, including lands managed by the New Mexico State Lands
Office; 9,509 ac (3,848 ha), or 15 percent, are Tribal lands located on
Isleta Pueblo, Sandia Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Santa Ana Pueblo,
Santa Domingo Pueblo, and Cochiti Pueblo; and 19,559 ac (7,915 ha), or
32 percent, are in Federal ownership located on Bosque del Apache NWR
and Sevilleta NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
lands owned and managed by BLM and Reclamation down to river-mile 54.
This unit is consistently occupied by a large number of breeding
western yellow-billed cuckoos and currently is the largest breeding
group of the species north of Mexico. The site also provides a movement
corridor for
[[Page 48567]]
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major
component of habitat in this unit. We are seeking information on the
appropriateness of including areas down to river-mile 42 as critical
habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo (see Information Requested
section).
Unit 53: NM-9 Upper Gila River; Hidalgo and Grant Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit NM-9 is 4,614 ac (1,867 ha) in
extent and is a 30-mi (48-mi)-long continuous segment of the Gila River
from the Arizona-New Mexico border 5 mi (8 km) downstream from Virden
in Hidalgo County upstream to 8 mi (13 km) upstream from Red Rock in
Grant County, New Mexico. Approximately 3,207 ac (1,298 ha), or 69
percent, of proposed unit NM-9 are privately owned; 423 ac (171 ha), or
9 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the New Mexico State
Lands Office; and 984 ac (398 ha), or 21 percent, are in Federal
ownership, which includes lands managed by BLM and lands located on the
Gila National Forest managed by the USFS. This site is consistently
occupied by numerous pairs of western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site provides migratory stopover habitat for
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major
component of habitat in this unit.
Colorado (7 Units)
Unit 54: CO-1 Yampa River; Moffat and Routt Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-1 is 6,938 ac (2,808 ha) in
extent and is a 20-mi (32-km)-long continuous segment of the Yampa
River from near the Town of Craig in Moffat County to near the Town of
Hayden in Routt County, Colorado. Approximately 5,739 ac (2,322 ha), or
83 percent, of proposed unit CO-1 are privately owned, and 1,199 ac
(485 ha), or 17 percent, are located on Yampa River State Wildlife Area
managed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This site has regularly
been occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding
season. This high-elevation site is near the current northern limit of
the current breeding range of the species.
Unit 55: CO-2 Colorado River 3; Mesa County
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-2 is 4,002 ac (1,620 ha) in
extent and is a 25-mi (40-km)-long continuous segment of the Colorado
River in the vicinity of Grand Junction in Mesa County, Colorado.
Approximately 3,553 ac (1,438 ha), or 89 percent, of proposed unit CO-2
are privately owned; 418 ac (169 ha), or 10 percent, are in State
ownership located on the Corn Lake and Walker State Wildlife Areas
managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife; and 31 ac (13 ha), or 1
percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. The Colorado River
Wildlife Management Area managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
holds conservation easements on several private parcels in this unit.
This unit has been occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site
also provides a migration stopover habitat for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 56: CO-3 North Fork Gunnison River; Delta County
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-3 is 2,326 ac (941 ha) in extent
and is a 16-mi (26-km)-long continuous segment of the North Fork of the
Gunnison River between Hotchkiss and Paeonia in Delta County, Colorado.
Approximately 2,211 ac (895 ha), or 95 percent, of proposed unit CO-3
are privately owned, and 115 ac (47 ha), or 5 percent, are in Federal
ownership, which includes lands in the Hotchkiss National Fish Hatchery
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and lands managed by BLM.
This unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides migratory
stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther
north.
Unit 57: CO-4 Uncompahgre River; Delta, Montrose, and Ouray Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-4 is 4,506 ac (1,824 ha) in
extent and is a 37-mi (60-km)-long continuous segment of the
Uncompahgre River from the confluence with the Gunnison River in Delta
County, upstream through Montrose to south of the Town of Colona in
Ouray County, Colorado. Approximately 4,497 ac (1,820 ha), or nearly
100 percent, of proposed unit CO-4 are privately owned; 7 ac (3 ha), or
less than 1 percent, are in State ownership located on the Billy Creek
State Wildlife Area managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife; and 2 ac (1
ha), or less than 1 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM.
This site has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides a movement
corridor and migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed
cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 58: CO-5 Gunnison River; Gunnison County
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-5 is 937 ac (379 ha) in extent
and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of the Gunnison River
from Blue Mesa Reservoir upstream to Highway 50 in Gunnison County,
Colorado. Approximately 921 ac (373 ha), or 98 percent, of proposed
unit CO-5 are privately owned, and 16 ac (6 ha), or 2 percent, are in
Federal ownership located on the Curecanti National Recreation Area
managed by the NPS. This unit has been occupied by western yellow-
billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides
migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving
farther north.
Unit 59: CO-6 Upper Rio Grande 3; Alamosa and Rio Grande Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-6 is 9,765 ac (3,952 ha) in
extent and is a 45-mi (73-km)-long continuous segment of the Rio Grande
from Alamosa in Alamosa County upstream to Alpine in Rio Grande County,
Colorado. Approximately 9,751 ac (3,946 ha), or nearly 100 percent, of
proposed unit CO-6 are privately owned, and 14 ac (6 ha), or less than
1 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. This high-elevation
unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos.
The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 60: CO-7 Conejos River; Conejos County
Proposed critical habitat unit CO-7 is 8,986 ac (3,637 ha) in
extent and is a 62-mi (100-km)-long continuous segment of the Conejos
River from the confluence with the Rio Grande upstream to Fox Creek in
Conejos County, Colorado. Approximately 8,609 ac (3,484 ha), or 96
percent, of proposed unit CO-7 are privately owned; 47 ac (19 ha), or 1
percent, are in State ownership, which includes lands in the Sego
Springs State Wildlife Area managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife; and
330 ac (134 ha), or 4 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM.
This high-elevation unit has been consistently occupied by western
yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also provides migratory stopover
habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
[[Page 48568]]
Utah (8 Units)
Unit 61: UT-1 Green River 1; Uintah County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-1 is 17,256 ac (6,983 ha) in
extent and is a 38-mi (61-km)-long continuous segment of the Green
River in the vicinity of Ouray in Uintah County, Utah. Approximately
1,296 ac (524 ha), or 8 percent, of proposed unit UT-1 are privately
owned; 6,848 ac (2,772 ha), or 40 percent, are Tribal lands located on
the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation; 4,411 ac (1,786 ha), or 26
percent, are in State-ownership managed by Utah Division of Forestry,
Fire, and State Lands; and 4,701 ac (1,902 ha), or 27 percent, are in
Federal ownership, which includes lands located on the Ouray NWR
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and lands managed by BLM.
This unit has consistently had western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides a movement corridor for western
yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 62: UT-2 Pigeon Water Creek and Lake Fork River; Duchesne County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-2 is 3,041 ac (1,231 ha) in
extent and is a 9-mi (15-km)-long continuous segment of Lake Fork River
located approximately 12 mi (19 km) west of the Town of Roosevelt in
Duchesne County, Utah. Approximately 1,701 ac (688 ha), or 56 percent,
of proposed unit UT-2 are privately owned, and 1,340 ac (543 ha), or 44
percent, are Tribal lands located on the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation. This unit has been consistently occupied by western
yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also
provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos
moving farther north.
Unit 63: UT-3 Colorado River 4; Grand County, Utah and Mesa County,
Colorado
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-3 is 579 ac (234 ha) in extent
and is a 3-mi (5-km)-long continuous segment of the Colorado River that
straddles the Utah-Colorado Border between Westwater in Grand County,
Utah, to a point 2 mi (3 km) up the river in Mesa County, Colorado.
Approximately 132 ac (53 ha), or 23 percent, of proposed unit UT-3 are
privately owned; 238 ac (96 ha), or 39 percent, are in State ownership
managed by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands; and
209 ac (85 ha), or 36 percent, are in Federal ownership and managed by
BLM. No paved roads or road crossings occur within this proposed unit.
This unit has been occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 64: UT-4 Dolores River; Grand County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-4 is 401 ac (162 ha) in extent
and is a 2-mi (3-km)-long continuous segment of the lower Dolores River
near the confluence with the Colorado River in Grand County, Utah.
Approximately 136 ac (55 ha), or 34 percent, of proposed unit UT-4 are
privately owned; 150 ac (61 ha), or 37 percent, are in State ownership
managed by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands; and
115 ac (47 ha), or 29 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM.
No road crossings occur within this proposed unit. This unit has been
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 65: UT-5 Green River 2; San Juan and Wayne Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-5 is 4,657 ac (1,885 ha) in
extent and is a 41-mi (66-km)-long continuous segment of the Green
River upstream from the confluence with the Colorado River in both San
Juan and Wayne Counties, Utah. The entire unit is in Federal ownership
located on the Canyonlands National Park, managed by the NPS. No road
crossings occur within this proposed unit. This unit is consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Unit 66: UT-6 San Juan River 2; San Juan County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-6 is 2,198 ac (889 ha) in extent
and is a 5-mi (8-km)-long continuous segment of the San Juan River at
the upper extent of Lake Powell in San Juan County, Utah. The entire
unit is in Federal ownership located on the Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area managed by the NPS. No paved roads or road crossings
occur within this proposed unit. This unit has been consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat
in this unit.
Unit 67: UT-7 San Juan River 3; San Juan County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-7 is 9,692 ac (3,922 ha) in
extent and is a 33-mi (53-km)-long continuous segment of the San Juan
River from near Bluff and upstream to a point on the river in San Juan
County, Utah. Approximately 299 ac (121 ha), or 3 percent, of proposed
unit UT-7 are privately owned; 7,766 ac (3,144 ha), or 80 percent, are
Tribal lands located on the Navajo Nation; 38 ac (15 ha), or less than
1 percent, are in State ownership managed by Utah Division of Forestry,
Fire, and State Lands; and 1,589 ac (643 ha), or 16 percent, are in
Federal ownership managed by BLM. This unit has been consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-
billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that
reduces the habitat's value, is a minor to major component of habitat
in the southwest.
Unit 68: UT-8 Virgin River 2; Washington County
Proposed critical habitat unit UT-8 is 1,390 ac (562 ha) in extent
and is a 13-mi (21-km)-long continuous segment of the Virgin River in
the vicinity of St. George in Washington County, Utah. Approximately
1,352 ac (547 ha), or 97 percent, of proposed unit UT-8 are privately
owned; 6 ac (2 ha), or less than 1 percent, are in State ownership
managed by Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands; and 32 ac
(13 ha), or 2 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. This
unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos
during the breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover
habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north.
Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a
minor to major component of habitat in the southwest.
Idaho (4 Units)
Unit 69: ID-1 Snake River 1; Bannock and Bingham Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit ID-1 is 9,294 ac (3,761 ha) in
extent and is a 22-mi (35-km)-long continuous segment of the Snake
River from the upstream end of the American Falls Reservoir in Bannock
County upstream to a point on the Snake River approximately 2 mi (3 km)
west of the Town of Blackfoot in Bingham County, Idaho. Approximately
[[Page 48569]]
3,343 ac (1,353 ha), or 36 percent, of proposed unit ID-1 are privately
owned; 2 (1 ha), or less then 1 percent, are in State ownership managed
by the Idaho Department of Lands; 2,257 ac (913 ha), or 24 percent, are
Tribal lands located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation; and 3,692 ac
(1,494 ha), or 40 percent, are in Federal ownership (BIA 117 ac (47
ha), BLM 3,260 ac (1,323 ha), and BOR 315 ac (127 ha)). This unit is
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The unit is at the northern limit of the species'
current breeding range.
Unit 70: ID-2 Snake River 2; Bonneville, Madison, and Jefferson
Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit ID-2 is 11,439 ac (4,629 ha) in
extent and is a 40-mi (64-km)-long continuous segment of the Snake
River from the bridge crossing on the Snake River 2 mi (3 km) east of
the Town of Roberts in Madison County through Jefferson County and
upstream to vicinity of mouth of Table Rock Canyon in Bonneville
County, Idaho. Approximately 5,472 ac (2,214 ha), or 48 percent, of
proposed unit ID-2 are privately owned; 106 ac (43 ha), or 1 percent,
are in State ownership and managed by Idaho Department of Lands; and
5,861 ac (2.372 ha), or 51 percent, are in Federal ownership, which
includes lands managed by BLM and lands located in the Caribou-Targhee
National Forest managed by USFS. Portions of Unit 70 (and Unit 72) are
within lands designated as the Snake River Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC) by BLM and the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) program has purchased 32 properties in fee title and set
aside approximately 42 conservation easements (22,400 ac (9,065 ha))
within the ACEC. The western yellow-billed cuckoo has been identified
as a species of concern in the ACEC. State and County road crossings
account for less than 1 percent of total ownership of this proposed
unit. This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season. The unit is at the northern limit
of the species' current breeding range.
Unit 71: ID-3 Big Wood River; Blaine County
Proposed critical habitat unit ID-3 is 1,129 ac (457 ha) in extent
and is a 7-mi (11-km)-long continuous segment of the Big Wood River
downstream from Bellevue in Blaine County, Idaho. Approximately 956 ac
(387 ha), or 85 percent, of proposed unit ID-3 are privately owned; 85
ac (34 ha), or 8 percent, are in State ownership and managed by Idaho
Department of Lands; and 88 ac (36 ha), or 8 percent, are in Federal
ownership managed by BLM. This unit is consistently occupied by western
yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The unit is at the
northern limit of the species' current breeding range.
Unit 72: ID-4 Henry's Fork and Teton Rivers; Madison County
Proposed critical habitat unit ID-4 is 3,449 ac (1,396 ha) in
extent and is a 6-mi (10-km)-long continuous segment of the Henry's
Fork of the Snake River in Madison County from just upstream of the
confluence with the Snake River to a point on the river approximately 2
km (1 mi) upstream of the Madison County line in Fremont County, Idaho.
Approximately 2,712 ac (1,098 ha), or 79 percent, of proposed unit ID-4
are privately owned; 341 ac (138 ha), or 10 percent, are in State
ownership and managed by the Idaho Department of Lands; and 396 ac (160
ha), or 11 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM (see
discussion in Unit 70 of conservation activities within this unit).
This unit is consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos
during the breeding season. The unit is at the northern limit of the
species' current breeding range.
Nevada (3 Units)
Unit 73: NV-1 Upper Muddy River; Clark County
Proposed critical habitat unit NV-1 is 1,472 ac (596 ha) in extent
and is a 5-mi (8-km)-long continuous segment of the Muddy River from
upstream of the confluence with the Virgin River at Lake Mead up to the
vicinity of the Moapa Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada.
Approximately 157 ac (64 ha), or 11 percent, of proposed unit NV-1 are
privately owned, and 1,315 ac (532 ha), or 89 percent, are in Federal
ownership located at Lake Mead managed by Reclamation and the Moapa
Valley NWR managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This unit has
been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major
component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 74: NV-3 Lower Muddy River; Clark County
Proposed critical habitat unit NV-3 is 437 ac (177 km) in extent
and is a 2-mi (3-km)-long continuous segment of the Lower Muddy River
in Clark County, Nevada. The entire proposed unit is privately owned.
This unit has been consistently occupied by western yellow-billed
cuckoos during the breeding season. The site also provides migratory
stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther
north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value,
is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 75: NV-4 Carson River; Lyon County
Proposed critical habitat unit NV-4 is 4,348 ac (1,760 km) in
extent and is a 12-mi (19-km)-long continuous segment of the Carson
River in Lyon County, Nevada. Approximately 3,186 ac (1,289 ha), or 73
percent, of proposed unit NV-4 are privately owned; 13 ac (5 ha), or
less than 1 percent, are in State ownership located on the Lahontan
State Recreation Area and managed by the Nevada State Parks; and 1,149
ac (465 ha), or 26 percent, are in Federal ownership managed by BLM and
Reclamation. This unit has consistently been occupied by western
yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
Nevada-Arizona (1 Unit)
Unit 76: NV/AZ-1 Virgin River 1; Clark County, Nevada, and Mohave
County, Arizona
Proposed critical habitat unit NV/AZ-1 is 11,266 ac (4,559 ha) in
extent and is a 39-mi (63-km)-long continuous segment of the Virgin
River from the upstream extent of Lake Mead in Clark County, Nevada,
upstream to a point on the Virgin River downstream from Littlefield in
Mohave County, Arizona. Approximately 4,077 ac (1,650 ha), or 36
percent, of proposed unit NV/AZ-1 are privately owned; 52 ac (21 ha),
or less than 1 percent, are in State ownership and managed by the
Arizona State Lands Department; and 7,137 ac (2,888 ha), or 63 percent,
are in Federal ownership managed by BLM. This unit has been
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The site also provides migratory stopover habitat for
western yellow-billed cuckoos moving farther north. Tamarisk, a
nonnative species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major
component of habitat in this unit.
Wyoming (1 Unit)
Unit 77: WY-1 Green River 3; Sweetwater County
Proposed critical habitat unit WY-1 is 7,471 ac (3,023 ha) in
extent and is a 28-mi (45-km)-long continuous segment of the Green
River in the vicinity of
[[Page 48570]]
Seedskadee NWR in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Approximately 1,137 ac
(460 ha), or 15 percent, of proposed unit WY-1 are privately owned; 629
ac (255 ha), or 8 percent, are in State ownership and managed by
Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments; and 5,705 ac (2,309 ha),
or 76 percent, are in Federal ownership located on the Seedskadee NWR
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This unit is
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the
breeding season. The unit is at the northern limit of the species'
current breeding range.
Wyoming-Utah (1 Unit)
Unit 78: WY/UT-1 Henry's Fork of Green River; Uinta County, Wyoming,
and Summit County, Utah
Proposed critical habitat unit WY/UT-1 is 9,306 ac (3,760 ha) in
extent and totals 24 mi (39 km) of continuous stream made up of a 15-mi
(24-km)-long continuous segment of the Henry's Fork of the Green River
in Uinta and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming, and a 9-mi (15-km) segment
of the Middle Fork of Beaver Creek that originates in Summit County,
Utah, and feeds into Henry's Fork near Lonetree in Uinta County,
Wyoming. Approximately 8,934 ac (3,615 ha), or 96 percent, of proposed
unit WY/UT-1 are privately owned; 228 ac (92 ha), or 3 percent, are in
State ownership and managed by the Wyoming Office of State Lands and
Investments; and 144 ac (58 ha), or 2 percent, are in Federal ownership
including lands located on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest managed by
the USFS and lands managed by BLM. This high-elevation unit has been
consistently occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos. The site also
provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos
moving farther north.
Texas (2 Units)
Unit 79: TX-1 Arroyo Caballo, Rio Grande; Hudspeth County
Proposed critical habitat unit TX-1 is 1,261 ac (510 ha) in extent
and a 8-mi (13-km)-long continuous segment along the Rio Grande
upstream and downstream from Arroyo Caballo in Hudspeth County, Texas.
The entire unit is privately owned. This unit is consistently occupied
by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season. The site
provides migratory stopover habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoos
breeding farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative species that reduces the
habitat's value, is a major component of habitat in this unit.
Unit 80: TX-2 Terlingua Creek and Rio Grande; Presidio and Brewster
Counties
Proposed critical habitat unit TX-2 is 7,792 ac (3,153 ha) in
extent and is a 45-mi (72-km)-long continuous segment from lower
Terlingua Creek in Presidio County to the Rio Grande in Brewster
County, Texas. The entire unit is in Federal ownership located on Big
Bend National Park managed by the NPS. This unit has been consistently
occupied by western yellow-billed cuckoos during the breeding season.
The site also provides a north-south movement corridor for western
yellow-billed cuckoos breeding farther north. Tamarisk, a nonnative
species that reduces the habitat's value, is a major component of
habitat in this unit.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat
of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service
under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not
federally funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action;
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
[[Page 48571]]
designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency
has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or
the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by
law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request
reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the western yellow-billed
cuckoo. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support
life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of
the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. These activities
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would remove, thin, or destroy riparian western
yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, without implementation of an effective
riparian restoration plan that would result in the development of
riparian vegetation of equal or better quality in abundance and extent.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, removing,
thinning, or destroying riparian vegetation by mechanical (including
controlled fire), chemical, or biological (poorly managed biocontrol
agents) means. These activities could reduce the amount or extent of
riparian habitat needed by western yellow-billed cuckoos for
sheltering, feeding, breeding, and dispersing.
(2) Actions that would appreciably diminish habitat value or
quality through direct or indirect effects. These activities could
permanently eliminate available riparian habitat and food availability
or degrade the general suitability, quality, structure, abundance,
longevity, and vigor of riparian vegetation. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, diminished or altered riverflow
regimes including water diversion or impoundment, ground water pumping,
dam construction and operation, or any other activity which negatively
changes the frequency, magnitude, duration, timing, or abundance of
surface flow; spraying of pesticides that would reduce insect prey
populations within or adjacent to riparian habitat; introduction of
nonnative plants, animals, or insects; or habitat degradation from
recreation activities. These activities could reduce or fragment the
quality or amount or extent of riparian habitat needed by western
yellow-billed cuckoos for sheltering, feeding, breeding, and
dispersing.
(3) Actions that would permanently destroy or alter western yellow-
billed cuckoo habitat. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling,
pond construction, and stream channelization (due to roads,
construction of bridges, impoundments, discharge pipes, stormwater
detention basins, dikes, levees, and others). These activities could
permanently eliminate available riparian habitat and food availability
or degrade the general suitability, quality, structure, abundance,
longevity, and vigor of riparian vegetation and microhabitat components
necessary for nesting, migrating, food, cover, and shelter.
(4) Actions that would result in alteration of western yellow-
billed cuckoo habitat from overgrazing of livestock or ungulate (for
example, horses, burros) management. Such activities could include, but
are not limited to, unrestricted ungulate access and use of riparian
vegetation; excessive ungulate use of riparian vegetation during the
non-growing season (for example, leaf drop to bud break); overuse of
riparian habitat and upland vegetation due to insufficient herbaceous
vegetation available to ungulates; and improper herding, water
development, or other livestock management actions. These activities
could reduce the volume and composition of riparian vegetation, prevent
regeneration of riparian plant species, physically disturb nests, alter
floodplain dynamics, alter watershed and soil characteristics, alter
stream morphology, and facilitate the growth of flammable nonnative
plant species.
(5) Actions in relation to the Federal highway system, which could
include, but are not limited to, new road construction and right-of-way
designation. These activities could eliminate or reduce riparian
habitat along river crossings necessary for reproduction, sheltering,
or growth of the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
(6) Actions that would involve funding of activities associated
with cleaning up Superfund sites, erosion control activities, flood
control activities, and communication towers. These activities could
eliminate or reduce habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
(7) Actions that would affect waters of the United States under
section 404 of the CWA. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, placement of fill into wetlands. These activities could
eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the reproduction,
feeding, or growth of the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
[[Page 48572]]
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary
shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical
areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated
for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources
management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise her discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equivalent or more conservation when compared to a critical habitat
designation.
In the case of western yellow-billed cuckoo, the benefits of
critical habitat include public awareness of the western yellow-billed
cuckoo presence and the importance of habitat protection, and where a
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for western yellow-
billed cuckoo due to the protection from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate a management or conservation plan and consider the
benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of factors, including but
not limited to, whether the plan is finalized, how the plan provides
for the conservation of the essential physical or biological features,
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future, whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective, and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of both inclusion and exclusion, we
carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis indicates that
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we then
determine whether exclusion would result in extinction. If exclusion of
an area from critical habitat will result in extinction, the Secretary
will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in the proposed critical habitat (Table 3) are
appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final
designation. Several tribes have not been identified for potential
exclusion at this time; however we will be coordinating and working
with all tribes potentially affected by the proposed designation
throughout this process and may exclude them from the final
designation. Please see Government-to-Government Relationship with
Tribes section, below, for a complete list of tribes currently within
the proposed designation.
Table 3 below provides approximate areas of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat but are under our consideration for
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
critical habitat rule.
Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area meeting the
definition of Area considered for
Unit Specific area critical habitat, in possible exclusion,
acres (ha) in acres (ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA-4.................................... South Fork Kern River 2,862 (1,158) 160 (65)
Valley.
CA-5.................................... Owens River............... 1,598 (647) 1,598 (647)
CA-6.................................... Prado Flood Control Basin. 4,406 (1,784) 4,406 (1,784)
CA/AZ-1................................. Colorado River 1.......... 78,961 (31,954) 55,061 (22,292)
CA/AZ-2................................. Colorado River 2.......... 23,452 (9,491) 20,025 (8,107)
AZ-1.................................... Bill Williams River....... 3,390 (1,372) 2,640 (1,069)
AZ-2.................................... Alamo Lake................ 2,794 (1,131) 1,840 (745)
AZ-3.................................... Lake Mead................. 6,734 (2,725) 6,734 (2,725)
AZ-4.................................... Lower Gila River.......... 12,047 (4,875) 7,413 (3,001)
AZ-7.................................... Gila and Salt Rivers...... 17,585 (7,116) 868 (351)
AZ-11................................... Beaver Creek and 2,082 (842) 3 (1)
tributaries.
AZ-12................................... Lower Verde River and West 2,053 (831) 43 (17)
Clear Creek.
[[Page 48573]]
AZ-13................................... Horseshoe Dam............. 626 (253) 626 (253)
AZ-14................................... Tonto Creek............... 3,670 (1,485) 3,155 (1,277)
AZ-20................................... Lower San Pedro and Gila 23,399 (9,469) 23,399 (9,469)
Rivers.
AZ-22................................... Peritas Wash.............. 894 (362) 894 (362)
AZ-23................................... Arivaca Wash and San Luis 5,765 (2,333) 5,765 (2,333)
Wash.
AZ-25................................... Upper Cienega Creek....... 5,204 (2,106) 5,204 (2,106)
AZ-28................................... Gila River 1.............. 20,726 (8,388) 10,183 (4,123)
AZ-29................................... Salt River................ 2,590 (1,048) 2,469 (1,000)
AZ-30................................... Lower Cienega Creek....... 2,360 (955) 2,360 (955)
AZ-34................................... Lower Verde River......... 1,079 (437) 1,079 (437)
AZ-37................................... Florida Wash.............. 188 (76) 188 (76)
NM-1.................................... San Juan River 1.......... 6,354 (2,571) 1,041 (421)
NM-7.................................... Middle Rio Grande 2....... 1,173 (475) 1,173 (475)
NM-8.................................... Middle Rio Grande 1....... 61,959 (25,074) 17,096 (6,922)
CO-6.................................... Rio Grande 3.............. 9,765 (3,952) 9,751 (3,947)
CO-7.................................... Conejos River............. 8,986 (3,637) 8,656 (3,503)
ID-1.................................... Snake River 1............. 9,294 (3,761) 3,427 (1,312)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are considering excluding these areas because:
(1) Their value for conservation will be preserved for the
foreseeable future by existing protective actions, or
(2) They are appropriate for exclusion under the ``other relevant
factor'' provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of these areas. In the paragraphs below, we provide a
detailed analysis of exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act. We have also added an Addendum entitled Land Ownership/
Management and Potential Economic Impacts for Proposed Yellow-billed
Cuckoo Critical Habitat to our Incremental Effects Memorandum that lays
out in table form the Service's policy considerations under section
4(B)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. This Addendum was developed
following the finalization of the Incremental Effects Memorandum and
the information in the Incremental Effects Memorandum was used to
inform the policy considerations.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we
have determined that the lands within the proposed designation of
critical habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no
impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not
propose to exert her discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as
well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) The plan is complete and provides an equal or greater level of
protection from adverse modification or destruction than that provided
through a consultation under section 7 of the Act;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented in the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations; and
(3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We believe that the following HCPs, plans, partnerships, and
agreements may fulfill the above criteria, and will consider the
exclusion of these Federal, tribal, and non-Federal lands covered by
these plans that provide for the conservation of the western yellow-
billed cuckoo. We are requesting comments on the benefits to the
western yellow-billed cuckoo from these following HCPs, plans,
partnerships, and agreements. However, at this time, we are not
proposing the exclusion of any areas in this proposed critical habitat
designation for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. We specifically
solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such areas and
request any information on any other potential exclusions. We may
consider other areas for exclusion based on public comment and
information we receive and on our further review of the proposed
designation and its potential impacts.
Most of the following information on HCPs, plans, partnerships, and
agreements was obtained from the August 15, 2011, proposed designation
of revised critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher
(flycatcher) (Empidonax traillii extimus) (76 FR 50542). The areas used
by the flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo overlap in several
areas in the southwestern United States and management actions for the
flycatcher often benefit the western yellow-billed cuckoo. These
various plans describe beneficial actions for the flycatcher within the
same area that we are proposing to designate as western yellow-billed
cuckoo critical habitat. We will consider whether these beneficial
[[Page 48574]]
actions for the flycatcher are appropriate for considering exclusion of
a given proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo unit from final western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
California
South Fork Kern River Valley (Unit 4 CA-4) (Hafenfeld Ranch
Conservation Easement)
The Hafenfeld Ranch owns and manages a segment (40 ac (16 ha)) of
proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along the South
Fork Kern River within the Kern River Management Unit in Kern County,
California. The Hafenfeld Ranch has developed a conservation easement
and plan with the Natural Resources Conservation Service that provides
management and protections for flycatcher habitat. We are evaluating
whether these actions also provide benefit for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo. The Hafenfeld parcel completes a continuous corridor of
willow-cottonwood riparian habitat along the South Fork Kern River that
connects the east and west segments of the Audubon Society's Kern River
Preserve. The conservation easement and plan establishes that these
lands are managed for the benefit of the flycatcher by restoring,
improving, and protecting its habitat. Management activities include:
(1) Limiting public access to the site, (2) winter-only grazing
practices (outside of the flycatcher nesting season), (3) protection of
the site from development or encroachment, (4) maintenance of the site
as permanent open space that has been left predominantly in its natural
vegetative state, and (5) spreading of flood waters to promote the
moisture regime and wetland and riparian vegetation for the
conservation of the flycatcher. Prohibitions of the easement that would
benefit the conservation of the flycatcher include: (1) Haying, mowing,
or seed harvesting; (2) altering the grassland, woodland, wildlife
habitat, or other natural features; (3) dumping refuse, wastes, sewage,
or other debris; (4) harvesting wood products; (5) draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, diking, or impounding water
features or altering the existing surface water drainage or flows
naturally occurring within the easement area; and (6) building or
placing structures on the easement.
Based on the actions to benefit the flycatcher we will consider
excluding the Hafenfeld Ranch lands within Unit 4 (40 ac (16 ha)) from
final western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Sprague Ranch
Sprague Ranch is an approximately 2,479-ac (1,003-ha) parcel, which
includes approximately 395 ha (975 ac) of floodplain habitat located
along the South Fork of the Kern River in Kern County, California.
Sprague Ranch was purchased by the USACE as a result of biological
opinions for the long-term operation of Lake Isabella Dam and Reservoir
(Service 1996 File Nos. 1-1-96-F-27; 1-1-99-F-216; and 1-1-05-F-0067),
specifically to provide habitat and conservation for the flycatcher.
Many of the actions may also benefit the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
During the periods of time flycatcher habitat is not available at Lake
Isabella Reservoir as a result of short-term inundation from Isabella
Dam operations, Sprague Ranch is expected to provide habitat for the
flycatcher. The USACE, National Audubon Society (Audubon), and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (formerly California
Department of Fish and Game) have a joint management agreement for this
property, which is important flycatcher habitat. Sprague Ranch is
located immediately north and adjacent to the Kern River Preserve,
which is owned and operated by Audubon, and shares a common border with
the Kern River Preserve (KRP) of over 3 mi (4.8 km). Sprague Ranch
contains existing riparian forest that can support and maintain nesting
territories and migrating and dispersing flycatchers. Other portions of
the ranch are believed to require restoration and management in order
to become nesting flycatcher habitat. Activities such as nonnative
vegetation control and native tree plantings are other management
activities expected to occur. Sprague Ranch is currently being managed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the biological opinions
specifically for the flycatcher.
Based on the anticipated benefits to the western yellow-billed
cuckoo that would derive from the actions to benefit the flycatcher we
will consider excluding approximately 120 ac (49 ha) in Unit 4 along
the South Fork Kern River on Sprague Ranch from final western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Owens River (Unit 5, CA-5)
LADWP Conservation Strategy. The LADWP owns and manages a proposed
segment of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along the
Owens River in Inyo County, California. We believe that LADWP owns and
manages the entire extent of 1,598 ac (647 ha) of western yellow-billed
cuckoo habitat within this proposed unit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the LADWP signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005, to
implement a flycatcher conservation strategy designed to proactively
manage flycatchers in the Owens Management Unit, along the Owens River
from Long Valley Dam downstream to 4 mi (6 km) north of Tinemaha
Reservoir. The conservation strategy addresses three elements--
livestock grazing, recreational activities, and wildfires--which have
the potential to adversely affect flycatcher habitat. The conservation
strategy provides specific measures that: (1) Are designed to create
suitable breeding habitat for the flycatcher; and (2) avoid and
minimize potential adverse effects, such as the degradation or loss of
habitat that may be associated with grazing activities, recreational
activities, and wildland fires. Based on the actions to benefit the
flycatcher, which will also benefit the western yellow-billed cuckoo,
we will consider excluding 1,598 ac (647 ha) of LADWP lands from the
final western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage any public comments in
relation to this consideration.
Prado Basin (Unit 6, CA-6)
We are considering excluding under section 4(b)(2) of the Act areas
covered by the Western Riverside MSHCP from the final designation of
critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo. We are
considering to do so based on the protections described below (see
``Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts'' section) and per the
provisions laid out in the MSHCP's implementing agreement, to the
extent consistent with the requirements of section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
We are considering excluding all of proposed Unit 6 (4,406 ac (1,784
ha)) from the final designation.
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(Western Riverside MSHCP)
The Western Riverside MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-
jurisdictional plan encompassing approximately 1,260,000 ac (510,000
ha) of the Riverside County west of the San Jacinto Mountains (County
of Riverside 2003a, p. 1-1). The Western Riverside MSHCP is a
subregional plan under the State of California's Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act (NCCP) and was developed in cooperation with
the CDFW (County of Riverside 2003a, p. 1-1). The Western Riverside
MSHCP is a
[[Page 48575]]
multi-species conservation program designed to minimize and mitigate
the effects of expected habitat loss and associated incidental take of
146 listed and nonlisted ``covered species,'' including the western
yellow-billed cuckoo (County of Riverside 2003d, pp. B-555 to B-572). A
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for the Western Riverside MSHCP was issued
to 22 permittees on June 22, 2004, for a period of 75 years (Service
2004b, p. 1). There are now 27 permittees under the Western Riverside
MSHCP.
When fully implemented, the Western Riverside MSHCP will conserve
approximately 153,000 ac (61,917 ha) of new conservation lands
(Additional Reserve Lands) in addition to the approximately 347,000 ac
(140,400 ha) of pre-existing natural and open space areas (known in the
plan as ``Public/Quasi-Public'' (PQP) lands) (County of Riverside
2003a, pp. 1-16 to 1-17). The PQP lands include those under the
ownership of public or quasi-public agencies, primarily the USFS and
BLM, as well as the USACE, plus permittee-owned or controlled open-
space areas managed by the State of California and the County of
Riverside. Lands owned by the Orange County Water District (OCWD)
within the Prado Basin are also considered PQP lands under the Western
Riverside MSHCP. The Plan's ``Additional Reserve Lands'' are not fully
mapped or precisely delineated (that is, they are not ``hard-lined'');
rather, they are textual descriptions of habitat necessary to meet the
conservation goals for all covered species within the boundaries of the
approximately 500,000-ac (202,343-ha) ``MSHCP Conservation Area'' and
are determined as implementation of the HCP occurs.
Under the Western Riverside MSHCP, the Prado Basin is considered
``core habitat'' and a ``linkage'' area (County of Riverside 2003b, p.
3-31; Service 2004a, p. 49). As discussed in the Western Riverside
MSHCP (County of Riverside 2003c, pp. 9-87 to 9-88), the HCP was
designed to preserve ``core areas'' of the western yellow-billed
cuckoo, including the Prado Basin, which is considered an ``important
core area'' for the species.
We evaluated the effects of the Western Riverside MSHCP on the
western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat within the plan boundaries
as part of the inter-Service section 7 consultation conducted for the
MSHCP. As summarized in the biological opinion (Service 2004a, pp. 231-
232), we estimated 4,613 ac (1,867 ha) of modeled habitat within the
Plan Area. Only 77 ac (31 ha), or 2 percent, of this modeled habitat is
outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. To offset potential impacts to the
western yellow-billed cuckoo in the Plan Area, 4,250 ac (1,720 ha), or
92 percent, of western yellow-billed cuckoo modeled habitat will remain
within PQP Lands. An additional 287 ac (116 ha), or 6 percent, of
modeled habitat will be conserved in Additional Reserve Lands with
management prescriptions that will benefit the western yellow-billed
cuckoo. In total, 4,537 ac (1,836 ha), or 98 percent, of the modeled
habitat will be conserved or remain in the Plan Area.
Additionally, the OCWD, which funds and maintains its lands in
Prado Basin, has set aside 124 acres of riparian habitat and has funded
a conservation program. The conservation program was established
primarily to benefit the endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus), but it will also benefit other species dependent on riparian
vegetation, including the western yellow-billed cuckoo. The program
includes cowbird trapping and removal of giant reed along the Santa Ana
River (Service 2004a, p. 59).
We determined that implementing the Western Riverside MSHCP plan
would not place the western yellow-billed cuckoo at risk of extinction
(Service 2004a, p. 235). In addition, we acknowledged in section 14.10
of the implementing agreement (IA) for the Western Riverside MSHCP that
the plan provides a comprehensive, habitat-based approach to the
protection of covered species, including the western yellow-billed
cuckoo, by focusing on lands essential for the long-term conservation
of the covered species and appropriate management for those lands
(Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA) et
al. 2003, p. 51). The most significant threats to the species are the
destruction and modification of its habitat, habitat rarity, and small
isolated populations. The Western Riverside MSHCP helps to address
these threats through a regional planning effort, and outlines species-
specific objectives and criteria for the conservation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo. As discussed above, we are considering excluding
lands within the Plan Areas for the Western Riverside MSHCP. As noted
in the Information Requested section, we are soliciting comments on
whether to exclude areas covered by HCPs.
Arizona
Alamo Lake (Unit 10, AZ-2), Alamo Lake State Wildlife Area (AWA)
The Alamo Lake State Wildlife Area (AWA) in La Paz and Mohave
Counties, Arizona, was created under provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Public Land Order
492 (PLO 492), and the General Plan agreement between the Secretary of
the Army, Secretary of the Interior, and Director of Arizona Game and
Fish, signed January 19, 1968 (Arizona Game and Fish Department-Arizona
State Parks 1997). A lease agreement between the Arizona Game and Fish
Department Commission and the USACE was signed in 1970, establishing
the AWA for fish and wildlife conservation and management purposes
(Arizona Game and Fish Department-Arizona State Parks 1997). The
present lease area encompasses approximately 9,140 ha (22,586 ac).
Public input was solicited and addressed in development of the AWA
Management Plan and the NEPA review process (Arizona Game and Fish
Department-Arizona State Parks 1997). The corresponding Alamo Wildlife
Area Property Operational Management Plan addressing the operations of
the property, together with the budget, is updated as needed to reflect
the changes in operational management (Arizona Game and Fish Department
2012).
Proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat occurs along
the Big Sandy, Santa Maria, and Bill Williams Rivers, which make up the
upper portion of Alamo Lake. The AWA Management Plan describes the
unique riparian, wetland, and aquatic aspects of the area for a variety
of species, specifically targeting the flycatcher for management and
including the western yellow-billed cuckoo as a species of wildlife
concern. Two of the specific resources that are directed toward the
habitat needs of the flycatcher and the western yellow-billed cuckoo:
(1) Maintain and enhance aquatic and riparian habitats to benefit
wildlife; and (2) restore, manage, and enhance habitats for wildlife of
special concern. Large Fremont cottonwood and Goodding's willow
forests, mesquite bosque, and small areas of wetland currently exist
along the Big Sandy, Santa Maria, and upper Bill Williams Rivers.
Increasing and improving these habitats will benefit riparian- and
wetland-dependent species (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2012, p. 4-
6). The objective for maintaining and enhancing riparian habitat
includes (a) Maintaining a reservoir level sufficient to ensure
suitable soil moisture conditions in the mixed riparian forest, and (b)
managing burros and eliminating trespass cattle to ensure that browsing
does not harm existing habitat or impair recruitment of replacement
vegetation. Livestock grazing is
[[Page 48576]]
excluded from the riparian areas on the upper end of Alamo Lake and the
lower portions of the Santa Maria and Big Sandy Rivers. Burro
management objectives are to monitor and limit use of riparian
vegetation such that annual bark stripping of live trees does not
exceed 3 percent in any of the key monitoring areas (Arizona Game and
Fish Department 2012, p. 10). Fencing may be needed to exclude
unauthorized livestock and feral burros, exclude elk, control OHV
access, and better manage authorized livestock (Arizona Game and Fish
Department 2012, pp. 10-12). We will consider excluding 1,840 ac (745
ha) of the Bill Williams, Santa Maria, and Big Sandy Rivers within the
Alamo Lake State Wildlife Area from the final designation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Colorado River; Bill Williams River; Lake Meade; and Lower Gila River
(Unit 7: CA/AZ-1; Unit 8: CA/AZ-2; Unit 9: AZ-1; Unit 11: AZ-3; and
Unit 12: AZ-4)
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Plan (LCR MSCP).
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (2004, pp.
1-506) was developed for areas along the lower Colorado River along the
borders of Arizona, California, and Nevada from the conservation space
of Lake Mead to Mexico, in the Counties of La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma in
Arizona; Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties in
California; and Clark County in Nevada. The LCR MSCP primarily covers
activities associated with water storage, delivery, diversion, and
hydroelectric production. The record of decision was signed by the
Secretary of the Interior on April 2, 2005. Discussions began on the
development of this HCP in 1994, but an important catalyst was a 1997
jeopardy biological opinion for the flycatcher issued to Reclamation
for lower Colorado River operations. The Federal agencies involved in
the LCR MSCP include Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), NPS,
BLM, Western Area Power Administration, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The LCR MSCP planning area primarily surrounds proposed western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along the lower Colorado River
from Lake Mead to the southerly International Border. Portions of the
Colorado River, Lake Mead, Virgin River, and Muddy River in Arizona,
Utah, and Nevada, are included where they surround Lake Mead (including
the conservation space of Lake Mead, which extends up the Colorado
River to Separation Canyon). Also, a portion of the Bill Williams River
at the Colorado River confluence at Lake Havasu occurs within the LCR
MSCP planning area. The LCR MSCP permittees will create and maintain
4,050 ac (1,639 ha) of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat, reduce the
risk of loss of created habitat to wildfire, replace created habitat
affected by wildfire, and avoid and minimize operational and management
impacts to western yellow-billed cuckoos over the 50-year life of the
permit (2005 to 2055) (Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program 2004, pp. 5-30-5-36, Table 5-10, 5-58-5-60). Additional
research, management, monitoring, and protection of western yellow-
billed cuckoos will occur. In addition to western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat creation and subsequent management, the LCR MSCP will provide
funds to ensure existing western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is
maintained. Western yellow-billed cuckoo management associated with the
LCR MSCP is conducted in conjunction with management occurring on the
National Wildlife Refuges (Bill Williams, Havasu, Cibola, and Imperial)
and Tribal lands (Hualapai, Fort Mohave, Chemehuevi, Colorado River,
and Quechan Tribes) along the LCR. We will consider excluding 64,652 ac
(26,175 ha) of land including portions of the Colorado River from the
uppermost storage space of Lake Mead downstream to the southerly
International Border and portions of tributaries (Virgin, Muddy, and
Bill Williams Rivers) to the Colorado River that may occur within the
LCR MSCP planning area from the final designation of western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe (Unit 8, CA/AZ-2). Fort Mojave Indian
Tribal lands contain a proposed Colorado River segment of western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat in the above Lake Havasu in
Mohave County, Arizona. The Fort Mojave Tribe has finalized a
flycatcher management plan (SWFMP), compatible with western yellow-
billed cuckoo management (Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 2005, pp. 1-24). The
Fort Mojave Tribe's SWFMP describes that within the Tribe's budgetary
constraints, they commit to management that will sustain the current
value of saltcedar, willow, and cottonwood vegetation that meets moist
soil conditions necessary to maintain flycatcher habitat; monitoring to
determine flycatcher presence and vegetation status in cooperation with
the Service; and wildfire response and law enforcement to protect
suitable habitats. The Fort Mojave Indian Tribe may also work in
conjunction with the LCR MSCP on additional riparian management (Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe 2005, pp. 1-24). We will consider excluding the
Colorado River within Fort Mojave Tribal land from the final
designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Colorado River Indian Reservation (Unit 7, CA/AZ-1). The Colorado
River Indian Tribal lands (CRIT) contain a proposed Colorado River
segment of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat in La Paz County,
Arizona. The Colorado River Indian Tribes have finalized a flycatcher
management plan compatible with western yellow-billed cuckoo management
(Colorado River Indian Tribes 2005, pp. 1-48). The CRIT's SWFMP
describes a commitment to conduct a variety of habitat management
actions. The SWFMP also identifies the assessment, identification, and
protection of flycatcher migration habitat (Colorado River Indian
Tribes 2005, pp. 1-48). The SWFMP identifies protecting breeding
habitat with the Ahakhav Tribal Preserve and in any areas established
for flycatchers with the LCR MSCP. Seasonal closures of occupied
flycatcher habitat during the breeding season may be necessary and
established by the CRIT. Protection of habitat from fire is established
in the SWFMP, as well as protections from other possible stressors such
as overgrazing, recreation, and development (Colorado River Indian
Tribes 2005, pp. 1-48). The CRIT may also work in conjunction with the
LCR MSCP on additional riparian management. We will consider excluding
the Colorado River within CRIT land from the final designation of
western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (Unit 7, CA/AZ-1). The Quechan Tribal
lands contain a proposed Colorado River segment of western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical near the City of Yuma in Yuma County, Arizona.
The Quechan Tribe has completed a SWFMP that is compatible with western
yellow-billed cuckoo management (Quechan Indian Tribe 2005, pp. 1-30).
The Quechan Tribe's SWFMP describes a commitment to conduct a variety
of habitat management actions. The Tribe will manage riparian tamarisk
that is intermixed with cottonwood, willow, mesquite, and arrowweed
(Pluchea sericea) to maximize potential value for nesting flycatchers
(Quechan Indian Tribe 2005, pp. 1-30). Any permanent land use changes
for recreation or other reasons will consider and support flycatcher
needs, as long as consistent
[[Page 48577]]
with Tribal cultural and economic needs. The Tribe will consult with
the Service to develop and design plans that minimize impacts to
flycatcher habitat. The Tribe will establish collaborative
relationships with the Service to benefit the flycatcher, including
monitoring for flycatcher presence and habitat condition, within the
constraints of available funds to the Tribe. This action is anticipated
to provide benefits to the western yellow-billed cuckoo. The Quechan
Tribe may also work in conjunction with the LCR MSCP on additional
riparian management. We will consider excluding the Colorado River
within Quechan Tribal land from the final designation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Cocopah Tribe of Arizona (Unit 7, CA/AZ-1). The Cocopah Tribal
lands, located 13 mi (21 km) south of Yuma, in Yuma County, Arizona,
contain proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along
the lower Colorado River. We anticipate coordinating with the Cocopah
Tribe regarding development of a riparian plan compatible with western
yellow-billed cuckoo management. The Cocopah Tribe may also work in
conjunction with the LCR MSCP on additional riparian management. We
will consider excluding the Cocopah Tribe of Arizona land from the
final designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Based on these conservation plans, we will consider excluding
27,215 ac (11,013 ha) of Tribal land in the two Colorado River units.
Gila River Indian Community (Unit 15: AZ-7 Gila and Salt Rivers)
The northern boundary of the Gila River Indian Community lands
adjacent to the southwestern boundary of Phoenix, in Maricopa County,
Arizona, contain proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat
along the Salt and Gila rivers. We anticipate coordinating with the
Gila River Indian Community regarding development of a riparian plan
compatible with western yellow-billed cuckoo management. We will
consider excluding 868 ac (351 ha) of Tribal land from the final
designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Horseshoe Dam (Unit 21: AZ-13) and Lower Verde River (Unit 42: AZ-34)
Horseshoe and Bartlett Dam Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
In June 2008, the Service issued an incidental take permit to the
Salt River Project (SRP) for 16 species that inhabit Horseshoe and
Bartlett Reservoirs and the Verde River above and below the two dams in
Gila and Maricopa Counties (Salt River Project 2008, p. 6). The western
yellow-billed cuckoo and flycatcher are two of the covered species in
the permit. Critical habitat on the Verde River is proposed within the
water storage space and upstream of Horseshoe Reservoir and downstream
of Bartlett Lake. The area covered by the permit for the western
yellow-billed cuckoo and flycatcher includes Horseshoe Reservoir up to
an elevation of 2,026 ft (618 m) and Bartlett up to an elevation of
1,748 ft (533 m), (Salt River Project 2008, p. ES-1). The water storage
space within Horseshoe Reservoir is the primary area where impacts to
the western yellow-billed cuckoos and flycatchers are anticipated to
occur through periodic inundation and drying of habitat (Salt River
Project 2008, p. 3). Water storage and periodic inundation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo and flycatcher habitat would likely result in
delayed or lost breeding attempts, decreased productivity and
survivorship of dispersing adults in search of suitable breeding
habitat, and decreased productivity of adults that attempt to breed at
Horseshoe Reservoir. The 50-year Horseshoe and Bartlett Dam HCP
provides measures to minimize and mitigate incidental take while
allowing the continued operation of the two reservoirs (Salt River
Project 2011a, p. 5). These goals will be achieved with the following
measures: (1) Managing water levels in Horseshoe Reservoir to the
extent practicable to benefit or reduce impacts to the covered species;
and (2) acquiring and managing flycatcher and western yellow-billed
cuckoo habitat along rivers in central Arizona to provide a diversity
of geographic locations with habitat like Horseshoe Reservoir (Salt
River Project 2008, p. ES-4). Mitigation efforts include operation of
Horseshoe Reservoir to support tall, dense vegetation at the upper end
of the reservoir and to make riparian habitat available earlier in the
nesting season (Salt River Project 2011a, p. 5). In addition, the HCP
obligates the SRP to monitor western yellow-billed cuckoos,
flycatchers, and habitat at Horseshoe Reservoir (Salt River Project
2011a, p. 8) and mitigation properties. The SRP must acquire and manage
in perpetuity 200 ac (81 ha) of riparian habitat by fee title or
conservation easements (Salt River Project 2011a, p. 5). The SRP has
acquired a conservation easement for 150 ac (60 ha) on the Gila River
near Fort Thomas and is working on acquiring an additional 50 ac (20
ha) (Salt River Project 2011a, p. 5). The SRP provides water from
Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs directly to various beneficiaries of
these storage facilities for irrigation and other uses (Salt River
Project 2008, pp. 11-22). Water from Horseshoe, Bartlett, and the SRP's
other reservoirs is provided directly by the SRP to shareholder lands
for irrigation and other uses, and is delivered to the cities of
Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix,
Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tolleson for municipal use on shareholder lands.
Water deliveries are also made under specific water rights in Horseshoe
and Bartlett Reservoirs held by the City of Phoenix, Salt River Pima
Maricopa Indian Community, and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. In
addition, water is delivered from the SRP reservoir system to the
cities, Gila River Indian Community, Buckeye Irrigation Company, RWCD,
and others in satisfaction of their independent water rights. Finally,
exchange agreements between a number of entities and the SRP pursuant
to State and Federal law are facilitated by stored water from Horseshoe
and Bartlett Reservoirs. We will consider excluding 626 ac (253 ha) in
the water storage area of Horseshoe Reservoir and the 1,079 ac (437 ha)
of the Lower Verde River from the final designation of western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Roosevelt Lake (Unit 22: AZ-14, Tonto Creek, and Unit 37: AZ-29, Salt
River)
In February 2003, the Service issued an incidental take permit to
the SRP for four riparian bird species, including the western yellow-
billed cuckoo and flycatcher for 50 years (Salt River Project 2011b, p.
1). The Tonto Creek and the Salt River confluences with Roosevelt Lake
are proposed as western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat. The
activity covered by the permit is the continued operation by the SRP of
Roosevelt Dam and Lake in Gila and Maricopa Counties, Arizona, up to an
elevation of 2,151 ft (656 m) (Salt River Project 2002, ES-1). The HCP
specifies the following measures to minimize and mitigate incidental
take of the four species: Creating and managing riparian habitat at
Roosevelt Lake; and acquiring and managing riparian habitat in river
basins in central Arizona that the four target bird species are
expected to occupy (Salt River Project 2002, ES-4). The HCP commits the
SRP to acquire 2,250 ac (911 ha) credits, including acquisition and
management of at least 1,500 ac (607 ha) of riparian habitat by fee
title or conservation easement off-site on the San Pedro, Verde, and
Gila
[[Page 48578]]
rivers and protection of up to an additional 750 ac (304 ha). The SRP
has exceeded this obligation, accruing 2,591 ac (1,049 ha) credits
(Salt River Project 2011b, p. 17). The SRP monitors vegetation at
Roosevelt Lake to ensure that adaptive management thresholds or permit
limits are not exceeded (Salt River Project 2011b, p. 6). Because
flycatchers and western yellow-billed cuckoos rely on similar riparian
habitat, most of the mitigation measures serve both species.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo and flycatcher habitat at Roosevelt
Lake varies depending on how and when the lake recedes as a result of
water in-flow and subsequent storage capacity and delivery needs. Even
in the expected high-water years, some flycatcher and western yellow-
billed cuckoo habitat would persist at Roosevelt Lake. Measures in the
HCP to protect habitat at Roosevelt Lake include funding a USFS
employee to patrol and improve protection of flycatcher habitat in the
Roosevelt lakebed from adverse activities such as fire ignition from
human neglect, improper vehicle use, etc. (Salt River Project 2011b, p.
13). The SRP also developed habitat near Roosevelt Lake at offsite Rock
House Farm Site to serve as a potential refugium when Roosevelt Lake is
near capacity (Salt River Project 2011, p. 15). The SRP monitors
habitat conditions, flycatchers, and western yellow-billed cuckoos at
Roosevelt Lake and at offsite mitigation properties (Salt River Project
2011, pp. 19-20). We will consider excluding the water storage area of
Roosevelt Lake including 3,155 ac (1,277 ha) of Unit AZ-14 and 2,469 ac
(1,000 ha) of Unit AZ-29 from the final designation of western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (Unit 28: AZ-20, Lower San
Pedro River and Gila River; Unit 30: AZ-22, Peritas Wash; Unit 31: AZ-
23, Arivaca Wash and San Luis Wash; Unit 33: AZ-25, Upper Cienega
Creek; Unit 38: AZ-30, Lower Cienega Creek; and Unit 45: AZ-37, Florida
Wash).
Under the draft Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Pima County will
avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to 44 species and their habitat
within the Permit Area (a subset of Pima County) during the 30-year
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit period (Pima County 2011a, p. xi). The
primary covered activities are maintenance and construction activities
and certain development activities of the private sector. Pima County
anticipates providing approximately 112,000 ac (45,325 ha) of
mitigation for approximately 36,000 ac (14,568 ha) of disturbance
resulting from covered activities (Pima County 2011a, p. xi). The plan
will conserve and manage western yellow-billed cuckoos by: (1)
Implementing the Pima County Riparian Protection Ordinance to minimize
habitat loss; and (2) protecting water rights at Cienega Creek Natural
Preserve and Buehman Canyon to maintain and restore habitat (Pima
County 2011b, p. A-80). Proposed critical habitat within the
jurisdiction of Pima County includes parts of Cienega Creek, Florida
Wash, Penitas Wash, and the San Pedro River (Pima County 2011a, p. 14).
Pima County will conduct western yellow-billed cuckoo surveys, although
the frequency and locations have yet to be determined. Approximately
8,962 ac (3,626 ha) are proposed as mitigation for the projected loss
of 74 ac (30 ha) of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat; however,
these 74 ac (30 ha) are not proposed as critical habitat (Pima County
2011b, p. A-80). Additional impacts within western yellow-billed cuckoo
habitat resulting from the covered activities may emerge over the 30-
year permit period and will be mitigated accordingly. Pima County will
develop a riparian and aquatic species management that will include
conservation actions to benefit covered species (Pima County 2011a, p.
51). The amount of mitigation credit for implementation of these
conservation actions will be negotiated with the Service on a case-by-
case basis (Pima County 2011a, p. 51). We are considering excluding
37,812 ac (15,308 ha) in these units from the final designation of
western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
Yavapa-Apache Nation (Unit 17: AZ-9, Upper Verde River; Unit 19: AZ-11,
Beaver Creek and Tributaries; and Unit 20: AZ-12, Lower Verde River and
West Clear Creek)
The Yavapai-Apache Nation contains Verde River segments of proposed
western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat in Yavapai County,
Arizona. The small parcels total 638 acres and are located near
Clarkdale, Camp Verde, Middle Verde, Rimrock, and the I-17 interchange
for Montezuma Castle National Monument (Yavapai-Apache Nation 2005, p.
6). The Yavapai-Apache Nation has completed a SWFMP that is compatible
with western yellow-billed cuckoo management (Yavapai-Apache Nation
2005, pp. 1-15). The Yavapai-Apache Nation's SWFMP addresses and
presents assurances for flycatcher habitat conservation. The Yavapai-
Apache Nation will, through zoning, Tribal ordinances and code
requirements, and measures identified in the flycatcher recovery plan,
take all practicable steps to protect known flycatcher habitat located
along the Verde River (Yavapai-Apache Nation 2005, p. 14). The Yavapai-
Apache Nation will take all reasonable measures to assure that no net
habitat loss or permanent modification of flycatcher habitat will
result from recreational and road construction activities, or habitat
restoration activities, and will take all reasonable steps to
coordinate with the Service so that flycatcher habitat is protected.
Within funding limitations and under confidentiality guidelines
established by the Yavapai-Apache Nation, they will cooperate with the
Service to monitor and survey habitat for breeding and migrating
flycatchers, conduct research, and perform habitat restoration, or
other beneficial flycatcher management activities. Because flycatchers
and western yellow-billed cuckoos rely on similar riparian habitat,
most of the mitigation measures serve both species. We will consider
excluding the Verde River segments totaling 46 ac (18 ha) within the
Yavapai-Apache Nation from the final designation of western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
San Carlos Reservation (Unit 28: AZ-20, Lower San Pedro River and Gila
River; Unit 36: AZ-28, Gila River 1)
The San Carlos Apache Tribal lands contain proposed western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat within the conservation space of San
Carlos Lake and the Gila River upstream from San Carlos Lake, in Gila
County, Arizona. The San Carlos Apache Tribe has finalized a SWFMP that
is compatible with western yellow-billed cuckoo management (San Carlos
Apache Tribe 2005, pp. 1-65). Implementation of the San Carlos Apache
Tribe's SWFMP will protect all known flycatcher habitat on San Carlos
Tribal Land and assure no net habitat loss or permanent modification
will result (San Carlos Apache Tribe 2005, p. 36). All habitat
restoration activities (whether to rehabilitate or restore native
plants) will be conducted under reasonable coordination with the
Service. All reasonable measures will be taken to ensure that
recreational activities do not result in a net habitat loss or
permanent modification. All reasonable measures will be taken to
conduct livestock grazing activities under the guidelines established
in the Recovery Plan for the flycatcher. Within funding limitations
[[Page 48579]]
and under confidentiality guidelines established by the Tribe, the
Tribe will cooperate with the Service to monitor and survey habitat for
breeding and migrating flycatchers, conduct research, and perform
habitat restoration, or other beneficial flycatcher management
activities (San Carlos Apache Tribe 2005, pp. 35-36, 45-46). Because
flycatchers and western yellow-billed cuckoos rely on similar riparian
habitat, most of the mitigation measures serve both species. We will
consider excluding 10,912 ac (4,418 ha) of San Carlos Apache Tribal
land from the final designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
New Mexico
San Juan River; San Juan County, New Mexico (Unit 46: NM-1)
Tribal Management Plans and Partnerships--Navajo Nation
The Navajo Nation contains a river segment of the proposed San Juan
River 1 Unit in San Juan County, New Mexico. We will coordinate with
these tribes and examine what western yellow-billed cuckoo conservation
actions, management plans, and other commitments occur on these lands
for potential exclusion of 1,041 ac (421 ha) of Navajo Nation land from
the final designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Upper Rio Grande (Unit 50: NM-6) and Middle Rio Grande (Unit 51: NM-7)
Tribal Management Plans and Partnerships--Santa Clara, San Juan
(Ohkay Owingue), and the San Ildefonso Pueblos. The Santa Clara Pueblo
and the San Juan Pueblo (Ohkay Owingue) contain proposed western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along the Rio Grande within the
Upper Rio Grande Management Unit in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. The
San Ildefonso Pueblo contains proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo
critical habitat along the Rio Grande within the Upper Rio Grande
Management Unit in Santa Fe County, New Mexico.
The Santa Clara Pueblo, the San Juan Pueblo (Ohkay Owingue), and
the San Ildefonso Pueblo have conducted a variety of voluntary
measures, restoration projects, and management actions to conserve the
western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat on their lands. These
Pueblos have made a commitment to the Service to develop an integrated
resources management plan to address multiuse, enhancement, and
management of their natural resources. The pueblos have implemented
fuel reduction of flammable exotic riparian vegetation and native tree
restoration projects in the riparian area since 2001, carefully
progressing in incremental stages to reduce the overall effects to
wildlife. We will consider excluding the Santa Clara Pueblo, the San
Juan Pueblo (Ohkay Owingue), and the San Ildefonso Pueblo lands
totaling 1,173 ac (475 ha) from the final designation of western
yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Middle Rio Grande (Unit 52: NM-8)
Tribal Management Plans and Partnerships--Cochiti, Santo Domingo,
San Felipe, Sandia, and Santa Ana Pueblos. The Cochiti Pueblo, Santo
Domingo Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Sandia Pueblo, and Santa Ana Pueblo
contain proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat along
the Rio Grande within the Middle Rio Grande Management Unit in Sandoval
County, New Mexico. The Isleta Pueblo contains proposed western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat along the Rio Grande within the Middle
Rio Grande Management Unit in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
The Cochiti Pueblo, Santo Domingo Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Sandia
Pueblo, Santa Ana Pueblo, and Isleta Pueblo have conducted a variety of
voluntary measures, restoration projects, and management actions to
conserve the western yellow-billed cuckoo and its habitat on their
lands. Cochiti Pueblo, Santo Domingo Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Sandia
Pueblo, Santa Ana Pueblo, and Isleta Pueblo made a commitment to the
Service to develop an integrated resources management plan to address
multiuse, enhancement, and management of their natural resources. The
pueblos have implemented fuel reduction of flammable exotic riparian
vegetation and native tree restoration projects in the riparian area
since 2001, carefully progressing in incremental stages to reduce the
overall effects to wildlife. We will consider excluding the Cochiti
Pueblo, Santo Domingo Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Sandia Pueblo, Santa
Ana Pueblo, and Isleta Pueblo lands totaling 9,509 ac (3,850 ha) from
the final designation of western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
U-Bar Ranch (Unit 48: NM-4)
The U-Bar Ranch (Ranch) near Cliff, in Grant County New Mexico, in
the Upper Gila Management Area is owned by Pacific Western Land Company
(PWLC), a subsidiary of the Freeport-McMoRan Corporation (formerly
named Phelps Dodge Corporation)(FMC). Through their efforts and their
long-time lessee, FMC has demonstrated a commitment to management
practices on the Ranch that have conserved and benefited the western
yellow-billed cuckoo population in that area over the past decade. In
addition, FMC had privately funded scientific research at and in the
vicinity of the Ranch in order to develop data that has contributed to
the understanding of habitat selection, distribution, prey base, and
threats to the southwestern willow flycatcher. The riparian habitat
also has a large number of nesting western yellow-billed cuckoos.
Considering the past and ongoing efforts of management and research to
benefit the southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed
cuckoo, and riparian habitat, done in coordination and cooperation with
the Service, we are considering excluding areas of the U-Bar Ranch from
the final designation of critical habitat.
The U-Bar Ranch utilizes a management plan on its pastures within
the Gila Valley that are north of the Highway 180 West Bridge and south
of the boundary of the Gila National Forest. Eight pastures that
incorporate approximately 1,372 ha (3,390 ac) are managed with a plan
that is adapted annually for operation of livestock and farming
enterprises. The management consists of a multifaceted and highly
flexible rest-rotation system utilizing both native forage and
irrigated fields. The Ranch's numerous pastures allow a relatively
dynamic rotation system that is modified based upon current conditions.
Grazing use of river bottom pastures is monitored by daily visual
inspections. Use of these pastures is limited to ensure that forage
utilization levels are moderate and over-use does not occur. In
addition, the riparian areas are monitored regularly, and riparian
vegetation is allowed to propagate along the river as well as in
irrigation ditches. Some specific management practices, varying in
different pastures, which relate to the southwestern willow flycatcher
and western yellow-billed cuckoo and their habitat are: (1) Grazing is
limited to November through April to avoid negative impacts during
migration and nesting season; (2) animal units are adjusted to protect
and maintain the riparian vegetation; (3) the irrigation ditches are
maintained, along with the vegetation; (4) restoration efforts follow
flood events that destroy habitat; and (5) herbicide and pesticides are
only used in rare circumstances and are not used during breeding
season. These flexible and adaptive management practices have resulted
in the expansion,
[[Page 48580]]
protection, and successful continuance of a large western yellow-billed
cuckoo population in the area.
In 1995, active restoration followed the flooding destruction of
the Bennett Farm fields in the 162 ha (400 ac) River Pasture. The
Bennett Restoration Project is a series of artificially created,
flooded marshy areas located between irrigated and dry-land pastures
and the river. The Bennett Restoration Project is a mosaic of
vegetation in successional stages with dense patches and lines of young
willows and cottonwoods occurring in manmade oxbows. The oxbows occur
outside of the active flood channel behind a levee. Water is
continuously present and the project has become a marshy habitat.
A significant feature of this riparian area is the amount of water
it receives from adjacent irrigated fields. The Ranch has rehydrated
ditches and no longer follows past land-use practices, which involved
active clearing of woody vegetation from ditch banks. Besides land
management practices, PWLC, and the U-Bar Ranch have supported annual
southwestern willow flycatcher surveys, where western yellow-billed
cuckoo detections are recorded and research in the Gila valley since
1994. Surveyors are trained and permitted in coordination with the
Service and survey results are submitted to the Service in annual
reports. Southwestern willow flycatcher research on the Ranch has
included: Nest monitoring (sites, substrate, and success), diet,
microhabitat use, climatic influences on breeding, cowbird parasitism,
and distribution and characteristics of territories. Permits for
studies are coordinated with the Service and reports are submitted to
us for review and comments. The Service will continue to work with the
U-Bar Ranch to include the western yellow-billed cuckoo in their
existing management plan and research activities. Their current
research provides information to apply to grazing and land management.
We will consider excluding the areas identified as critical habitat on
the U-Bar Ranch from the final designation of western yellow-billed
cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Idaho
Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Unit 69--Snake River 1 (ID-1)); Tribal
Management Plans and Partnerships
The Fort Hall Indian Reservation contains a portion of the Snake
River 1 Unit in Bannock and Bingham Counties, Idaho. We have met with
staff from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and discussed their existing and
proposed conservation actions and management plans, which also benefit
the western yellow-billed cuckoo, for the area proposed for designation
as critical habitat. We will continue to coordinate with the Tribes on
these management plans for potential exclusion of 3,424 ac (1,312 ha)
of Fort Hall Indian Reservation land from the final designation of
western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act.
Colorado
Rio Grande 3 (Unit 59: CO-6) and Conejos River (Unit 60: CO-7);
Partnerships, Conservation Plans, or Conservation Easements on Private
Lands
San Luis Valley Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
We are considering excluding critical habitat in the San Luis
Valley, Colorado, based on the San Luis Valley Regional HCP, as
discussed below. Two critical habitat units are proposed in the San
Luis Valley: One on the Rio Grande (Unit 59; CO-6) and one that occurs
on both the Conejos River and Rio San Antonio (Unit 60; CO-7). The San
Luis Valley Regional HCP was finalized in November 2012. None of the
other six proposed critical habitat units in Colorado are being
considered for exclusion because there are no HCPs or other management
plans in place or under development that cover those critical habitat
units.
The species covered in the HCP are the western yellow-billed cuckoo
and the flycatcher. The HCP covers nearly 250 mi (403 km) and 2.9
million ac (1.17 million ha), a portion of which is habitat for the
western yellow-billed cuckoo, and extends well beyond the stream
segments on the Rio Grande, Conejos River, and Rio San Antonio that are
proposed as critical habitat. Approximately 10,000 ac (4,047 ha) out of
the 15,100 ac (6,111 ha) of riparian habitat in the HCP plan area are
cottonwood-dominated. However, the majority of impacted woody riparian
habitat will likely be willows. Yellow-billed cuckoos can use willows
and other shrubs for foraging and nesting so impacts to western yellow-
billed cuckoos can still occur, especially if cottonwoods are nearby or
constitute the overstory.
The HCP covers routine agriculture activities (grazing, fence
construction and maintenance, ditch clearing and maintenance, water
facility maintenance, new small-scale water facility construction, and
water management and administration), small community infrastructure
activities (vegetation removal from floodways, levee construction and
maintenance, sediment removal, infrastructure construction and
maintenance, and road and bridge maintenance), and riparian
conservation and restoration activities (channel shaping and
stabilization, habitat creation and restoration, weed management, and
wetland creation and management). Large commercial or residential
developments, large water development projects, sanitation or
industrial water impoundments, new highway construction, and projects
requiring a Federal permit are not covered by the HCP.
The HCP permittees include the Rio Grande Water Conservation
District (District); Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Rio Grande, Mineral
and Saguache Counties; the municipalities of Alamosa, Del Norte, Monte
Vista, and South Fork; and the State of Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. The District has committed to be the administrator of the
HCP. The 9-year length of commitment to the HCP process by the
permittees demonstrates their willingness to proceed with this new HCP
and the likelihood of implementation of the measures and strategies
contained therein.
There are an estimated 304 ac (123 ha) of woody riparian habitat
impacted by the HCP's covered activities that will be mitigated at
about a 1:1 ratio by the applicants. Mitigation will be in the form of
conservation easements, habitat restoration and enhancements, and
management agreements. The majority of covered activities are expected
to impact narrow or otherwise marginal habitat for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo. Consequently, mitigation measures will likely conserve,
restore, or enhance habitat, resulting in an increase of higher quality
habitat over impacted habitat. Both compliance and effectiveness
monitoring are built into the HCP. Valley-wide habitat monitoring, as
well as parcel-specific habitat monitoring and species monitoring, will
be conducted and used to determine if management needs to be adapted to
successfully mitigate covered activities and maintain habitat into the
future.
We will consider excluding all non-Federal HCP lands in proposed
critical habitat units CO-6 and CO-7 totaling 18,407 ac (7,449 ha) from
final western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We encourage any public comments in
relation to this consideration.
[[Page 48581]]
San Luis Valley Partnerships
The San Luis Valley has many proactive conservation efforts
underway that protect and enhance wetland and riparian habitat, and
will contribute to the conservation and enhancement of habitat for the
western yellow-billed cuckoo. These efforts include, but are not
limited to, voluntary incentive-based conservation programs for private
land by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Service's Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program. The Rio Grande Initiative has raised more
than $10 million in Federal, State, and private funding, and has
protected over 18 properties and 13,600 ac (5,506 ha) of land along the
Rio Grande (not including lands in Mineral County). Conservation
successes have included the 585-ac (237-ha) River Valley Ranch I near
the 1,025-ac (415- ha) Rio Grande/Shriver-Wright State Wildlife Area,
the Gilmore Ranch near Alamosa, and the 3,200-ac (1,296-ha) Cross Arrow
Ranch at the confluence of the Rio Grande and Conejos River (adjacent
to the BLM's McIntire-Simpson property) (Butler 2010). Other
conservation actions include the establishment of BLM's Rio Grande
Natural Area along a 33-mi (53-km) stretch of the Rio Grande from the
southern boundary of the Alamosa NWR to the New Mexico State line,
extending 0.25 mi (0.4 km) on either side of the river, although this
area is outside proposed critical habitat.
As a result of multiple fundraising efforts by various public and
private entities that operate in the San Luis Valley, as of October
2011, over 32,000 ac (12,955 ha) of land and 1,762 ac (713 ha) of
riparian habitat in the HCP area have been protected by conservation
easements (see Tables 1 and 2), although only a portion lies within the
area proposed for western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat
designation. Approximately 1,500 ac (607 ha) of riparian habitat are
under permanent conservation easement along the Rio Grande and Conejos
River (Shoemaker 2012, in litt.). The easements prohibit any activity
that alters or diminishes the value of the wildlife habitat.
We will consider excluding all lands under permanent conservation
easement within the proposed critical habitat units CO-6 and CO-7 from
final western yellow-billed cuckoo critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. These same lands are also being considered
for exclusion based on their inclusion in the San Luis Valley Regional
HCP. We encourage any public comments in relation to this
consideration.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. To assess the probable economic impacts of a
designation, we must first evaluate specific land uses or activities
and projects that may occur in the area of the critical habitat. We
then must evaluate the impacts that a specific critical habitat
designation may have on restricting or modifying specific land uses or
activities for the benefit of the species and its habitat within the
areas proposed. We then identify which conservation efforts may be the
result of the species being listed under the Act versus those
attributed solely to the designation of critical habitat for this
particular species. The probable economic impact of a proposed critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios ``with critical
habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without critical
habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis, which
includes the existing regulatory and socio-economic burden imposed on
landowners, managers, or other resource users potentially affected by
the designation of critical habitat (e.g., under the Federal listing as
well as other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline,
therefore, represents the costs of all efforts attributable to the
listing of the species under the Act (i.e., conservation of the species
and its habitat incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated). The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts would not be expected without the designation of
critical habitat for the species. In other words, the incremental costs
are those attributable solely to the designation of critical habitat,
above and beyond the baseline costs. These are the costs we use when
evaluating the benefits of inclusion and exclusion of particular areas
from the final designation of critical habitat should we choose to
conduct an optional 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis.
For this particular designation, we developed an incremental
effects memorandum (IEM) considering the probable incremental economic
impacts that may result from this proposed designation of critical
habitat. The information contained in our IEM was then used to develop
a screening analysis of the probable effects of the designation of
critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Industrial
Economics Incorporated (IEc) 2013a; IEc 2013b). We began by conducting
a screening analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat in
order to focus our analysis on the key factors that are likely to
result in incremental economic impacts. The purpose of the screening
analysis is to filter out the geographic areas in which the critical
habitat designation is unlikely to result in incremental economic
impacts. In particular, the screening analysis considers baseline
impacts (i.e., impacts absent critical habitat designation) and
includes probable economic impacts where land and water use may be
subject to conservation plans, land management plans, best management
practices, or regulations that protect the habitat area as a result of
the Federal listing status of the species. The screening analysis
filters out particular areas of critical habitat that are already
subject to such protections and are, therefore, unlikely to incur
incremental economic impacts. Ultimately, the screening analysis allows
us to focus our analysis on evaluating the specific areas or sectors
that may incur probable incremental economic impacts as a result of the
designation. The screening analysis also assesses whether any
unoccupied units may require additional management or conservation
efforts as a result of the critical habitat designation and whether the
units may incur incremental economic impacts. This screening analysis
combined with the information contained in our IEM are what we consider
our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation for the western yellow-billed cuckoo and are summarized in
the narrative below.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly impacted entities, where practicable and reasonable. We
assess to the extent practicable, the probable impacts, if sufficient
data are available, to both directly and indirectly impacted entities.
As part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the western yellow-billed
[[Page 48582]]
cuckoo, first we identified, in the IEM dated June 19, 2013, probable
incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories
of activities: (1) Water management, including hydropower operations;
(2) restoration and conservation projects; (3) fire management; (4)
transportation activities, including bridge construction; (5)
recreation activities; (6) livestock grazing and agriculture; (7)
mining; (8) residential and commercial development; and (9) border
protection activities. We considered each industry or category
individually. Additionally, we considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement as the designation
of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded,
permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies. In areas where the
western yellow-billed cuckoo is present, Federal agencies will already
be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect the species.
If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation,
consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation
process. Therefore, disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or
sector would not likely be a result of this critical habitat
designation.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that will result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards). Because the
designation of critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo is
being proposed nearly concurrently with the listing, it has been our
experience that it is more difficult to discern which conservation
efforts are attributable to the species being listed and those which
will result solely from the designation of critical habitat. However,
the following specific circumstances in this case help to inform our
evaluation: (1) The essential physical and biological features
identified for critical habitat are the same features essential for the
life requisites of the species, and (2) any actions that would result
in sufficient harm or harassment to constitute jeopardy to the western
yellow-billed cuckoo would also likely adversely affect the essential
physical and biological features of critical habitat. The IEM outlines
our rationale concerning this limited distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental impacts of the designation of
critical habitat for this species. This evaluation of the incremental
effects has been used as the basis to evaluate the probable incremental
economic impacts of this proposed designation of critical habitat.
Except in limited instances, which the Service cannot predict at
this time, project modifications requested to avoid adverse
modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy. Notwithstanding the low probability of such limited instances
occurring, when the Service completes a consultation for the western
yellow-billed cuckoo within critical habitat, that consultation will
evaluate whether that project would result in adverse modification.
The Service is not proposing to designate areas outside of the
geographical area occupied by the species as critical habitat. All of
the proposed units are occupied by the western yellow-billed cuckoo
during their breeding season. Occupied breeding habitat is considered
by the Service to be occupied year-round for the evaluation of project-
related effects that degrade habitat quality. An evaluation of
consultations for other riparian obligate listed migratory bird species
that occupy some of the same areas (i.e., southwestern willow
flycatcher and least Bell's vireo) informs the Service that project
modifications intended to address adverse project effects focus
primarily on various habitat restoration and conservation mechanisms,
whether the adverse effects are upon members of the listed species or
its designated critical habitat. We anticipate that these mechanisms
overlap because the impacts in either case will most likely be
affecting the persistence, development, and recycling of habitat. The
result is that the application of such measures is anticipated to
simultaneously remove jeopardy and adverse modification outcomes.
Therefore, only administrative costs are expected in the proposed
critical habitat designation. While this additional analysis will
require time and resources by both the Federal action agency and the
Service, it is believed that, in most circumstances, these costs would
predominantly be administrative in nature and would not be significant.
The proposed critical habitat designation for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo includes 80 units in nine western States: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and
Wyoming. A total of 546,335 ac (221,094 ha) are proposed of which
193,691 ac (78,370 ha) are being considered for exclusions.
Approximately 32 percent of the proposed total acreage is Federal land,
9 percent is State land, 13 percent is owned by Tribal entities, and 46
percent is privately owned or owned by local government entities. All
proposed critical habitat units are considered to be occupied.
The entities most likely to incur incremental costs are parties to
section 7 consultations, including Federal action agencies and, in some
cases, third parties, most frequently State agencies or municipalities.
Activities we expect would be subject to consultations that may involve
private entities as third parties are residential and commercial
development that may occur on Tribal or private lands. However, based
on coordination efforts with Tribal partners and State and local
agencies, the cost to private entities within these sectors is expected
to be relatively minor (administrative costs of less than $5,000 per
formal consultation effort) and, therefore, would not be significant.
The probable incremental economic impacts of the western yellow-
billed cuckoo critical habitat designation are expected to be limited
to additional administrative effort, as well as minor costs of
conservation efforts resulting from a small number of future section 7
consultations. This is due to the proposed critical habitat being
considered occupied by the species, and incremental economic impacts of
critical habitat designation, other than administrative costs, are
unlikely. At approximately $5,000 or less per formal consultation, in
order to reach the threshold of $100 million of incremental
administrative impacts in a single year, critical habitat designation
would have to result in more than 20,000 formal consultations in a
single year. It is possible that 100 formal consultations will be
needed in the first year after listing and fewer will be needed in
subsequent years. Thus, the annual administrative burden from formal
consultations will most likely not exceed $500,000 in any given year.
The total incremental effect of administrative cost for all activities
(including technical assistance, informal consultations, and
programmatic consultations) are estimated to be a maximum of $3.2
million annually. Therefore, future probable incremental economic
impacts are not likely to exceed $100 million in any single year, and
disproportionate impacts to any geographic area or sector are not
likely as a result of this critical habitat designation.
As we stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on
[[Page 48583]]
the economic screening analysis, as well as all aspects of the proposed
rule. We may revise the proposed rule or supporting documents to
incorporate or address information we receive during the public comment
period. In particular, we may exclude an area from critical habitat if
we determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the
benefits of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result
in the extinction of this species.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to
comment during this public comment period on our specific assumptions
and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule a public hearing
on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times,
and places of any hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
significant because it will raise novel legal or policy issues.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an 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 effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete
[[Page 48584]]
examination of the incremental effects of this proposed rule in the
context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will only directly regulate Federal
agencies, which are not by definition small business entities. As such,
certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical habitat
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily required by
the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal we will
consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties that may
be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies related to
this action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect that the proposed critical habitat
designation for the western yellow-billed cuckoo would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, as the areas identified
as proposed critical habitat are along riparian corridors in mostly
remote areas with little energy supplies, distribution, or
infrastructure in place. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan
is not required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo in a
takings implications assessment. Based on the best available
information, the takings implications assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for the western yellow-billed cuckoo
does not pose significant takings implications. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we develop our final designation, and
review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource
agencies in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Utah,
Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Because the species is concurrently being
listed under the Act, the designation of critical habitat in areas
currently occupied by the western yellow-billed cuckoo may impose
nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in place
and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments because the areas that contain the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat
necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically
identified. This information does not alter where and what Federally
sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for
case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may
[[Page 48585]]
affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be
required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the western yellow-billed cuckoo within the proposed
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when the
range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as
that of western yellow-billed cuckoo, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in
Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for
critical habitat designation and notify the public of the availability
of the draft environmental assessment for this proposal when it is has
been completed.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. The following tribes are identified in
the proposed designation: Fort Mojave Indian Tribe; Colorado River
Indian Reservation; Fort Yuma Indian Reservation; Cocopah Tribe;
Yavapai-Apache Nation; San Carlos Reservation; Navajo Nation; Santa
Clara, San Juan, and San Ildefonso Pueblos; Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San
Felipe, Sandia, Santa Ana and Isleta Pueblos; Shoshone-Bannock, Fort
Hall Reservation; the Colusa Wintun Tribe; and the Ute Tribe, Uinta and
Ouray Reservation. We will be working with the tribes identified above
throughout the process of listing and designating critical habitat for
the western yellow-billed cuckoo.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.95(b) by adding an entry for ``Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus), Western DPS'' immediately following the entry
for ``Mariana Crow (Corvus kubaryi)'', to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds.
* * * * *
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Western DPS
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, on the
maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the
[[Page 48586]]
conservation of western yellow-billed cuckoo consist of three
components:
(i) Riparian woodlands. Riparian woodlands with mixed willow-
cottonwood vegetation, mesquite-thorn-forest vegetation, or a
combination of these that contain habitat for nesting and foraging in
contiguous or nearly contiguous patches that are greater than 325 feet
(100 meters) in width and 200 acres (81 hectares) or more in extent.
These habitat patches contain one or more nesting groves, which are
generally willow-dominated, have above average canopy closure (greater
than 70 percent), and have a cooler, more humid environment than the
surrounding riparian and upland habitats.
(ii) Adequate prey base. Presence of a prey base consisting of
large insect fauna (for example, cicadas, caterpillars, katydids,
grasshoppers, large beetles, dragonflies) and tree frogs for adults and
young in breeding areas during the nesting season and in post-breeding
dispersal areas.
(iii) Dynamic riverine processes. River systems that are dynamic
and provide hydrologic processes that encourage sediment movement and
deposits that allow seedling germination and promote plant growth,
maintenance, health, and vigor (e.g. lower gradient streams and broad
floodplains, elevated subsurface groundwater table, and perennial
rivers and streams). This allows habitat to regenerate at regular
intervals, leading to riparian vegetation with variously aged patches
from young to old. These dynamic riverine processes are considered
essential for developing and maintaining the primary constituent
elements provided in paragraphs (2)(i) and (2)(ii) of this entry.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of the Natural Resource Conservation Service National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP 2011), and critical habitat was then
mapped using North American Datum (NAD) 83, Universal Transverse
Mercator Zone 10N coordinates. The maps in this entry, as modified by
any accompanying regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the
critical habitat designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based are available to the public at the Service's
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office's internet site at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento, or on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0011. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 48587]]
(5) Index map for California and Nevada follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.005
[[Page 48588]]
(6) Index map for Arizona follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.006
[[Page 48589]]
(7) Index map for New Mexico and Texas follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.007
[[Page 48590]]
(8) Index map for Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.008
[[Page 48591]]
(9) Unit 1: CA-1, Eel River; Humboldt County, California. Map of
Unit 1 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.009
[[Page 48592]]
(10) Unit 2: CA-2, Sacramento River; Colusa, Glenn, Butte, and
Tehama Counties, California. Map of Units 2 and 3 follows:
(11) Unit 3: CA-3, Sutter Bypass; Sutter County, California. Map of
Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (10) of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.010
[[Page 48593]]
(12) Unit 4: CA-4, South Fork Kern River Valley; Kern County,
California. Map of Unit 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.011
[[Page 48594]]
(13) Unit 5: CA-5, Owens River; Inyo County, California. Map of
Unit 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.012
[[Page 48595]]
(14) Unit 6: CA-6, Prado Flood Control Basin; San Bernardino and
Riverside Counties, California. Map of Unit 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.013
[[Page 48596]]
(15) Unit 7: CA/AZ-1, Colorado River 1; Imperial, Riverside, and
San Bernardino Counties, California, and Yuma and La Paz Counties,
Arizona. Map of Unit 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.014
[[Page 48597]]
(16) Unit 8: CA/AZ-2, Colorado River 2; San Bernardino County,
California, and Mojave County, Arizona. Map of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.015
[[Page 48598]]
(17) Unit 9: AZ-1, Bill Williams River; Mojave and La Paz Counties,
Arizona. Map of Unit 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.016
[[Page 48599]]
(18) Unit 10: AZ-2, Alamo Lake; Mojave and La Paz Counties,
Arizona. Map of Units 10 and 13 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.017
[[Page 48600]]
(19) Unit 11: AZ-3, Lake Mead; Mohave County, Arizona. Map of Unit
11 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.018
[[Page 48601]]
(20) Unit 12: AZ-4, Lower Gila River; Yuma County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.019
[[Page 48602]]
(21) Unit 13: AZ-5, Upper Santa Maria River; Yavapai County,
Arizona. Map of Unit 13 is provided at paragraph (18) of this entry.
(22) Unit 14: AZ-6, Hassayampa River; Yavapai and Maricopa
Counties, Arizona. Map of Unit 14 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.020
[[Page 48603]]
(23) Unit 15: AZ-7, Gila and Salt Rivers; Maricopa County, Arizona.
Map of Unit 15 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.021
[[Page 48604]]
(24) Unit 16: AZ-8, Agua Fria River; Yavapai County, Arizona. Map
of Unit 16 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.022
[[Page 48605]]
(25) Unit 17: AZ-9, Upper Verde River; Yavapai County, Arizona. Map
of Unit 17 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.023
[[Page 48606]]
(26) Unit 18: AZ-10, Oak Creek; Yavapai and Coconino Counties,
Arizona. Map of Unit 18 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.024
[[Page 48607]]
(27) Unit 19: AZ-11, Beaver Creek and tributaries; Yavapai County,
Arizona. Map of Units 19 and 20 follows:
(28) Unit 20: AZ-12, Lower Verde River and West Clear Creek;
Yavapai County, Arizona. Map of Unit 20 is provided at paragraph (27)
of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.025
[[Page 48608]]
(29) Unit 21: AZ-13, Horseshoe Dam; Yavapai County, Arizona. Map of
Units 21 and 42 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.026
[[Page 48609]]
(30) Unit 22: AZ-14, Tonto Creek; Gila County, Arizona. Map of
Units 22 and 37 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.027
[[Page 48610]]
(31) Unit 23: AZ-15, Pinal Creek; Gila County, Arizona. Map of Unit
23 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.028
[[Page 48611]]
(32) Unit 24: AZ-16, Bonita Creek; Graham County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 24 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.029
[[Page 48612]]
(33) Unit 25: AZ-17, San Francisco River; Greenlee County, Arizona.
Map of Units 25 and 39 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.030
[[Page 48613]]
(34) Unit 26: AZ-18, Upper San Pedro River; Cochise County,
Arizona. Map of Units 26 and 27 follows:
(35) Unit 27: AZ-19, Hooker Hot Springs; Cochise County, Arizona.
Map of Unit 27 is provided at paragraph (34) of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.031
[[Page 48614]]
(36) Unit 28: AZ-20, Lower San Pedro River and Gila River; Pima and
Pinal Counties, Arizona. Map of Unit 28 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.032
[[Page 48615]]
(37) Unit 29: AZ-21, Picacho Reservoir--Flood Control Basin; Pinal
County, Arizona. Map of Unit 29 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.033
[[Page 48616]]
(38) Unit 30: AZ-22, Peritas Wash; Pima County, Arizona. Map of
Units 30 and 31 follows:
(39) Unit 31: AZ-23, Arivaca Wash and San Luis Wash; Pima County,
Arizona. Map of Unit 31 is provided at paragraph (38) of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.034
[[Page 48617]]
(40) Unit 32: AZ-24, Sonoita Creek; Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Map
of Units 32 and 34 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.035
[[Page 48618]]
(41) Unit 33: AZ-25, Upper Cienega Creek; Pima County, Arizona. Map
of Units 33 and 38 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.036
(42) Unit 34: AZ-26, Santa Cruz River; Santa Cruz County, Arizona.
Map of Unit 34 is provided at paragraph (40) of this entry.
[[Page 48619]]
(43) Unit 35: AZ-27, Black Draw; Cochise County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 35 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.037
[[Page 48620]]
(44) Unit 36: AZ-28, Gila River 1; Graham County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 36 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.038
(45) Unit 37: AZ-29, Salt River; Gila County, Arizona. Map of Unit
37 is provided at paragraph (30) of this entry.
(46) Unit 38: AZ-30, Lower Cienega Creek; Pima County, Arizona. Map
of Unit 38 is provided at paragraph (41) of this entry.
(47) Unit 39: AZ-31, Blue River; Greenlee County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 39 is provided at paragraph (33) of this entry.
[[Page 48621]]
(48) Unit 40: AZ-32, Pinto Creek South; Gila County, Arizona. Map
of Units 40 and 44 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.039
[[Page 48622]]
(49) Unit 41: AZ-33, Aravaipa Creek; Pima and Graham Counties,
Arizona. Map of Unit 41 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.040
(50) Unit 42: AZ-34, Lower Verde River; Maricopa County, Arizona.
Map of Unit 42 is provided at paragraph (29) of this entry.
[[Page 48623]]
(51) Unit 43: AZ-35, Gila River 3; Graham and Greenlee Counties,
Arizona. Map of Unit 43 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.041
(52) Unit 44: AZ-36, Pinto Creek North; Gila County, Arizona. Map
of Unit 44 is provided at paragraph (48) of this entry.
[[Page 48624]]
(53) Unit 45: AZ-37, Florida Wash; Pima County, Arizona. Map of
Unit 45 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.042
[[Page 48625]]
(54) Unit 46: NM-1, San Juan River 1; San Juan County, New Mexico.
Map of Unit 45 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.043
[[Page 48626]]
(55) Unit 47: NM-3, San Francisco River 2; Catron County, New
Mexico. Map of Unit 47 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.044
[[Page 48627]]
(56) Unit 48: NM-4, Gila River 2; Grant and Hidalgo Counties, New
Mexico. Map of Units 48 and 53 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.045
[[Page 48628]]
(57) Unit 49: NM-5, Mimbres River; Grant County, New Mexico. Map of
Unit 49 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.046
[[Page 48629]]
(58) Unit 50: NM-6, Upper Rio Grande 1; Rio Arriba County, New
Mexico. Map of Units 50 and 51 follows:
(59) Unit 51: NM-7, Upper Rio Grande 2; Santa Fe and Rio Arriba
Counties, New Mexico. Map of Unit 51 is provided at paragraph (58) of
this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.047
[[Page 48630]]
(60) Unit 52: NM-8, Middle Rio Grande 1; Sierra, Socorro, Valencia,
Bernalillo, and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. Map of Unit 52 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.048
[[Page 48631]]
(61) Unit 53: NM-9, Upper Gila River; Grant County, New Mexico. Map
of Unit 53 is provided at paragraph (56) of this entry.
(62) Unit 54: CO-1, Yampa River; Moffat and Routt Counties,
Colorado. Map of Unit 54 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.049
[[Page 48632]]
(63) Unit 55: CO-2, Colorado River 3; Mesa County, Colorado. Map of
Unit 55 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.050
[[Page 48633]]
(64) Unit 56: CO-3, North Fork Gunnison River; Delta County,
Colorado. Map of Units 56 and 57 follows:
(65) Unit 57: CO-4, Uncompahgre River; Delta, Montrose, and Ouray
Counties, Colorado. Map of Unit 57 is provided at paragraph (64) of
this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.051
[[Page 48634]]
(66) Unit 58: CO-5, Gunnison River; Gunnison County, Colorado. Map
of Unit 58 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.052
[[Page 48635]]
(67) Unit 59: CO-6, Upper Rio Grande 3; Alamosa and Rio Grande
Counties, Colorado. Map of Units 59 and 60 follows:
(68) Unit 60: CO-7, Conejos River; Conejos County, Colorado. Map of
Unit 60 is provided at paragraph (67) of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.053
[[Page 48636]]
(69) Unit 61: UT-1, Green River 1; Uintah County, Utah. Map of Unit
61 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.054
[[Page 48637]]
(70) Unit 62: UT-2, Pigeon Water Creek and Lake Fork River;
Duchesne County, Utah. Map of Unit 62 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.055
[[Page 48638]]
(71) Unit 63: UT-3, Colorado River 4; Mesa County, Colorado, and
Grand County, Utah. Map of Units 63 and 64 follows:
(72) Unit 64: UT-4, Dolores River; Grand County, Utah. Map of Unit
64 is provided at paragraph (71) of this entry.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.056
[[Page 48639]]
(73) Unit 65: UT-5, Green River 2; San Juan and Wayne Counties,
Utah. Map of Unit 65 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.057
[[Page 48640]]
(74) Unit 66: UT-6, San Juan River 2; San Juan County, Utah. Map of
Unit 66 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.058
[[Page 48641]]
(75) Unit 67: UT-7, San Juan River 3; San Juan County, Utah. Map of
Unit 67 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.059
[[Page 48642]]
(76) Unit 68: UT-8, Virgin River 2; Washington County, Utah. Map of
Unit 68 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.060
[[Page 48643]]
(77) Unit 69: ID-1, Snake River 1; Bannock and Bingham Counties,
Idaho. Map of Unit 69 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.061
[[Page 48644]]
(78) Unit 70: ID-2, Snake River 2; Bonneville, Madison, and
Jefferson Counties, Idaho. Map of Units 70 and 72 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.062
[[Page 48645]]
(79) Unit 71: ID-3, Big Wood River; Blaine County, Idaho. Map of
Unit 71 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.063
(80) Unit 72: ID-4, Henry's Fork and Teton Rivers; Madison County,
Idaho. Map of Unit 72 is provided at paragraph (78) of this entry.
[[Page 48646]]
(81) Unit 73: NV-1, Upper Muddy River; Clark County, Nevada. Map of
Units 73 and 76 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.064
[[Page 48647]]
(82) Unit 74: NV-3, Lower Muddy River; Clark County, Nevada. Map of
Unit 74 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.065
[[Page 48648]]
(83) Unit 75: NV-4, Carson River; Lyon County, Nevada. Map of Unit
75 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.066
(84) Unit 76: NV/AZ-1, Virgin River 1; Clark County, Nevada, and
Mohave County, Arizona. Map of Unit 76 is provided at paragraph (81) of
this entry.
[[Page 48649]]
(85) Unit 77: WY-1, Green River 3; Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Map
of Unit 77 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.067
[[Page 48650]]
(86) Unit 78: WY/UT-1, Henry's Fork of Green River; Uinta County,
Wyoming, and Summit County, Utah. Map of Unit 78 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.068
[[Page 48651]]
(87) Unit 79: TX-1, Arroyo Caballo, Rio Grande; Hudspeth County,
Texas. Map of Unit 79 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.069
[[Page 48652]]
(88) Unit 80: TX-2, Terlingua Creek and Rio Grande; Presidio and
Brewster Counties, Texas. Map of Unit 80 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU14.070
* * * * *
Dated: June 13, 2014.
Signed: Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-19178 Filed 8-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C