[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2694]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 8, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 17



Determination of Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the 
Desert Tortoise; Final Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC01

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Critical Habitat for the Mojave Population of the Desert Tortoise

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) designates 
critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise 
(Gopherus agassizii), a species federally listed as threatened under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Located primarily 
on Federal land, and to a lesser extent on State, private, and Tribal 
lands, this critical habitat designation provides additional protection 
under section 7 of the Act with regard to activities that require 
Federal agency action. As required by section 4 of the Act, the Service 
considered economic and other relevant impacts prior to making a final 
decision on the size and configuration of critical habitat.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The complete administrative record for this rule is on file 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Field Office, Ecological 
Services, 4600 Kietzke Lane, Building C-125, Reno, Nevada 89502. The 
complete file for this rule will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David L. Harlow, Field Supervisor, 
Nevada Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at the above 
address (702/784-5227).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mojave population of the desert tortoise, referred to herein as 
desert tortoise or tortoise, is one of three species in the genus 
Gopherus found in the United States. The Berlandier's tortoise (G. 
berlandieri) is found in northeastern Mexico and southern Texas. The 
gopher tortoise (G. polyphemus) is found in the hot, humid portions of 
the southeastern United States. G. agassizii is relatively large, with 
adults measuring up to 15 inches in shell length, and inhabits the 
Mojave, Colorado, and Sonoran Deserts in the southwestern United States 
and adjacent Mexico. The species is divided into the Sonoran and Mojave 
populations. The Sonoran population occurs south and east of the 
Colorado River in Arizona and Mexico, and the Mojave population 
occupies those portions of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts north and 
west of the Colorado River in southwestern Utah, northwestern Arizona, 
southern Nevada, and southern California.
    For a thorough discussion of the ecology and life history of the 
desert tortoise, see the Draft Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise 
(Mojave Population) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and the April 
2, 1990, final rule listing the desert tortoise as a threatened species 
(55 FR 12178). These documents incorporate the majority of current 
biological information on the desert tortoise used to develop this 
rule.
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) requires the 
Service to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable concurrently with listing a species as endangered or 
threatened. On August 20, 1980, the Service listed the Beaver Dam Slope 
population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), in southwestern 
Utah, as a threatened species and designated 35 square miles of 
critical habitat (45 FR 55654). On September 14, 1984, the Service 
received a petition from the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, and Defenders of Wildlife to list the desert 
tortoise in Arizona, California, and Nevada as endangered. In September 
1985, the Service determined that the listing was warranted but 
precluded by other listing actions of higher priority under authority 
of section 4(b)(3)(iii) of the Act (50 FR 49868). The Service made 
annual findings of warranted but precluded from 1985 through 1989 under 
section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act. On May 31, 1989, the same three 
environmental organizations provided substantial new information and 
petitioned the Service to list the desert tortoise as endangered 
throughout its range in the United States under the expedited emergency 
provisions of the Act. As a result of the new information, on August 4, 
1989 (54 FR 32326), the Service listed the Mojave population, excluding 
the Beaver Dam Slope population in Utah, as endangered by emergency 
rule. The Mojave population was designated in the emergency rule as all 
tortoises occurring north and west of the Colorado River, in 
California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. The Mojave population was then 
proposed under normal listing procedures on October 13, 1989 (54 FR 
42270), and listed as threatened on April 2, 1990 (55 FR 12178).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at 
the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. The 
Service's regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) state that critical habitat 
is not determinable if information sufficient to perform required 
analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking or if the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat. At the time of 
listing, the Service found that critical habitat was not determinable 
because the specific size and spatial configuration of essential 
habitats, as well as vital linkages connecting areas necessary for 
ensuring the conservation of the Mojave desert population throughout 
its range, could not be determined without further information.
    On January 8, 1993, several plaintiffs filed a motion in Desert 
Tortoise et al. v. Lujan et al., Civ. No. 93-0114 MHP (N.D. Cal.) 
seeking to stop the transfer of public land to the State of California 
for construction of a low-level nuclear waste disposal facility in Ward 
Valley located in southern California. The plaintiffs contended that 
the Service violated the Act by failing to designate critical habitat 
for the desert tortoise and sought an injunction prohibiting transfer 
of the site until critical habitat was designated and a new section 7 
biological opinion that addressed the effects of the transfer on 
critical habitat was completed.
    On January 27, 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council and 
other environmental groups sued to compel designation of critical 
habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise, alleging that 
the Secretary had failed to meet the designation deadline under section 
4(b)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act (Natural Resources Defense Council v. 
Babbitt, No. C-93-0301 MHP (N.D. Cal.)). Plaintiffs further requested 
the court to prohibit the Service from issuing any further biological 
opinions for the tortoise under section 7 of the Act until critical 
habitat was designated.
    On May 21, 1993, the plaintiffs, in both cases, and the Secretary 
agreed on a stipulation requiring the defendants to propose critical 
habitat for the desert tortoise by August 1, 1993, and to designate 
critical habitat by December 1, 1993. On July 30, 1993, the plaintiffs 
agreed to an extension of these deadlines to August 29, 1993, for a 
proposal and December 15, 1993, for a final decision.
    On March 30, 1993, the Service announced the availability of the 
Draft Recovery Plan for the Desert Tortoise (Mojave Population) (Draft 
Recovery Plan) (58 FR 16691). The Draft Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1993) divides the range of the desert tortoise into 6 
recovery units and recommends establishment of 14 Desert Wildlife 
Management Areas (DWMAs) within the recovery units. Within each DWMA, 
the Draft Recovery Plan recommends specific management actions to 
effect recovery of desert tortoises. The public comment period on the 
Draft Recovery Plan closed on June 30, 1993.
    The Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for the desert tortoise on August 30, 1993 (58 FR 45748). The August 30 
proposal requested comments from all interested parties on the proposed 
determination and associated economic analysis. This final rule 
represents the Service's final decision on this issue. However, the 
Service may revise critical habitat in the future if land management 
plans, recovery plans, or other conservation strategies that are 
developed and fully implemented reduce the need for the additional 
protection provided by critical habitat designation.

Definition of Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as ``(i) 
the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species * 
* * on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) 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.'' The term 
``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the Act, means ``* * * 
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to 
bring an endangered species or threatened species to the point at which 
the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary,'' 
i.e., the species is recovered and removed from the list of endangered 
and threatened species. Section 3 further states that in most cases the 
entire range of a species should not be encompassed within critical 
habitat.

Role in Species Conservation

    Use of the term ``conservation'' in the definition of critical 
habitat indicates that its designation should identify lands that may 
be needed for a species' eventual recovery and delisting. However, when 
critical habitat is designated at the time a species is listed, the 
Service frequently does not know exactly what may be needed for 
recovery. In this regard, critical habitat serves to preserve options 
for a species' eventual recovery.
    The designation of critical habitat will not, in itself, lead to 
recovery, but is one of several measures available to contribute to a 
species' conservation. Critical habitat helps focus conservation 
activities by identifying areas that contain essential habitat features 
(primary constituent elements) regardless of whether or not they are 
currently occupied by the listed species, thus alerting the public to 
the importance of an area in the conservation of a listed species. 
Critical habitat also identifies areas that may require special 
management or protection. Critical habitat receives protection under 
section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. The added protection of these areas may 
shorten the time needed to achieve recovery. Aside from the added 
protection provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other 
forms of protection to lands designated as critical habitat.
    Designating critical habitat does not create a management plan, it 
does not establish numerical population goals, it does not prescribe 
specific management actions (inside or outside of critical habitat), 
nor does it have a direct effect on areas not designated as critical 
habitat. Specific management recommendations for critical habitat are 
more appropriately addressed in recovery plans, management plans, and 
section 7 consultations.
    In addition to considering biological information in designating 
critical habitat, the Service also considers economic and other 
relevant impacts of designating critical habitat. The Service may 
exclude areas from critical habitat when the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, 
provided that the exclusion will not result in the extinction of a 
species.
    Critical habitat identifies specific areas essential to the 
conservation of a species. Areas not currently containing all of the 
essential features, but with the capability to do so in the future, may 
also be essential for the long-term recovery of the species, 
particularly in certain portions of its range, and may be designated as 
critical habitat. However, not all areas containing the features of a 
listed species' habitat are necessarily essential to the species' 
recovery. Areas not included in critical habitat that contain one or 
more of the essential elements are still important to a species' 
conservation and may be addressed under other facets of the Act and 
other conservation laws and regulations. All designated areas may also 
be of considerable value in maintaining ecosystem integrity and 
supporting other species, although that is not a consideration in 
designating critical habitat.
    The process of designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise 
consisted of three steps that are explained in this document. The first 
step was to determine the elements and areas essential to the 
tortoise's conservation. This step was completed in the proposal 
process and is summarized in the sections of this rule entitled 
``Primary Constituent Elements'' and ``Criteria for Identifying 
Critical Habitat.'' The second step was to determine the potential 
costs of the proposed designation, which was completed in the proposal 
process and is summarized in this rule in the section entitled 
``Economic Summary of the August 30 Proposal.'' The final step was to 
consider whether any areas should be excluded based upon economic and 
other relevant impacts and to determine the costs associated with the 
final designation. This step is discussed in the sections entitled 
``Summary of the Exclusion Process,'' ``Effects of the Designation,'' 
``Economic Impacts of the Final Designation,'' and ``Available 
Conservation Measures.'' A section on biodiversity is included to 
highlight the importance of that issue and its relationship to the 
desert tortoise.
    Designation of critical habitat may be reevaluated and revised, at 
any time, when new information indicates that changes are warranted. 
The Service may revise critical habitat if land management plans, 
recovery plans, or other conservation strategies are developed and 
fully implemented, reducing the need for the additional protection 
provided by critical habitat designation. For example, after the Desert 
Tortoise Recovery Plan is finalized, land management agencies may 
implement increased protection for the desert tortoise. If protection 
measures are implemented, the Service may revise its critical habitat 
designation in the future. With increased protection, some components 
of environmental variability threatening tortoise populations (or 
contributing to the variance of growth rates) may be reduced, thus 
lessening the need for large populations. In such an event, a 
population viability analysis--considering population trends based on 
the variance of population growth rates--might suggest that smaller, 
viable, populations would require less habitat (i.e., smaller DWMAs and 
less need for critical habitat designation). Therefore, critical 
habitat units (CHUs) could be decreased in size, increased in size, or 
eliminated based on changes in certain environmental variables, in land 
status, or tortoise populations.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In determining the areas to designate as critical habitat, the 
Service considers those physical and biological attributes that are 
essential to a species' conservation. In addition, the Act stipulates 
that the areas containing these elements may require special management 
considerations or protection. Such physical and biological features, as 
stated in 50 CFR 424.12, include, but are not limited to, the 
following:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth, and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological 
requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring; and
    (5) Generally, habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    The Service is required to base critical habitat designations upon 
the best scientific and commercial data available (50 CFR 424.12). In 
designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise, the Service has 
reviewed its overall approach to the conservation of the desert 
tortoise undertaken since its emergency listing in 1989. In addition, 
the Service reviewed all available information that pertains to habitat 
requirements of this species, including material received during the 
public comment period from State and Federal agencies, other entities, 
and members of the public.
    Inherent difficulties in designating critical habitat for wide-
ranging threatened species, such as the desert tortoise, make it 
unlikely that all habitat within the range of the species would be 
included in the designation. In fact, section 3(5)(C) of the Act states 
that, in most cases, critical habitat should not encompass the entire 
range of the species. Based upon the parameters discussed below, the 
Service determined the appropriateness of including specific areas.

Habitat Characteristics

    The Service has determined that the physical and biological habitat 
features (referred to as the primary constituent elements) that support 
nesting, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and/or gene flow are 
essential to the conservation of the desert tortoise. These elements 
were determined from studies on desert tortoise habitat preferences 
(e.g., habitat structure and use, forage requirements) throughout the 
range of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Desert 
tortoise habitat consists of the following primary constituent 
elements: Sufficient space to support viable populations within each of 
the six recovery units and provide for movements, dispersal, and gene 
flow; sufficient quantity and quality of forage species and the proper 
soil conditions to provide for the growth of such species; suitable 
substrates for burrowing, nesting, and overwintering; burrows, caliche 
caves, and other shelter sites; sufficient vegetation for shelter from 
temperature extremes and predators; and habitat protected from 
disturbance and human-caused mortality.
    Designated critical habitat for the desert tortoise encompasses 
portions of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts that contain the primary 
constituent elements and focuses on areas that are essential to the 
species' recovery. The CHU boundaries are based on proposed DWMAs in 
the Draft Recovery Plan. Because the boundaries were drawn to conform 
with accepted principles of conservation biology (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1993), the areas may contain both ``suitable'' and 
``unsuitable'' habitat. The term ``suitable'' generally refers to 
habitat that provides the constituent elements of nesting, sheltering, 
foraging, dispersal, and/or gene flow.

Ecological Considerations

    The range of the Mojave population of the desert tortoise includes 
portions of the Mojave Desert and the Colorado Desert division of the 
Sonoran Desert (Colorado Desert) and spans portions of four States. The 
Mojave Desert is located in southern California, southern Nevada, 
northwestern Arizona, and southwestern Utah. It is bordered on the 
north by the Great Basin Desert, on the west by the Sierra Nevada and 
Tehachapi ranges, on the south by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino 
Mountains and the Colorado Desert, and on the east by the Grand Wash 
Cliffs and Hualapai Mountains of Arizona. This area includes parts of 
Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties in 
California; the northwestern part of Mohave County in Arizona; Clark 
County, and the southern parts of Esmeralda, Nye, and Lincoln Counties 
in Nevada; and part of Washington County in Utah. The Colorado Desert 
is located south of the Mojave Desert, east of California's Peninsular 
Ranges, and west of the Colorado River. This area includes Imperial 
County and parts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California.
    The desert tortoise is most commonly found within the desert scrub 
vegetation type, primarily in creosote bush scrub vegetation, but also 
in succulent scrub, cheesebush scrub, blackbush scrub, hopsage scrub, 
shadscale scrub, microphyll woodland, and Mojave saltbush-allscale 
scrub. Within the desert microphyll woodland, the desert tortoise 
occurs in blue palo verde-ironwood-smoke tree woodland. The desert 
tortoise also occurs in scrub-steppe vegetation types of the desert and 
semidesert grassland complex (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
    Within these vegetation types, desert tortoises potentially can 
survive and reproduce where their basic habitat requirements are met. 
These requirements include a sufficient amount and quality of forage 
species; shelter sites for protection from predators and environmental 
extremes; suitable substrates for burrowing, nesting, and 
overwintering; various plants for shelter; and adequate area for 
movement, dispersal, and gene flow. Throughout most of the Mojave 
Region, tortoises occur most commonly on gently sloping terrain with 
soils ranging from sand to sandy-gravel and with scattered shrubs, and 
where there is abundant inter-shrub space for growth of herbaceous 
plants. Throughout their range, however, tortoises can be found in 
steeper, rockier areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
    The size of desert tortoise home ranges varies with respect to 
location and year. Females have long-term home ranges that are 
approximately half that of the average male, which range from 10 to 80 
hectares (Berry 1986).
    Although desert tortoise populations are not generally known to 
inhabit elevations much above 4,000 feet, tortoise burrows have been 
located at 4,800 feet in the Providence and Clark Mountains of the 
eastern Mojave (Luckenbach 1982; W. Yumiko, pers. comm., 1992). 
Reliable sources have recorded desert tortoises at 7,300 feet in Death 
Valley National Monument, California (Luckenbach 1982); at 4,800 feet 
in the Goodsprings Mountains (R. Marlow, pers. comm.) and the Spring 
Range, Nevada (C. Stevenson, pers. comm.); at 5,000 feet in the East 
Pahranagat Range, Nevada (C. Stevenson, pers. comm.); and at 5,200 feet 
on the Nevada Test Site (B. Burge, pers. comm.). In addition, numerous 
anecdotal reports place desert tortoises as high as 7,000 feet on Mount 
Charleston, Nevada, and in the Clark Mountains, California. Fossil 
remains from the Pleistocene to late Holocene (12,000 to 1,000 years 
before present) indicate the preferred habitat of the desert tortoise 
included elevations far exceeding those of today, perhaps in response 
to arid climatic episodes that occurred during this epoch (Morafka and 
Brussard, in prep.; Schneider and Everson 1989). This fossil evidence 
indicates that the species may have spent less than 10 percent of its 
taxonomic life span in the contemporary warm creosote bush desert, the 
remainder having been spent in more mesic, equable, and productive 
climates and ecosystems. This implies that contemporary tortoise 
populations in most of the Mojave region are likely to be vulnerable to 
adverse climatic conditions and to regional climate change (Morafka and 
Brussard, in prep.).
    Throughout its geographic distribution, the desert tortoise 
exhibits trait variations in behavior, ecology, genetics, morphology, 
and physiology (Weinstein and Berry 1988, Germano 1989, Lamb et al. 
1989, Brussard 1992, Brussard and Britten 1992). For example, three 
basic shell shapes (phenotypes) are indicative of desert tortoise 
populations in distinct geographic areas within their range (Weinstein 
and Berry 1988). Tortoises occurring in California and southern Nevada 
exhibit a boxlike, high-domed shell phenotype; Beaver Dam Slope 
tortoises have a short plastron (underside) and a low-domed shell 
phenotype; and Sonoran Desert tortoises have a pear-shaped, low-domed 
shell phenotype (Weinstein and Berry 1988). Furthermore, identification 
of the three phenotypes parallels results of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) 
studies that also ``type'' desert tortoises into the same three 
populations based on genetics (Lamb et al. 1989). It is because of such 
variability that six recovery units representing six distinct 
population segments of the Mojave population have been proposed in the 
Draft Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). These 
population segments should not be confused with subspecies or 
recognized populations, e.g., the Mojave or Sonoran populations. The 
six recovery units within the range of the desert tortoise, as outlined 
in the Draft Recovery Plan, mirror the biotic and abiotic variability 
found in the desert tortoise habitat.
    The objective of the Draft Recovery Plan is the recovery and 
delisting of the Mojave population of the desert tortoise. Desert 
tortoise populations have declined substantially throughout the Mojave 
Region in the last 2 decades, primarily due to habitat loss. These 
populations grow slowly, and significant improvement in the status of 
the Mojave population will be a very long process, measured in decades 
or centuries in most parts of the Mojave Region. Nevertheless, 
delisting of the desert tortoise may be considered if the following 
criteria are met:
    (1) As determined by a scientifically credible monitoring plan, the 
population within a recovery unit exhibits a statistically significant 
upward trend toward target density or remains stationary at target 
density for at least 12 years (one-half of a desert tortoise 
generation);
    (2) Enough habitat is protected within a recovery unit and/or the 
habitat and desert tortoise populations are managed intensively enough 
to ensure long-term population viability;
    (3) Regulatory mechanisms or land management commitments have been 
implemented that provide for adequate long-term protection of desert 
tortoises and their habitat; and
    (4) The population is unlikely to need protection under the Act in 
the foreseeable future.
    Even though the Draft Recovery Plan has not been approved, it 
represents the best available biological information on the conditions 
needed to bring the Mojave population of the desert tortoise to the 
point where listing under the Act is no longer necessary (i.e., 
recovery).
    The Service would delist the Mojave population of the desert 
tortoise if the delisting criteria were met because protection under 
the Act would be unnecessary. With the delisting criteria met, the 
desert tortoise and its habitat would continue to be protected under 
other regulatory mechanisms outlined in a final recovery plan. Upon 
delisting, the interim protection afforded by the Act in the 
designation of critical habitat would be eliminated.

Management Considerations

    Current and historic desert tortoise habitat loss, deterioration, 
and fragmentation is largely attributable to urban development, 
military operations, and multiple-uses of public land, such as off-
highway vehicle (OHV) activities and livestock grazing. Historically, 
habitat reduction and fragmentation have not been uniform throughout 
the desert tortoise's range, but have been concentrated around 
populated areas, such as Mohave, Boron, Kramer Junction, Barstow, 
Victorville, Apple Valley, Lucerne Valley, and Twentynine Palms, 
California. Similar patterns are evident near Las Vegas, Laughlin, and 
Mesquite, Nevada; and St. George, Utah.
    Human ``predation'' (taking desert tortoises out of their natural 
populations either by death (accidental or intentional) or by removal) 
is also a major factor in the decline of the desert tortoise. People 
illegally collect desert tortoises for pets, food, and commercial 
trade. Some immigrants to the United States have collected desert 
tortoises for medicinal or other cultural purposes (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1993).
    Desert tortoises are often struck and killed by vehicles on roads 
and highways, and mortality of desert tortoises due to gunshot and OHV 
activities is common in many parts of the Mojave Region, particularly 
near cities and towns. In the western Mojave Desert of California, 14.3 
percent of the carcasses found on 11 permanent study plots showed 
evidence of gunshot (Sievers et al. 1988). At one plot, 28 percent of 
the carcasses had evidence of gunshot. Loss of tortoises from vandalism 
has also been reported in northwestern Arizona. Approximately 10 
percent of shell remains from a tortoise study plot near Littlefield, 
Arizona, had gunshot wounds.
    OHV use in the desert has increased and proliferated since the 
1960s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). As of 1980, OHV activities 
affected approximately 25 percent of all desert tortoise habitat in 
California, as well as substantial portions in southern Nevada (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Negative effects range from minor 
habitat alteration to total denudation of extensive areas. While direct 
effects are immediate (mortality from crushing, collection, and 
vandalism), indirect effects can be either immediate (disruption of 
soil integrity; degradation of annual plants, grasses, and perennial 
plants; and/or destruction of desert tortoise shelter sites), delayed, 
and/or cumulative (soil loss due to erosion, soil compaction and its 
effects on annual and perennial plants, water pollution, and litter and 
refuse) (Biosystems Analysis 1991).
    Impacts of roads within desert tortoise habitat extend 
significantly beyond the tracks that are created. Fewer tortoise signs 
are found closer to roads, suggesting reduced populations (Nicholson 
1978). Thus, well-used OHV areas often result in depressed tortoise 
populations extending beyond the immediate boundaries of the directly 
disturbed habitat.
    The use of OHVs appears to have a significant effect on tortoise 
abundance and distribution. Although road closures have been 
implemented in some areas, illegal vehicle route proliferation has also 
occurred in many areas and can result in a significant cumulative loss 
of habitat. Human access increases the incidence of tortoise mortality 
from collecting, gunshot, and crushing by vehicles.
    Domestic livestock grazing has occurred in desert tortoise habitat 
since the mid-1800s, with an increase in intensity near the turn of the 
century to the mid-1930s (Biosystems Analysis 1991). Possible direct 
impacts from grazing include trampling of both tortoises and shelter 
sites; possible indirect impacts include loss of plant cover, reduction 
in number of suitable shelter sites, change in vegetation, compaction 
of soils, reduced water infiltration, erosion, inhibition of nitrogen 
fixation in desert plants, and the provision of a favorable seed bed 
for exotic annual vegetation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991, 
1993). Habitat destruction and degradation are especially evident in 
livestock watering, bedding, loading, and unloading areas (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1991).
    The degree and nature of impacts from livestock grazing are 
dependent upon the local ecosystem, grazing history, seasons of use, 
stocking rates, annual rainfall, and density of the tortoise 
population. Desert ecosystems require decades to recover from 
disturbances, and desert tortoise populations are incapable of rapid 
growth, even under optimum conditions.
    Desert tortoises, particularly hatchlings and juveniles, are preyed 
upon by several native species of mammals, reptiles, and birds. 
Domestic and feral dogs are a new source of mortality.
    Common raven (Corvus corax) populations in the southwestern deserts 
have increased significantly since the 1940s, presumably in response to 
expanding human use of the desert. Sewage ponds, landfills (authorized 
and unauthorized), power lines, roads, and other human uses have 
increased available foraging, roosting, and nesting opportunities for 
ravens. Over the last 20 years, raven populations in the western Mojave 
Desert have increased 1528 percent between 1968 and 1988 (about 15 
percent per year) and increased in the Colorado-Sonoran Deserts 474 
percent (over 9 percent per year). While not all ravens may include 
tortoises as significant components of their diets, these birds are 
highly opportunistic in their feeding patterns and concentrate on 
easily available seasonal food sources, such as juvenile tortoises. 
Increased mortality of young desert tortoises (in part due to predation 
by ravens), combined with drastically lowered survivorship of adults, 
is likely responsible for observed catastrophic population declines 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
    An upper respiratory tract disease (URTD) is prevalent in captive 
desert tortoises and has been identified in wild desert tortoises in 
many localities in the western Mojave Desert and in limited localities 
elsewhere. URTD appears to be spreading and may have been introduced to 
wild populations through illegal releases of diseased captive desert 
tortoises. Wild desert tortoises with signs of URTD are commonly found 
near cities and towns with concentrations of captive desert tortoises 
(Marlow and Brussard 1993). Disease has contributed to high mortality 
rates in the western Mojave Desert in the last 4 years (Avery and Berry 
1990, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
    Recent studies have demonstrated Mycoplasma agassizii sp. nov. as 
the causative agent of URTD. Predisposing factors, such as habitat 
degradation, poor nutrition, and drought, are likely involved in 
increasing the susceptibility of individual animals to disease 
(Jacobson et al. 1991). Drought and concomitant poor nutrition have the 
potential to compromise desert tortoises immunologically and, 
therefore, make them more susceptible to URTD and other diseases. 
Controlling human-related spread of URTD, improving habitat conditions, 
and monitoring health status of desert tortoise populations are some of 
the more important management tools that can be used in controlling 
URTD in wild populations of the desert tortoise (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1993).
    A shell disease has also been observed in the Chuckwalla Bench 
population in the eastern Colorado Desert (Jacobson et al. 1992). A 
variety of mineral and metal deficiencies, as well as various 
toxicants, are known to cause integumentary pathology in mammals, 
suggesting disease or toxicosis may be responsible for these observed 
shell abnormalities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). Another 
shell disease, osteopenia, occurs in desert tortoise populations on the 
Beaver Dam Slope and may be related to poor nutrition (Jarchow and May 
1989).

Criteria for Identifying Critical Habitat

    The maintenance of stable, self-sustaining, and well-distributed 
populations of desert tortoises throughout their range is dependent 
upon habitat quality and its ability to support viable populations. The 
biological and physical characteristics of the desert ecosystem that 
support nesting, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and/or gene flow are 
essential for this purpose. The Service based its designation of 
critical habitat on those areas recommended for recovery of the desert 
tortoise in the Draft Recovery Plan.
    The Draft Recovery Plan proposes 14 DWMAs within 6 recovery units 
within the range of the desert tortoise. The Service used the DWMAs as 
the basis for CHUs because:
    (1) The Draft Recovery Plan's conservation strategy is based upon 
the best available information on desert tortoises gathered and 
analyzed over the past 20 years;
    (2) The Draft Recovery Plan represents an in-depth analysis of the 
conservation needs of the desert tortoise;
    (3) The areas recommended as DWMAs were proposed by experts 
familiar with the species and its habitat based on the principles of 
conservation biology; and
    (4) Use of the DWMAs is consistent with the Service's other 
conservation efforts (e.g., it has been the focus in section 7 
consultations and conservation planning).
    The Service's identification of areas consistent with the proposed 
DWMAs containing the primary constituent elements described above was 
based on the seven principles of conservation biology used in the Draft 
Recovery Plan:
    (1) Reserves should be well-distributed across a species' native 
range;
    (2) Reserves should contain large blocks of habitat with large 
populations of the target species;
    (3) Blocks of habitat should be close together;
    (4) Reserves should contain contiguous rather than fragmented 
habitat;
    (5) Habitat patches should contain minimal edge to area ratios;
    (6) Blocks should be interconnected by corridors or linkages 
containing protected, preferred habitat for the target species; and
    (7) Blocks of habitat should be roadless or otherwise inaccessible 
to humans.
    Critical habitat is based on the framework of the Draft Recovery 
Plan. Should a final approved recovery plan vary significantly from the 
draft, or significantly change the assumptions underlying this critical 
habitat designation, then the Service may reevaluate critical habitat 
boundaries.

Differences From the Draft Recovery Plan

    Designation of critical habitat does not accomplish the same goals 
or have as dramatic an effect upon tortoise conservation as does a 
recovery plan because critical habitat does not apply a management 
prescription to designated areas. Because critical habitat designation 
is not a management plan, there was not a limitation on the size of the 
areas designated, although the designation is consistent with 
recommendations of the Draft Recovery Plan.

Adjustments to Legally Described Boundaries

    The regulations require that the Service define ``* * * by specific 
limits using reference points and lines as found on standard 
topographic maps'' those areas designated as critical habitat (50 CFR 
424.12 (c)). After selecting DWMAs as the starting point, the Service 
made several types of adjustments. To facilitate legal definition, CHU 
boundaries were adjusted to adjacent section lines, depending upon the 
amount and quality of habitat within the adjacent sections. The 
boundaries generally follow the 4,100-foot elevation contour line, 
except where excluding higher elevations would compromise reserve 
design principles. When adjacent to cities or towns, critical habitat 
boundaries were drawn on \1/2\ or \1/4\ section lines to remove as much 
unsuitable habitat as possible.
    In addition to adjusting DWMA boundaries to meet the requirements 
to define critical habitat boundaries, the Service made other changes. 
Some CHUs represent more precisely described desert tortoise habitat 
within the DWMA boundary, and thus, encompass a much smaller area. For 
example, portions of DWMAs were not included in critical habitat if 
unsuitable habitat was identifiable on available maps and the exclusion 
would not affect the size or configuration recommendations made by the 
Draft Recovery Plan. Conversely, some critical habitat boundaries were 
expanded beyond DWMA boundaries to include additional habitat based on 
information made available to the Service during preparation of the 
rule.
    In addressing the above factors, the Service considered existing 
suitable habitat and desert tortoise populations that were not included 
in existing DWMAs and areas where additional protection should be 
considered to reduce the risk to recovery. When including other areas, 
the Service considered factors similar to those outlined in the Draft 
Recovery Plan on contiguity, shape, habitat quality, and spacing. Areas 
with minimal fragmentation were selected over areas with more extensive 
fragmentation.
    The desert tortoise requires large, contiguous areas of habitat to 
meet its life requisites. Human activities have reduced much of the 
habitat in some areas to small, fragmented, and isolated areas that are 
not expected to support viable populations over time. In some cases, 
those areas were designated as critical habitat when they were needed 
to promote future development of large contiguous habitat areas in the 
future.

Lands Outside of Critical Habitat

    Not all suitable desert tortoise habitat was included in critical 
habitat. The Service recognizes the importance of all lands, but did 
not incorporate all habitat within CHUs, primarily because most of 
these lands did not meet the designation criteria (i.e., were not 
associated with an area recommended in the Draft Recovery Plan, were 
too small to maintain a stable population of tortoises over time, or 
were already protected). This does not mean that lands outside of 
critical habitat do not play an important role in the tortoise's 
conservation. These lands are also important to providing nesting, 
foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and/or gene flow habitat for 
tortoises.

Previously Protected Areas

    The current management policies of the Desert National Wildlife 
Range, Joshua Tree National Monument, and the Desert Tortoise Natural 
Area provide adequate protection against potential habitat-altering 
activities because they are primarily managed as natural ecosystems. 
The Service considered their relative contribution to the tortoise's 
conservation but did not include them in critical habitat because of 
their current classification. These lands are essential to the 
conservation of the species because they provide important links and 
contain large areas of contiguous habitat.
    By themselves, these previously protected areas are not large 
enough and do not contain sufficient population levels to support 
viable populations. They will be considered in developing recovery 
areas for the desert tortoise, in addition to surrounding public lands 
with desert tortoise habitat.

Management Planning

    The Service's intent in designating critical habitat for the desert 
tortoise is to provide protection for habitat that contains constituent 
habitat elements in sufficient quantities and quality to maintain a 
stable population of desert tortoises throughout their range. The 
emphasis for future management will be on maintaining or developing 
habitat that has the characteristics of suitable tortoise habitat and 
to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of current management practices.
    Although critical habitat is not a management plan, the areas 
selected for inclusion play a role in maintaining a stable and well-
distributed population of tortoises. Identification of these areas 
concluded the first step in the designation of critical habitat for the 
desert tortoise.

Economic Summary of August 30 Proposal

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Service to designate 
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available and 
to consider the economic effects and other relevant impacts of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude areas from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits 
of such exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as 
part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, that the failure to designate 
such areas as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the 
species concerned.
    The economic effects of designating critical habitat for the desert 
tortoise are the incremental impacts over and above those impacts that 
occurred as a result of implementation of management plans, such as 
Federal land management plans, habitat conservation plans that have 
already been implemented, and previous events, including the listing of 
the desert tortoise. The economic analysis considers the critical 
habitat impacts to be those incremental impacts that are expected as a 
result of the critical habitat.
    The Service analyzed the economic effects of the August 30, 1993, 
proposal to designate critical habitat (Schamberger et al. 1993). A 
summary of that analysis was provided in the proposed rule (58 FR 
45748). That analysis examined how designation of critical habitat was 
expected to affect the use of Federal lands or State or private 
activities with some Federal involvement, and the economic costs or 
benefits that would ensue in the four-State area. These were the 
regional economic effects of the designation that were over and above 
those expected to result from previous actions, including the listing 
of the desert tortoise as threatened. The economic analysis assumed 
those values that were in place prior to critical habitat (e.g., final 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans, section 7 jeopardy standard, the 
Clark County short-term habitat conservation plan, and section 9 
prohibitions) as the baseline for this analysis. As a result, critical 
habitat effects were those incremental impacts that would occur solely 
as a result of the critical habitat proposal above and beyond the 
effects of these other actions.
    The critical habitat covers a broad geographic area in four States 
and includes Federal, State, private, and Tribal lands. Because the 
designation affects only Federal agency actions under section 7, it is 
assumed that any ensuing economic impacts of the designation would 
occur only on Federal lands or on non-Federal lands where there is 
Federal involvement. The Service concluded that the impacts on Federal 
lands would be largely limited to livestock grazing, mining, and 
recreational activities that may affect tortoise habitat.
    As a result of that analysis, the Service concluded that the August 
30 proposal would affect 51 Federal grazing permits that provide about 
59,500 animal unit months (AUMs). The maximum potential reduction in 
regional employment was estimated to be 425 jobs (340 direct jobs; 85 
indirect jobs). The profitability of ranches in the seven counties is 
estimated to fall by $4,470,000 due to critical habitat designation. 
That is the estimated permanent decrease in ranch profits, capitalized 
at 10 percent for a 50-year period, in accordance with the methodology 
of Rice et al. (1978). Reduced grazing fees in the seven-county region 
from Federal allotments was estimated to total $170,000 annually. Half 
of this amount ($85,000) was returned to the grazing programs for range 
improvements, the U.S. Treasury received a maximum 37.5 percent 
($63,750) of the fees, and local governments received a minimum of 12.5 
percent ($21,250). The effect of reduced grazing on Federal land is 
expected to vary among counties. The designation of critical habitat is 
not expected to have significant economic effects within any of the 
seven counties.
    Designation of critical habitat will not affect ongoing mining 
operations, as the ground disturbances typical of mineral extraction 
make mine sites unsuitable for tortoise habitat. Expansion of existing 
mines or development of new mines will require section 7 consultation 
with the Service. Most of the CHUs include surface areas on which 
mining claims have been filed. The economic impact of critical habitat 
designation cannot be determined at the present time due to the 
uncertainty of economically feasible mineral extraction. Mining claims 
allow exploration but do not assure exercise of exploration rights, nor 
do they ensure economic profits to the owner.
    The Service was unable to identify significant economic impacts to 
recreation activities due to critical habitat designation.
    Conservation of the desert tortoise and its habitat through 
designation of critical habitat will result in a wide range of 
benefits, including recreation values, watershed protection, and 
others, as well as the values that society places on conservation of 
the tortoise and its ecosystem. However, it was not possible to place 
dollar estimates on these values.
    As a result of this analysis, the Service concluded that the 
economic impacts that would be incurred from critical habitat 
designation would not be significant to either the regional (seven-
county) or national economy. The Service did not recommend any 
exclusions based on economic effects.

Summary of the Exclusion Process

    To determine whether or not to exclude areas from the designation 
of critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires 
determinations of:
    (1) The benefits of excluding an area as critical habitat,
    (2) The benefits of including an area, and
    (3) The effects of exclusions on the probability of species 
extinction.
    This process consists of estimating the benefits of retaining or 
excluding CHUs, weighing those benefits, and determining if exclusion 
of an area or areas will lead to the extinction of the species. If the 
exclusion of an area or areas from critical habitat will result in 
eventual species extinction, then the exclusion would be prohibited 
under the Act.

Extinction

    Critical habitat consists of areas with habitat characteristics 
that are essential to the conservation of a listed species. However, 
the exclusion process focuses upon a threshold for species extinction. 
Conservation (recovery) and extinction are separate standards. Recovery 
and extinction are at opposite ends of a continuum, with the likelihood 
of a species' continued survival increasing the closer the species is 
to the recovery end of the continuum. It may be more difficult to 
predict the point at which extinction would be inevitable than to 
determine where recovery may occur.
    Each such determination may be different for different species and 
may vary over the range of a species. It may be related to a number of 
factors, such as the number of individuals, amount of habitat, 
condition of the habitat, and reproductive success. Extinction of a 
wide-ranging species such as the desert tortoise would most likely 
occur as a result of increased fragmentation of its habitat (affecting 
quality). Portions of the species' range would no longer support 
tortoises before the species would become extinct. Cumulatively, 
reductions in range would inevitably lead to the species' extinction. 
The focus of the analysis was on those factors that pertain to these 
issues and included consideration of the condition and location of 
habitat.

Criteria and Decision

    The Act specifically prohibits consideration of economic effects 
when listing species as threatened or endangered, but requires an 
analysis of the economic and other relevant impacts of designating 
critical habitat. Therefore, economic costs and benefits of critical 
habitat designation were defined as the economic effects that:
    (1) Exceed those that resulted from listing the desert tortoise as 
a threatened species in April 1990; and
    (2) Are above those economic effects resulting from the previous 
implementation of tortoise protection measures by Federal land 
management agencies.
    In evaluating the designation of critical habitat to determine 
whether or not to exclude areas because of concerns over economic 
effects, the Service used the following process:
    (1) Areas were identified that are essential to the conservation of 
the species based upon the criteria described in this document; and
    (2) An economic analysis was conducted to ascertain the anticipated 
economic consequences of designating areas as critical habitat, using 
the county as the basic level of economic analysis.

Exclusion

    After considering the economic and other factors that may be 
pertinent to any decision to exclude areas from designation as critical 
habitat, the Secretary of the Interior has determined that no 
exclusions are appropriate.

Biological Modifications to Boundaries

    Based on information received during the proposal process, the 
Service refined boundaries of six CHUs based on biological information 
that these areas did not contain constituent elements and that deletion 
of them from critical habitat would not compromise the function of the 
CHU or its reserve design. These areas included:
    (1) Approximately 2,000 acres in the Chocolate Mountains in the 
Chuckwalla CHU in California;
    (2) Approximately 20,800 acres within and adjacent to the 
Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base in the Ord-Rodman CHU in California;
    (3) Approximately 13,200 acres in the Newberry Mountains in the 
Piute-Eldorado CHU in Nevada;
    (4) Approximately 76,300 acres on both the northern and southern 
borders of the Mormon Mesa CHU in Nevada;
    (5) Approximately 80,757 acres around the Gold Butte-Pakoon CHU in 
Arizona; and
    (6) Approximately 8,100 acres north of St. George, Utah in the 
Upper Virgin River CHU in Utah.
    In addition, based on information and a request submitted from the 
BLM, the Service included an additional 1,920 acres on the southern 
border of the Beaver Dam Slope CHU in Arizona. This request was 
accommodated because:
    (1) It was made by the landowner and will not affect other 
landowners,
    (2) The proposed inclusion constitutes an insignificant change from 
the proposed rule, and
    (3) It will allow the BLM's desert tortoise study plots to be 
included within desert tortoise habitat.

Effects of the Designation

    The proposed rule for the designation of critical habitat for the 
desert tortoise published on August 30, 1993, identified 12 areas 
encompassing a total of approximately 6.6 million acres. It included 
eight CHUs totaling 4.8 million acres in California, four CHUs totaling 
1.3 million acres in Nevada, two CHUs totalling 137,200 acres in Utah, 
and two CHUs totaling 417,400 acres in Arizona. This included 5 million 
acres of BLM land, 247,400 acres of military lands, 151,200 acres of 
National Park Service land, 170,100 acres of State lands, 1,600 acres 
of Tribal lands, 1,079,500 acres of private lands, and 100 acres of 
Forest Service land. A summary of changes in acreage between the 
proposed rule and this final rule are provided in Table 1. 

   Table 1.--Summary of Changes in Acreage Between Proposal and Final   
                      Critical Habitat Designations                     
              [Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total  
                                                                  acre  
                                                               reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions:                                                             
  Bureau of Land Management..................................    204,900
  Military...................................................      5,200
  National Park Service......................................      3,900
  State......................................................      4,000
  Tribal.....................................................          0
Increases:                                                              
  Private....................................................  \1\18,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\An increase in private land acreage resulted from a correction in    
  land status in the Mormon Mesa CHU; the BLM land sold to Aerojet-     
  General Corporation through the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Act of   
  1988 was originally shown as BLM.                                     

Total Acres Included in Critical Habitat

    As a result of boundary revisions based on new biological 
information, the Service is designating approximately 199,100 acres 
less than proposed in the August 30, 1993 proposal. The final rule for 
the designation of critical habitat for the desert tortoise identifies 
12 areas, encompassing a total of 6.4 million acres. The Service has 
designated eight units totaling 4.8 million acres in California, four 
units totaling 1.2 million acres in Nevada, two units totaling 129,100 
acres in Utah, and two units totaling 338,700 acres in Arizona. The 
final designation encompasses approximately 4,790,600 acres of BLM 
land, 242,200 acres of military land, 147,200 acres of National Park 
Service land, 166,200 acres of State land, 1,600 acres of Tribal land, 
and 1,098,400 acres of private land (see Tables 2 and 3). Three CHU 
boundaries span more than one State--Piute-Eldorado (California and 
Nevada), Gold Butte-Pakoon (Nevada and Arizona), and Beaver Dam Slope 
(Nevada, Arizona, and Utah). 

  Table 2.--Approximate Acreage of Critical Habitat Designated for the  
                Desert Tortoise by Critical Habitat Unit                
              [Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Critical habitat unit                        Acres  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California:                                                             
  Chemehuevi.................................................    937,400
  Chuckwalla.................................................  1,020,600
  Fremont-Kramer.............................................    518,000
  Ivanpah Valley.............................................    632,400
  Pinto Mountains............................................    171,700
  Ord-Rodman.................................................    253,200
  Piute-Eldorado.............................................    453,800
  Superior-Cronese...........................................    766,900
Nevada:                                                                 
  Beaver Dam Slope...........................................     87,400
  Gold Butte-Pakoon..........................................    192,300
  Mormon Mesa................................................    427,900
  Piute-Eldorado.............................................    516,800
Utah:                                                                   
  Beaver Dam Slope...........................................     74,500
  Upper Virgin River.........................................     54,600
Arizona:                                                                
  Beaver Dam Slope...........................................     42,700
  Gold Butte-Pakoon..........................................    296,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 3.--Approximate Acreage of Critical Habitat Designated for the Desert Tortoise by Landownership     
                                  [Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred]                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  California     Nevada        Utah       Arizona       Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management......................    3,327,400    1,085,000       89,400      288,800    4,790,600
Military.......................................      242,200            0            0            0      242,200
National Park Service..........................            0      103,600            0       43,600      147,200
State..........................................      132,900            0       27,600        5,700      166,200
Tribal.........................................            0            0        1,600            0        1,600
Private........................................    1,051,500       35,800       10,500          600    1,098,400
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
  Total........................................    4,754,000    1,224,400      129,100      338,700    6,446,200
Number of critical habitat units...............            8            4            2            2         *12 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Two areas overlap two States, one area overlaps three States.                                                  

    Developed areas, such as towns, airports, and roads, and dry lakes, 
active mining operations, and water bodies will not be affected by the 
designation because they will never contain primary constituent 
elements. To the extent possible, these areas were deleted from 
critical habitat. If these areas were found along the periphery of 
CHUs, boundaries were redrawn to physically exclude them from the final 
maps. This was not possible for areas imbedded within individual units. 
Acreage totals were adjusted where possible to reflect their exclusion.
    The majority of desert tortoises and suitable desert tortoise 
habitat (i.e., for nesting, sheltering, foraging, dispersal, and gene 
flow) are found on BLM land. Much of the private land included in the 
critical habitat boundaries results from checkerboard landownership 
patterns along railroads. The final designation of critical habitat 
includes the areas that contain the best remaining desert tortoise 
habitat.

Economic Impacts of the Final Designation

    The economic analysis (Schamberger et al. 1993) provides the 
Service's conclusions on the potential impacts of the areas selected 
for final designation as critical habitat. This analysis served as a 
decision document in evaluating economic consequences of the action 
leading to the final decision to designate critical habitat.
    Consistent with the requirements of section 4 of the Act, the 
economic analysis reviews the final economic impact of designating 
critical habitat. Only these incremental costs and benefits of 
designation may be considered in determining whether to exclude lands 
from designation. The economic analysis examined the costs and benefits 
of precluding or limiting specific land uses within portions of 
critical habitat beyond those restrictions that have already been 
implemented either for the benefit of the desert tortoise through the 
listing process or for some other reason. Incremental analysis was the 
appropriate method to use because the designation of critical habitat 
is the only action for which the Service now has decision authority. 
The economic costs of listing the species have already been incurred, 
and the economic effects of actions taken by other Federal or State 
agencies are outside the purview of the Service. The analysis was cast 
in a ``with'' critical habitat versus a ``without'' critical habitat 
framework and measures the net change in various categories of benefits 
and costs when the critical habitat designation was imposed on the 
existing baseline. The analysis evaluated national economic, or 
efficiency, costs and benefits that reflect changes in social welfare. 
The standard measure of those costs and benefits is economic surplus in 
the form of economic rents and consumer surplus.
    The costs of designating an area as critical habitat are the net 
economic costs of precluding or restricting certain land uses over the 
period of analysis. Costs are measured as the difference between the 
resource's value in its economically best use without critical habitat 
and its next best use (opportunity cost) when that use is precluded or 
restricted by critical habitat. Economic effects include a mixture of 
efficiency and equity measures.
    The economic efficiency effects of designation include those that 
result in changes in social welfare. Regional economic impacts often 
represent transfers among people, groups, and/or geographic regions. 
For simplicity, economic efficiency effects are referred to as benefits 
and costs, and distributional effects are cited as economic impacts. 
National economic efficiency effects may include, but are not 
restricted to:
    (1) Net change in aggregate value of capital (e.g., lands) due to 
critical habitat designation;
    (2) Wage earnings foregone from a significant number of employees 
permanently displaced through critical habitat designation;
    (3) Opportunity costs of foregone or precluded economic activities 
(e.g., curtailed or terminated land development); and
    (4) Benefits of retaining genetic and biological diversity through 
specific species protection measures.
    Regional (distributional) economic impacts may include:
    (1) Changes in specific county tax revenues due to changes in land 
use (e.g., developed real estate versus raw, undeveloped land); and
    (2) Regional social costs and benefits from factors such as 
transient unemployment, job training, or redistribution of existing 
job-mix categories (e.g., transitioning from underemployment in 
seasonal range or mine work to full employment in other sectors).
    The analysis of effects of critical habitat designation combines 
national economic efficiency effects and regional (distributional) 
impacts. These include effects on the net returns of local ranch 
operations, foregone grazing fees, compensation to allottees for 
permanent improvements to land leased from the Federal government for 
grazing, changes in total employment, and the portion of grazing fees 
that would be shared with local governments.
    These consequences are presented in the context of size, relative 
to the value added, of the seven counties in which the grazing impacts 
would be realized. These consequences illustrate the relative magnitude 
of critical habitat designation economic effects.

Economic Baseline

    In assessing the economic impacts of the critical habitat 
designation, the Service has used the expected economic situation 
consistent with restrictions that were in place at the time of 
proposing critical habitat. The principal land use restrictions that 
were already in place were the BLM's Management Framework Plans, 
Resource Management Plans, and habitat management plans; the BLM's 
Rangewide Plan; National Park Service land management policies; 
military land-use policies; and the listing of the desert tortoise as a 
threatened species (section 7 jeopardy standard and section 9 
prohibitions).
    Industry (e.g., grazing and mining) and recreation-related effects 
of designating critical habitat concern primarily those activities not 
already affected by earlier decisions. For all activities, however, it 
is the incremental effects of avoiding adverse modification of critical 
habitat and the marginal changes in ensuing benefits and costs that are 
the appropriate measures of the effects of critical habitat 
designation.
    Desert tortoise management and curtailment of the activities that 
threatened the species began when the BLM established the Desert 
Tortoise Preserve in 1973 in the Western Mojave Desert (Brussard et al. 
1993). The preserve was expanded and formally designated a Research 
Natural Area and an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) by 
1980 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). In 1988, the BLM published 
its Rangewide Plan (Spang et al. 1988), which is based on the 
categorization of desert tortoise habitat on BLM land into three 
categories based on:
    (1) Importance of the habitat to maintaining viable populations,
    (2) Resolvability of conflicts,
    (3) Desert tortoise density, and
    (4) Desert tortoise population status (stable, increasing, or 
decreasing).
    Category 1 lands are the most important to desert tortoises for 
survival and recovery, and category 3 lands are the least important. 
The Rangewide Plan provides management goals and objectives for each 
form of authorized multiple use within each of the categories on 
Federal land managed by the BLM, including livestock grazing, mining, 
and OHV activities. All CHUs in this final rule minimally include 
category 1 and/or 2 habitats. Additionally, CHUs contain some category 
3 habitats, uncategorized habitats, and lands managed by other Federal 
entities.
    The Service has assumed a distinction exists between the effects of 
listing the species and the incremental effects of designating critical 
habitat. The differences between listing and designation of critical 
habitat vary within each CHU based on existing management.
    Eight CHUs, or portions thereof, are designated in California 
(Chemehuevi, Chuckwalla, Pinto Mountain, Piute-Eldorado (includes 
Fenner DWMA), Ivanpah, Fremont-Kramer, Ord-Rodman, and Superior-
Cronese). All are managed primarily by the BLM according to guidance 
provided in the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980, as 
amended (Desert Plan), and the 1992 California Statewide Desert 
Tortoise Management Policy (Tortoise Management Policy). The Desert 
Plan defines four classes of land use with differing management goals 
and prescriptions. Classes include controlled use (wilderness and areas 
recommended for wilderness), limited use, moderate use, and intensive 
use (vehicle travel restrictions range from designated routes only in 
limited-use areas to no vehicular restrictions in intensive use areas). 
The Tortoise Management Policy designates three categories of desert 
tortoise habitat in which varying levels of protection are afforded to 
the desert tortoise and its habitat. Additional management guidance is 
provided in livestock allotment management plans (AMPs), habitat 
management plans (HMPs) for desert tortoises and other wildlife 
species, the East Mojave National Scenic Area Plan, and management 
plans for specific ACECs.
    The West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan and the Eastern 
Colorado Desert HMP are BLM management plans currently in preparation 
that will have an important effect on desert tortoise management in 
California. The West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan will be the 
basis for a programmatic section 7 consultation for BLM activities in 
the western Mojave Desert and may serve as a basis for habitat 
conservation plan(s) for local governments in the section 10(a)(1)(B) 
permit process. The Eastern Colorado Desert HMP will address all BLM 
activities in the Chuckwalla Bench area and will provide a framework 
for a programmatic section 7 consultation.
    The Chuckwalla CHU is managed by the BLM and the Navy (Chocolate 
Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range). Parts of the Superior-Cronese CHU are 
managed by the Army (National Training Center at Ft. Irwin) and the 
Navy (China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station). The Fremont-Kramer CHU 
includes a portion of Edwards Air Force Base. Portions of the Piute-
Eldorado and Ivanpah CHUs in California are within the boundaries of 
the East Mojave National Scenic Area, which affords special protection 
to the area's natural, scenic, and other values (BLM 1980).
    Several programmatic and other biological opinions have resulted in 
additional regulation of activities within desert tortoise habitat in 
California. Biological opinions have limited grazing of sheep to 
category 3 habitats. Programmatic consultations have been completed for 
land use plans at the Naval Air Weapons Station and the Rand-Fremont 
Valley areas. The Service has also completed a biological opinion 
concerning the on-going mission for the Army's National Training Center 
at Ft. Irwin. Programmatic consultations also exist that define 
standard terms and conditions for mining operations disturbing less 
than 10 acres, for non-competitive vehicle races, such as poker runs, 
which occur on designated routes in some desert tortoise areas, and for 
the four OHV management areas within the western Mojave Desert.
    The Service and the BLM are currently developing a programmatic 
approach to long-term pipeline maintenance. The Service and the Navy 
are also informally consulting on a programmatic consultation for 
training activities at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center 
(MCAGCC) and within the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range.
    In Nevada, the majority of the desert tortoise habitat is managed 
by the BLM under the Clark County Management Framework Plan. The 
Stateline Resource Area of the Las Vegas District has prepared a draft 
Resource Management Plan that proposes designation of ACECs for desert 
tortoises; however, this document has not yet been finalized. Livestock 
grazing in Nevada is restricted to the period of June 15 to March 1, in 
accordance with the BLM's proposed livestock grazing program and the 
Service's biological opinion that analyzed that proposal. However, as 
of this date, the BLM's decision to implement this seasonal restriction 
has been stayed by an Administrative Law Judge. Although Interior Board 
of Land Appeals Administrative Law Judges have the authority to review 
land use decisions made by Interior agencies, they lack jurisdiction 
needed to review biological opinions issued by the Service. In southern 
Clark County, portions of the Piute-Eldorado CHU are also managed by 
the National Park Service (Lake Mead National Recreation Area).
    In 1991, the Piute-Eldorado Valley was established as a Tortoise 
Management Area (TMA), as mitigation for the incidental take of desert 
tortoises in the Las Vegas Valley, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act. The Short-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Desert 
Tortoise in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada (Regional 
Environmental Consultants 1991), which described this mitigation, 
provides land-use control measures for this area. These measures 
include prohibition of competitive and commercial events, except in 
some portions of Eldorado Valley, placing livestock grazing areas into 
non-use status, and designation of roads and trails.
    The majority of the lands within the Gold Butte-Pakoon and Beaver 
Dam Slope CHUs in Arizona are managed by the BLM under the Arizona 
Strip Management Plan. This plan designates the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC 
and includes management prescriptions designed to minimize impacts to 
desert tortoises and their habitat. All desert tortoise habitat in 
Arizona is within the area managed by the Virgin River-Pakoon Basin 
Habitat Management Plan, a cooperative Sikes Act document written by 
the BLM and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Additionally, desert 
tortoise habitat occurring in wilderness areas in Arizona is managed 
according to the Paiute-Beaver Dam Wilderness Management Plan and the 
Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness Management Plan. Grazing is administered 
according to the Cedar Wash, Highway, Beaver Dam Slope, Mormon Well, 
Littlefield Community, Mesquite Community, Mosby-Nay, Pakoon Springs, 
Pakoon, Cottonwood, Mud and Cane, and Tassi Allotment Management Plans. 
In addition to prescriptions set forth in these allotment management 
plans, a Service biological opinion on livestock grazing limited 
grazing to the period from June 1 to March 15.
    In Utah, the Beaver Dam Slope CHU is primarily managed by the BLM. 
In the Castle Cliffs allotment, a 3,040-acre exclosure encompassing the 
historic Woodbury-Hardy study area and several other important tortoise 
shelter site areas was established to serve as a natural study area to 
enhance the tortoise population. However, the exclosure was never 
completely operational or effective in eliminating grazing in the area. 
The BLM reduced the exclosure to 1,500 acres, where grazing was 
completely excluded. The Dixie Resource Area developed a resource 
management plan for the area, but the final document was rejected and 
the process has been reinitiated. Currently, BLM management in the 
Beaver Dam Slope CHU is conducted under the Habitat Management Plan 
adopted in 1980.
    The BLM and the State of Utah are the primary managers of the Upper 
Virgin River CHU. Smaller amounts of habitat are owned by private 
entities and by the Paiute Indians. Several consultations have been 
initiated regarding grazing, housing development, horse racing, and 
energy pipeline developments, for which the Service has prepared draft 
biological opinions. Also, Washington County is pursuing development of 
a habitat conservation plan for the area encompassing the Upper Virgin 
River CHU, and the Service is providing guidance for development of 
this plan. The BLM is pursuing land exchanges with the State of Utah 
for consolidation of desert tortoise habitat within the Upper Virgin 
River CHU for ease of management and for long-term conservation of the 
desert tortoise and other desert species. The BLM's Dixie Resource Area 
is currently preparing a Resource Management Plan to guide land 
management on BLM lands encompassing the Upper Virgin River CHU. 
Because of the area's small size and its proximity to an expanding 
urban population center, the Service has maintained that any 
significant losses of habitat within this area would likely jeopardize 
the continued existence of desert tortoises within the Upper Virgin 
River Recovery- Unit.

Limitations of the Analysis

    The regional economy includes the full economic activity of each 
county in which proposed CHUs are located. CHUs generally are located 
in remote areas containing a very small fraction of the human 
population and total economic activity within a county. The entire 
county economy may not be affected by establishing CHUs; thus, the size 
of the relevant regional economy may be overstated. Likewise, important 
activities in rural areas may appear to be insignificant when compared 
to the entire regional economy. For example, mining does not appear to 
be an important employer in the seven counties, but may contribute to 
the economic stability of small rural communities that offer few other 
employment opportunities.

Costs of Critical Habitat Designation

    The following sections summarize the results of the Service's 
analysis of data and identify the potential costs associated with the 
final designation of critical habitat.

Regional Effects to Livestock Industry

    Public lands in the four States in 1990 furnished nearly 3,000 
operators with cattle grazing permits that provided more than 3 million 
AUMs (Table 4). The designation of critical habitat may partially or 
totally affect 51 cattle permits that provided 59,000 AUMs. Nearly all 
sheep grazing was eliminated from most CHUs prior to critical habitat 
designation; therefore, sheep grazing was not an activity examined in 
the economic analysis. The effect of CHU restrictions on the 
availability of Federal land for grazing varies widely among the 
States, from 0.6 percent of cattle AUMs in Nevada to 9.6 percent of 
cattle AUMs in California. Across the four States, CHUs may affect 1.7 
percent of cattle and sheep grazing AUMs (note these effects apply to 
the States rather than the seven-county region, for which comparable 
data were not available).
    The economic consequences of reduced cattle grazing on Federal 
lands to establish the proposed CHUs includes three effects. Ranch 
profits in the seven counties are estimated to fall by $4,470,000. This 
amount is the estimated permanent decrease in ranch profits, 
capitalized at 10 percent for a 50 year period, in accordance with the 
methodology of Rice et al. (1978). The Federal government will 
compensate allottees with a one-time payment estimated at $376,000 for 
the loss of permanent improvements to grazing lands (pending BLM 
administrative decisions of partially affected allotments). 
Discontinuing grazing leases will result in an annual reduction of 
$170,000 in collected grazing fees that are divided among range 
improvements, the U.S. Treasury, and local governments. The $170,000 is 
not a ``net'' annual reduction in that it does not include the reduced 
costs of grazing program administration.

       Table 4.--Cattle Grazing Affected by Critical Habitat Units      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Grazing                                       
         State           permits on    AUMs on        AUMs      Percent 
                            CHUs        CHUsa      Statewidea           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona...............           12       10,580      514,674        2.1
California............           13       28,240      295,676        9.6
Nevada................           17       11,790    1,821,875        0.6
Utah..................            9        8,870      770,143        1.2
                       -------------------------------------------------
  Total...............           51       59,480    3,402,368        1.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIncludes cattle and sheep.                                             
                                                                        
Source: U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1991. U.S. Bureau of Land        
  Management, district offices, personal communications, 1993.          

Regional Effects of Mining Industry

    The Service does not anticipate disruption to current mining 
operations from designation of critical habitat. The Service notes that 
active or previously disturbed mine sites typically do not provide 
suitable habitat for desert tortoises. Those areas, such as currently 
operating mine sites, lacking primary constituent elements are not 
considered critical habitat.
    Expansion of mining sites on public land would require section 7 
consultation to determine whether the expansion would likely destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. In cases where habitat is likely to 
be adversely modified, the Service may recommend reasonable and prudent 
alternatives, including relocation of roads or recovery of disturbed 
mine sites. Mining claims provide rights to explore and develop mineral 
deposits but there is no assurance that deposits can be developed 
economically.
    Claims may never be developed if market conditions do not warrant 
or if reserves prove insignificant. The uncertainty involved in mining 
claims and mineral reserves precludes accurate estimation of economic 
effects from designation of critical habitat.

Reductions in County Revenues

    Potential revenue loss to the seven counties examined in the 
economic analysis due to reduced use of existing Federal leases and/or 
permits is not precisely calculable due to several factors, including 
(but not limited to):
    (1) The aggregate number of leases for grazing that have been 
issued under section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and from 
which a 50 percent revenue-sharing basis exists, as opposed to section 
3 permits that carry a basis of 12.5 percent revenue sharing with the 
affected county;
    (2) The final administrative decision by the BLM to partly or 
completely terminate certain permits/leases for grazing predicated upon 
their location, existing ingress/egress to other lands, etc.; and
    (3) The percentage mixture of the above two types of permits issued 
by the BLM and its attendant fee structure.
    Although it is known that certain grazing fees in each of the 
counties will be reduced and/or foregone, it is not possible to 
estimate accurately the dollar impact on the specific county level 
until the BLM has concluded its administrative decision process. The 
effect to the seven counties is expected to total approximately $21,000 
(the minimum 12.5 percent local share of the $170,000 grazing fees 
collected on allotments affected by critical habitat designation).

Net Economic Effect to U.S. Treasury

    The U.S. Treasury's portion of grazing fees collected by the BLM in 
fiscal year 1989 was insufficient to cover the direct costs of 
administering grazing programs in eight BLM districts in the hot 
deserts of the southwest. According to a 1991 report from the U.S. 
General Accounting Office (GAO), the BLM collected grazing fees 
totaling $3.97 million from the eight BLM desert districts. Half of 
this amount ($1.98 million) was returned to the grazing programs for 
range improvements, the U.S. Treasury received a maximum 37.5 percent 
($1.49 million) of the fees, and local governments received a minimum 
of 12.5 percent ($496,000). The U.S. Treasury thus received no more 
than $1.49 million, 53 percent of the $2.79 million expense for grazing 
management in the eight BLM districts. According to GAO:

    ``Critics of livestock grazing could argue that the costs of 
managing livestock grazing * * * exceeded the funds available to the 
Treasury to offset these management costs. Proponents could counter 
that * * * grazing fees more than offset * * * management costs and 
provided funds for State and county projects as well as for range 
improvements.
    No matter how costs are analyzed, the resources currently being 
spent on range management * * * are insufficient to perform all 
essential tasks. [I]nsufficient funding and staffing have been 
instrumental in the BLM's inability to restore degraded riparian 
areas, deal with overstocked grazing allotments, and detect 
livestock grazing trespass. Consistent with our findings, the BLM 
has concluded that its current budget is inadequate to perform all 
needed land management tasks throughout the public lands'' (U.S. 
General Accounting Office 1991).

    Based on the GAO's findings, the U.S. Treasury may realize a net 
financial gain from discontinuing or reducing Federal grazing programs 
in the hot desert (assuming administrative costs were reduced 
accordingly and not reassigned). Although the potential savings to the 
U.S. Treasury was not evaluated in the Draft Economic Analysis, it is 
reasonable to assume that discontinuation of grazing on the public 
lands designated as critical habitat for the desert tortoise may 
contribute to those savings.

Employment Effects

    Designation of critical habitat for the desert tortoise is expected 
to result in the loss of no more than 425 jobs in the seven-county 
region (Table 5). This estimate includes 340 jobs lost directly in 
ranching and 85 jobs lost indirectly in other industries. This job 
loss, due to the reduction of Federal grazing permits in CHUs, is an 
insignificant proportion of the 1,535,100 workers employed in the seven 
counties in 1990. Specific employment losses cannot be estimated for 
each county until the BLM decides on how to handle partially affected 
grazing allotments. This total job loss will be reduced if there is 
replacement of affected permits by permits on unaffected lands (Federal 
or private) or if those laborers transfer to jobs on unaffected ranch 
lands. These estimated employment losses will not be permanent for most 
laborers, as it is anticipated that over 85 percent will be reemployed 
within 2 years.
    Critical habitat designation is not expected to result in lost jobs 
in the mining sector because current mining operations will not be 
affected by designation. The impact on future employment in the mining 
sector cannot be calculated reliably because of the uncertainty of 
future expansion and development of claims.

 Table 5.--Regional Employment Losses From Critical Habitat Designation Compared With Total Regional Employment 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Direct ranching                    Total                  
                       State                          employment loss   Employment  employment loss     Total   
                                                                       multiplier                     employees 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.............................................        35-60             1.21        40-75           36,600
California..........................................        40-80             1.25       50-100        1,031,900
Nevada..............................................       45-120             1.14       50-135          446,800
Utah................................................        40-80             1.44       55-115           19,800
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................      160-340      ...........      195-425       1,535,100 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimated direct employment losses supplied by BLM offices in affected areas. Employment multiplier     
  estimated by IMPLAN.                                                                                          

Summary of Potential Impacts

    The economic consequences of designating critical habitat includes 
reduced ranch profits in the seven counties of $4,470,000 (this amount 
is the estimated permanent decrease in ranch profits capitalized at 10 
percent for a 50-year period, in accordance with the methodology of 
Rice et al. (1978)). The Federal government will compensate allottees 
with a one-time payment estimated at $376,000 for the loss of permanent 
improvements to grazing lands (pending BLM administrative decisions of 
partially affected allotments). Discontinuing grazing will result in an 
annual reduction of $170,000 in collected grazing fees that are divided 
among range improvements, the U.S. Treasury, and local governments.
    Critical habitat designation should result in the loss of fewer 
than 425 total jobs in the seven counties. These include 340 direct 
ranching jobs and 85 indirect jobs in other industries. The estimated 
employment loss will not be permanent because over 85 percent of 
laborers will be reemployed within 2 years.

Benefits of Critical Habitat Designation

    Conservation of the desert tortoise and its habitat through 
designation of critical habitat may result in a wide range of benefits. 
These benefits include preservation of recreation and existence values 
that will increase the benefits for most affected activities. Scenic 
beauty contributes to the quality of desert recreational experiences. 
Many of the CHUs are adjacent to or within Wilderness Study Areas or in 
designated Wilderness Areas. Habitat conservation will enhance the 
wilderness values of these adjacent or contiguous areas. Habitat 
preservation also provides for improved water quality, scenic and air 
quality, biological diversity, and other environmental benefits.
    Many of the resource services provided by critical habitat are not 
marketed. The lack of market prices makes it difficult to value them in 
dollar terms, as compared to some cost impacts, such as impacts to 
livestock grazing. As a result, this analysis currently focuses on the 
cost impacts, primarily related to livestock grazing. No comprehensive 
estimate of the benefits of designating critical habitat is feasible 
with available data. Rather, the analysis provides a discussion of the 
kinds of benefits that are expected to ensue, with empirical data and 
examples as available. Existence values represent an additional 
category of non-use benefit, albeit one that remains difficult to 
measure. Furthermore, society places preservation benefits on 
endangered species for the option of future recreational use, with the 
knowledge that the desert tortoise's natural ecosystem exists and is 
protected, and the satisfaction from its bequest to future generations. 
Many of these benefits are expected to increase in relative value over 
time. As human activities continue to reduce desert ecosystems, the 
remaining areas will become less available and more valuable. Habitat 
protection for the desert tortoise clearly benefits other species, as 
well as the human use and enjoyment of these species.
    Dividing the sum of benefits between the various parts by which 
gains are generated is a delicate task. If preservation of a species is 
accomplished wholly through designating critical habitat, then the full 
value of benefits could be attributed to that action. Typically, 
however, preservation is attained through a set of interactive 
management actions, each of which is essential to success and no one of 
which can be singled out as the sole means by which a species is 
preserved (Walsh 1992). Given the information at hand, and without 
better understanding the network of consequences from management 
alternatives, it is not possible to disaggregate the sum of benefits to 
identify that portion directly attributable to critical habitat 
designation.

Biodiversity Benefits

    Designation of critical habitat for the desert tortoise will 
contribute to the protection of the biotic diversity of the arid 
Southwest. The tortoise's habitat includes components that make it 
useful to a variety of other desert species whose existence is enhanced 
through retention of original characteristics of their habitat. 
Modification or elimination of activities that would adversely modify 
the natural ecology of the region will conserve the desert tortoise, as 
well as other animal and plant species.

Recreational Use Benefits

    Direct, non-consumptive recreational use of the desert tortoise 
(i.e., tortoise watching) occurs, although it is limited by the desert 
tortoise's burrowing habits and its relatively dispersed populations. 
Some recreational activities may be relocated or restricted due to 
critical habitat designation, particularly OHV use.

Intrinsic Values

    Users and non-users of natural resources place value on knowing 
that resources will exist in the future. Benefits, which may be 
substantial, reside in the form of ensured future existence and 
availability for use and in the ability to preserve the resource for 
future generations. By designating critical habitat for the desert 
tortoise, land managers will assure the retention of option and bequest 
values, potentially providing benefits far outside the designated 
habitat region.

Long-Term Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

    The analysis of economic impacts of critical habitat designation 
was based primarily on data that are both current and calculable. Long-
term economic impacts, especially on a county-level basis, explicitly 
have not been addressed. For example, although there may be a very low 
level of temporary unemployment (less than 0.1 percent) of those 
laborers on any given Federal allottee's lease/permit, it is normally 
anticipated that those workers will be reemployed within 2 years or be 
shifted to other private ranch lands in the short-term.
    A given county's receipt of grazing fees will be based on final 
administrative decisions by the surface managing agencies on the number 
of issued/reissued permits and their percentage revenue sharing base 
(cited in Schamberger et al. 1993).
    Mining may be impacted over the long term, but only to the extent 
that surface expansion is limited explicitly to avoid adverse 
modification to critical habitat. If such limitations do occur, they 
would also be predicated on governmental administrative decision at 
that time (by the BLM, military, tribal councils), but reasonably would 
be expected to be minimal both in percent and dollar-level impacts.

Available Conservation Measures

    The purpose of the Act, as stated in section 2(b), is to provide a 
means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened 
species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of listed 
species. Section 2(c)(1) of the Act declares that ``* * * all Federal 
departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered and 
threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance 
of the purposes of this Act.''
    The Act mandates the conservation of listed species through 
different mechanisms, such as: Section 7 (requiring Federal agencies to 
further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs 
and insuring that Federal actions will not likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of the listed species or result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat); section 9 (prohibition of 
taking of listed species); section 10 (wildlife research permits and 
habitat conservation planning on non-Federal lands); section 6 
(cooperative State and Federal grants); land acquisition; and research. 
Other Federal laws also require conservation of endangered and 
threatened species, such as the Federal Land Policy Management Act, 
National Environmental Policy Act, and various other State and Federal 
laws and regulations.
    The Service's intent in designating critical habitat is to provide 
habitat that contains primary constituent elements in sufficient 
quantities to maintain viable populations of desert tortoises within 
the six recovery units. Critical habitat designation will help reduce 
the risk associated with the near-term reduction in desert tortoise 
numbers and cumulative loss of habitat anticipated from on-going 
management plans. Critical habitat offers additional protection through 
section 7, but it does not replace the management recommendations 
provided by the Draft Recovery Plan. Designation of critical habitat 
will, however, provide regulatory protection and help retain options 
until long-term conservation plans are accepted and fully implemented.

Other Protections

    The States of Nevada, California, Arizona, and Utah have 
established laws that provide varying levels of protection for 
individual desert tortoises. The State of Nevada affords limited 
protection to the desert tortoise, having established it as a protected 
reptile under section 501.110.1(d) of the Nevada Revised Statutes, 
protected and rare outside of the urban areas of Clark County (Las 
Vegas) under section 503.080.2 of the Nevada Administrative Code, and 
unlawful to transport across State lines without the written consent of 
the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Nevada does not have any laws that 
regulate the degradation of desert tortoise habitat.
    The California Fish and Game Commission listed the desert tortoise 
as a State threatened species on June 22, 1989, amending the California 
Code of Regulations, section 670.5(b)(4) of title 14. California has 
also designated the desert tortoise as its official State reptile.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Commission extended full protection from 
take to the desert tortoise, effective January 1, 1988, through 
Commission Order 43: Reptiles. Also prohibited is the sale of desert 
tortoises and their importation to the State, as well as the release of 
captive tortoises into the wild. There is no State authority in Arizona 
to regulate the modification of desert tortoise habitat.
    In Utah, the desert tortoise is considered a ``prohibited 
reptile,'' protecting it from collection, importation, transportation, 
possession, sale, transfer, or release because it poses unacceptable 
disease, ecological, environmental, or human health or safety risks. No 
State regulations exist to stop the loss or degradation of desert 
tortoise habitat through land development or other actions (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 1990).

Recovery Planning and Section 7 Consultation

    Recovery planning under section 4(f) of the Act is the ``umbrella'' 
that eventually guides all of the Act's activities and promotes a 
species' conservation and eventual delisting. Because critical habitat 
designation was based on recommendations provided in the Draft Recovery 
Plan, final critical habitat will be incorporated as part of the final 
recovery plan for the desert tortoise. The Service has worked closely 
with the Recovery Team and other efforts to ensure consistency and will 
reevaluate the need for critical habitat after completion and 
implementation of the recovery plan or at any time that new information 
indicates that changes may be warranted. The Service may also reassess 
critical habitat designation if other land management plans or 
conservation strategies, which may reduce the need for the additional 
protection provided by critical habitat designation, are developed and 
fully implemented.
    Although critical habitat is not intended as a management or 
conservation plan, association with the Draft Recovery Plan leaves the 
perception that critical habitat is a form of that plan. The Draft 
Recovery Plan, critical habitat, and other conservation processes are 
working with the same land base containing the same specific locations 
of desert tortoise populations within recovery units; it is therefore 
inevitable that these processes overlap. Critical habitat is based upon 
the recommendations of the Draft Recovery Plan because it lays out a 
framework for identifying and evaluating habitat that is founded on 
scientific principles. Designation of critical habitat does not offer 
specific direction for managing desert tortoise habitat. That type of 
direction, as well as any change in direction, will come through 
administration of other facets of the Act (e.g., section 7, section 10, 
and recovery planning) or through development of land management plans 
addressing the desert tortoise.
    The final DWMA boundaries will be determined by land management 
agencies, in consultation with the Service, through a planning process 
that is coordinated with local government and interested members of the 
public. The Service intends that critical habitat for the Mojave desert 
tortoise population conform to the DWMA boundaries determined through 
the recovery planning and implementation process. Because the agency 
planning process for determining the DWMA boundaries will not be 
completed until after critical habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise 
population is initially designated, adjustments to critical habitat may 
need to be made in subsequent rulemaking documents to make critical 
habitat correspond to the DWMAs. As soon as the agency planning process 
for delineating DWMA boundaries is completed, the Service will consider 
publishing a proposed rule to effect appropriate adjustments in the 
critical habitat boundaries for the affected recovery unit(s).

Section 7  Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat. This Federal responsibility 
accompanies, and is in addition to, the requirement in section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act that Federal agencies ensure their actions do not jeopardize 
the continued existence of any listed species. Regulations implementing 
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are found at 50 CFR 
part 402. As required by 50 CFR 402.14, a Federal agency must consult 
with the Service if it determines an action may affect a listed species 
or critical habitat. Thus, the requirement to consider adverse 
modification of critical habitat is an incremental section 7 
consideration above and beyond section 7 review to evaluate jeopardy 
and incidental take of the species.
    Jeopardy is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as any action that would be 
expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and 
recovery of a species. Destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat is defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as a direct or indirect alteration 
that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the 
survival and recovery of a listed species. The regulations also clearly 
state that such alterations include, but are not limited to, 
alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological 
features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be 
critical.
    Survival and recovery, mentioned in both the definition of adverse 
modification and jeopardy, are directly related. Survival may be viewed 
as a linear continuum between recovery and extinction of the species. 
The closer one is to recovery, the greater the certainty in the 
species' continued survival. The terms ``survival and recovery'' are 
thus related by the degree of certainty that the species will persist 
over a given period of time. Survival relates to viability. Factors 
that influence a species' viability include population numbers, 
distribution throughout the range, stochasticity, expected duration, 
and reproductive success. A species may be considered recovered when 
there is a high degree of certainty for the species' continued 
viability.
    The Act's definition of critical habitat indicates that the purpose 
of critical habitat is to contribute to a species' conservation, which 
by definition equates to recovery. Section 7 prohibitions against the 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat apply to 
actions that would impair survival and recovery of the listed species, 
thus providing a regulatory means of ensuring that Federal actions 
within critical habitat are considered in relation to the goals and 
recommendations of a recovery plan. As a result of the link between 
critical habitat and recovery, the prohibition against destruction or 
adverse modification of the critical habitat should provide for the 
protection of the critical habitat's ability to contribute fully to a 
species' recovery. Thus, the adverse modification standard may be 
reached closer to the recovery end of the survival continuum, whereas 
the jeopardy standard traditionally has been applied nearer to the 
extinction end of the continuum.

Basis for Analysis

    Designation of critical habitat focuses on the primary constituent 
elements within the defined units and their contribution to the 
species' recovery, based on consideration of the species' biological 
needs and factors that contribute to recovery (e.g., distribution, 
numbers, reproduction, and viability). The evaluation of actions that 
may affect critical habitat for the desert tortoise should consider the 
effects of the action on any of the factors that were the basis for 
determining the habitat to be critical, including the primary 
constituent elements of nesting, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and/
or gene flow, as well as the contribution of the area to recovery. The 
Service will focus on a proposed action's effect on the eventual 
recovery of the tortoise in a CHU (e.g., the type of activities that 
led to the tortoise's listing, such as habitat loss, degradation, and 
fragmentation). The Service would issue an adverse modification opinion 
if it determined that a proposed action was likely to preclude recovery 
of the tortoise in a particular unit.
    The range of the desert tortoise has been divided into six recovery 
units in the Draft Recovery Plan. These areas are based on genetic, 
morphological, ecological, and physiological differences among the 
desert tortoises. The designated CHUs are intended to provide for 
viable populations of desert tortoises representing this variation in 
traits. The basis for an adverse modification opinion should follow the 
recommendations in the recovery plan for maintaining viable populations 
and variation throughout the range. Should the Recovery Team redefine 
these parameters in the final recovery plan, then the basis for 
analysis under section 7 will follow that basis.
    For a wide-ranging species such as the desert tortoise, where 
multiple CHUs are designated, each unit has both a local role and a 
rangewide role in contributing to the conservation of the species. The 
loss of a single unit may not jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species but may significantly reduce the ability of critical habitat to 
contribute to recovery.
    Present conditions vary throughout the range of the desert 
tortoise, with the result that some areas may be less able to sustain 
continuing impacts than others at any given time. The level of 
disturbance a CHU could withstand and still fulfill its intended 
purpose is variable throughout the tortoise's range and will need to be 
reviewed in the context of its current status, condition, and location.
    Each project will need review as to its impacts at all levels. When 
determining whether any particular action would appreciably diminish 
the value of the habitat for the survival and recovery of the tortoise, 
the baseline condition and expected role for the individual unit and 
those within the same recovery unit must be considered. Among the 
factors to be considered are the extent of the proposed action, the 
present condition of the habitat (e.g., percent of the area containing 
the primary constituent elements, degree of fragmentation, size of the 
unit), the existing density of desert tortoises in the unit, the 
expected time to regenerate sufficient habitat to support an effective 
population in a particular area, consistency of the action with the 
intent of the recovery plan, geographic consideration, and local and 
regional problems. The analysis should also consider the effect of the 
action on critical habitat from actions planned outside the designated 
area. Analysis of impacts to individual units must consider the effects 
to the local area, the recovery unit in which it resides, and the 
overall range of the listed species.

Consultation Process

    Section 7 consultation for critical habitat will focus on the 
effects of actions on tortoise habitat whether or not it is currently 
occupied. The presence or absence of tortoises will not factor into the 
determination of actions that trigger section 7. Any action that may 
affect critical habitat will trigger section 7 consultation.
    The requirement to consider adverse modification of critical 
habitat is an incremental section 7 consideration above and beyond 
section 7 review necessary to evaluate jeopardy and incidental take. As 
required by 50 CFR 402.14, a Federal agency must consult with the 
Service if it determines an action may affect a listed species or its 
critical habitat. Federal agencies are responsible for determining 
whether or not to consult with the Service and should consider a number 
of factors when determining if a proposed action may affect critical 
habitat. To the extent possible, agencies should consult on a 
programmatic basis.
    The Service will consider the effect of the proposed action on the 
primary constituent elements along with the reasons why that particular 
area was determined to be critical habitat. The trigger to initiate 
section 7 consultation (under adverse modification) is any action that 
may affect any of the five primary constituent elements of critical 
habitat or reduce the potential of critical habitat to develop these 
elements--this is independent from any action that would affect known 
individuals. The evaluation should also take into consideration what 
happens outside of critical habitat because such projects may also 
impact habitat within critical habitat. It should also consider what 
effects the action may have on other adjacent CHUs, the recovery unit, 
and the overall range of the desert tortoise.

Examples of Proposed Actions

    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires, for any final regulation that 
designates critical habitat, a brief description and evaluation of 
those activities (public or private) that may adversely modify such 
habitat or may be affected by such designation. Regulations found at 50 
CFR 402.02 define destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes 
the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a 
listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, 
alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological 
features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be 
critical.
    Activities that disturb or remove the primary constituent elements 
within designated CHUs might adversely modify the tortoise's critical 
habitat. These activities may include actions that would reduce the 
area of a recovery unit below that which can sustain a viable 
population or provide for movements, dispersal, and gene flow; reduce 
the quantity and quality of forage species, either directly or through 
soil modifications, thereby affecting the tortoise's nutritional 
requirements; reduce the suitability of substrates for burrowing, 
nesting, and overwintering; reduce the number and availability of 
burrow sites, caliche caves, and other shelter sites; appreciably 
modify the function and/or availability of vegetation to provide 
shelter from temperature extremes and predators; and increase the 
potential for future habitat disturbance and human-caused mortality.
    A number of Federal agencies or departments fund, authorize, or 
carry out actions that affect lands that the Service designates as 
critical habitat. Among these agencies are the BLM, Department of 
Defense (DOD), Bureau of Mines, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, National Park Service, Federal Highway Administration, and 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Federal agencies and the 
Service are currently consulting on numerous activities proposed within 
the range of the desert tortoise. These activities include Federal land 
management plans; Bureau livestock grazing operations; road, trail, and 
utility construction and maintenance; mining plans of operation; land 
sales, leases, and exchanges; Federal housing loans; BLM recreation and 
public purpose leases; permits for OHV activities; military operations; 
sand and gravel operations; rights-of-way; landfills; and a number of 
smaller actions. The economic analysis provides more details on 
specific projects affected by critical habitat designation.
    The Service expects that proposed actions that are inconsistent 
with land management recommendations for DWMA's in the Draft Recovery 
Plan would likely be considered to adversely modify critical habitat. 
Proposed actions that are consistent with the recommendations within 
the Draft Recovery Plan would not be likely to result in destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Areas designated as critical habitat support a number of existing 
and proposed commercial and non-commercial activities. Commercial 
activities that may affect desert tortoise critical habitat include, 
but are not limited to, livestock grazing, sand and gravel extraction, 
mining, OHV activities, military operations, landfills, rights-of-way, 
and utility corridors. Commercial activities not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat include various site-specific 
activities such as scenic tours. Conducting desert tortoise surveys 
would not likely destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Non-
commercial activities are largely associated with recreation and are 
not considered likely to adversely affect critical habitat, provided 
they do not involve use of vehicles off of designated roads. Such 
activities include hiking, camping, hunting, and various activities 
associated with nature appreciation. In certain CHUs where more 
intensive management is needed (e.g., the Upper Virgin River CHU), the 
effects of recreational activities will be evaluated on a case-by-case 
basis.
    Some activities could be considered to be of benefit to desert 
tortoise habitat and, therefore, would also not be expected to destroy 
or adversely modify critical habitat. Examples of activities that could 
be of benefit to critical habitat include protective measures such as 
some forms of fire suppression and restoration of disturbed areas. 
Further research may support or refute any potential benefits from such 
actions. At this time, they will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    In general, activities that do not remove or degrade constituent 
elements of habitat for desert tortoises are not likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Each proposed action would be 
examined pursuant to section 7 of the Act in relation to its site-
specific impacts. Thus, proposed actions may or may not destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat, depending on the type and extent of 
the action and the pre-project condition of the area in relation to 
desert tortoise habitat needs. The involved Federal agencies can assist 
the Service in its evaluation of proposed actions by providing detailed 
information on the habitat configuration of a project area, habitat 
conditions of surrounding areas, and information on known locations of 
desert tortoises.
    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 desert tortoise. Lands outside of critical habitat 
are important for providing nesting, sheltering, foraging, gene flow, 
and dispersal habitat for desert tortoises. Federal activities outside 
of critical habitat are still subject to review under section 7 if they 
may affect the desert tortoise. The Service expects that management 
activities outside of critical habitat on Federal lands would be 
managed as recommended by a final recovery plan, Federal land 
management plans, or other valid plans.

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives

    In cases where it is concluded that an action would likely result 
in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, to the 
extent possible, the Service is required to provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the proposed action in its biological opinion. 
By definition, reasonable and prudent alternatives allow the intended 
purpose of the proposed action to go forward and remove the conditions 
that would adversely modify critical habitat--alternatives may vary 
according to local conditions, project size, or other factors. The 
Service recommends that the agencies initiate discussions early enough 
in the planning process to preserve a greater number of options to 
reduce impacts.
    Under this scenario, if adverse modification was anticipated, 
examples of possible reasonable and prudent alternatives that may be 
provided in a biological opinion include:
    (1) Relocating the planned action to another location,
    (2) Modifying the action to minimize fragmentation, and/or
    (3) Modifying the action to implement land management practices 
that are known to be compatible with maintaining primary constituent 
elements for the desert tortoise.
    For some actions, the Service may propose minor modifications to 
the project design that may avoid adverse modification of critical 
habitat. In the case of a proposed upgrade of a powerline right-of-way 
corridor, for example, the Service may recommend that the corridor be 
expanded on one side of the existing corridor versus the other side to 
avoid impacts to habitat where the primary constituent elements are of 
higher quality. For projects that may result in more severe impacts, 
substantial project changes may be necessary. The Service would propose 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the agency's proposed action. 
Reasonable and prudent alternatives, by definition, would allow the 
intended purpose of the project to go forward without adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    No reasonable and prudent alternatives may be available for some 
proposed actions. For example, due to the size of a unit or high levels 
of existing fragmentation, no level of habitat disturbance may be 
possible without resulting in the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat. In these situations, the Service would issue an 
adverse modification biological opinion with no reasonable and prudent 
alternatives. The Service recommends that agencies initiate discussions 
at the earliest opportunity to help avoid this type of situation.
    Research on desert tortoises and their habitat may negatively 
affect critical habitat. Wherever possible, research should be 
conducted outside of CHUs, coordinated throughout the listed range of 
the tortoise, and based upon an approved long-term strategy.

Conservation Measures on Non-Federal Lands

    State, private, and Tribal lands have been included within the 
designation of critical habitat. Critical habitat designation will not 
affect non-Federal lands except for actions that are authorized, 
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency. Actions on State and 
private lands will continue to be subject to section 9 of the Act, 
requiring an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act for any actions that may result in take of desert tortoises. 
This provision also will apply to actions on Tribal lands without a 
Federal nexus. Those with a Federal nexus will be subject to section 7 
consultation under the Act.
    Section 9 of the Act prohibits intentional and non-intentional 
``take'' of listed species and applies to all landowners regardless of 
whether or not their lands are within critical habitat. The term 
``take,'' as defined by the Act, means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage 
in any such conduct. ``Harass'' is defined as an intentional or 
negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to 
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt 
normal behavioral patterns, which includes breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering. ``Harm'' in the definition of ``take'' means any action, 
including habitat modification, which actually kills or injures 
wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or 
degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by 
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR part 17).
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes the Service to issue permits for the 
taking of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities, 
such as housing development. Incidental take permit applications must 
be supported by a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that identifies 
conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement to 
conserve the species. A key element of the Service's review of an HCP 
is a determination of the plan's effect upon the long-term conservation 
of the species. An HCP would be approved and a section 10(a)(1)(B) 
permit issued if it would minimize and mitigate the impacts of the 
taking and would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and 
recovery of that species in the wild.
    Due to limited Federal involvement, the Service expects that few, 
if any, formal section 7 consultations would be initiated for State 
lands that are included in critical habitat. The States are subject to 
the ``take'' prohibitions under section 9 of the Act, however, and may 
enter into the section 10 HCP process where appropriate.
    Desert tortoises occurring on lands outside critical habitat 
boundaries are still subject to section 9 prohibitions. The Service 
envisions that the role of desert tortoise habitat in the conservation 
of the species will be addressed through section 7, the HCP process, 
the recovery planning process, and other appropriate State and Federal 
laws. On these lands, it is expected that recovery goals will be 
achieved through the use of other conservation mechanisms available to 
the Service and other landowners (e.g., land exchanges, conservation 
and development easements).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the August 30, 1993, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
the Service requested all interested parties to submit factual reports 
or information that might contribute to the development of this final 
rule. The public comment period was open from August 30, 1993, to 
October 29, 1993. During that period, the Service conducted three 
public hearings on this issue at the following locations: Riverside, 
California, on October 6, 1993; Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 12, 1993; 
and St. George, Utah, on October 14, 1993. The Service accepted 
testimony from the public from 1 to 4 p.m. and from 6 to 8 p.m on each 
of those days. The Service announced the dates, times, and locations of 
the public hearings in the August 30, 1993, proposed rule (58 FR 
45748). Appropriate State agencies, county governments, Federal 
agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties were 
contacted and asked to comment. In addition, the Service published 
notices in the Kingman Daily Miner, Las Vegas Review Journal, Las Vegas 
Sun, Barstow Desert Dispatch, The Sun, and the Press Enterprise on 
September 23, 1993, and in the Daily Spectrum on September 16, 1993, 
announcing the publication of the proposed rule and the dates, times, 
and locations of the public hearings.
    During the 60-day comment period, the Service received 
approximately 270 written comments. In addition, 147 people testified 
at the three public hearings. The Service received comments from the 
BLM, the Bureau of Mines, other Federal agencies, military 
installations, State and county agencies, town boards, environmental 
organizations, the mining industry, recreational enthusiasts, and the 
ranching industry. Comments are part of the administrative record and 
are available for public review. Issues raised during the public 
comment period announced in the August 30, 1993, proposal, whether 
written or oral, are discussed below.
    Issue 1: One respondent requested that the Service adjust the 
boundaries of CHUs to reflect the boundaries proposed for the East 
Mojave National Park, as depicted in Senate Bill 21.
    Service Response: The Service cannot assume that the legislation 
for the East Mojave National Park will pass or what form it will take. 
The boundaries proposed for the East Mojave National Park in Senate 
Bill 21 reflect the balancing of a variety of concerns, both biotic and 
abiotic, and should not be expected to resemble boundaries reflecting 
habitat critical to the recovery of a single species. Should the East 
Mojave National Park be established, the Service will reevaluate the 
designation of critical habitat, if appropriate.
    Issue 2: The Service received several comments regarding the 
presence of unsuitable habitat within proposed CHUs. Examples of areas 
already developed that were included in the proposal were golf courses, 
buildings, towns, and existing mining operations. Many stated that 
these areas should not be included even for the ease of writing legal 
descriptions.
    Service Response: The Service identified large contiguous blocks of 
tortoise habitat containing the primary constituent elements that 
support nesting, foraging, sheltering, dispersal, and/or gene flow, 
primarily on Federal lands. To the extent possible, the Service 
adjusted boundaries to exclude peripheral areas that do not support 
primary constituent elements. However, it was not possible to exclude 
all areas of non-habitat via boundary revisions. In some cases, CHUs 
contain small towns, farms, or human-made structures. These areas, 
although physically located within the boundaries of critical habitat, 
are not included in critical habitat designation because they do not 
contain any of the primary constituent elements of desert tortoise 
habitat. Areas not currently containing all of the essential features, 
but with the capability to do so in the future, may still be needed for 
the long-term conservation of the species, particularly in certain 
portions of the range.
    Issue 3: Some respondents stated that the Service should use 
natural landmarks for critical habitat boundaries and legal 
descriptions rather than section lines. Use of section lines instead of 
natural or human-made boundaries will make enforcement difficult, if 
not impossible. One letter stated that, in a majority of cases 
(according to the BLM), documented sheep trespasses during the 1993 
grazing season occurred where there were ambiguous boundary lines.
    Service Response: In designating critical habitat, the Service is 
required to legally define boundaries. In this effort, the Service has 
primarily used section lines. The Service also used major roads to 
legally define some of the CHUs.
    Issue 4: Many commenters suggested removing specific areas from the 
proposal. Such suggestions typically reflected concerns over inclusion 
of private lands in the proposal or were based on potentially 
conflicting uses, especially mining areas. Some letters provided 
additional biological information to support site-specific deletions 
from critical habitat.
    Service Response: The Service has reviewed the individual requests 
and determined whether the critical habitat boundaries should be 
modified to avoid non-tortoise habitat. Where possible, considering 
restraints of the map scale with which the Service was working, 
boundary lines have been modified. Areas suggested for deletion on the 
basis of perceived land-use conflicts were deleted if they did not meet 
the criteria for inclusion or did not provide important benefits to the 
species. Areas suggested for deletion because of poor habitat were re-
examined in terms of value to tortoises. In some key areas, habitat 
currently in poor condition was retained because of its important 
location and high potential for contribution to recovery.
    Issue 5: A number of commenters stated that critical habitat should 
not be designated because existing reserved lands, such as national 
parks and wildlife refuges, provide sufficient land for the tortoise.
    Service Response: The Service determined that the tortoise should 
be listed as a threatened species in 1990 (55 FR 12178) partly because 
insufficient habitat is protected within congressionally protected 
areas to adequately conserve desert tortoises. In addition, the Draft 
Recovery Plan recognizes that areas of sufficient size to support self-
sustaining tortoise populations do not exist in already protected 
habitats. Critical habitat is primarily designated for areas identified 
in the Draft Recovery Plan as necessary for recovery of the desert 
tortoise.
    Issue 6: Many commenters stated that the Service had proposed to 
designate too much habitat for the desert tortoise.
    Service Response: The Service proposed critical habitat designation 
for those areas that met certain criteria. The proposed and final 
designations include at least one CHU within each of the six recovery 
units outlined in the Draft Recovery Plan. The size of these areas is 
based primarily on the requirements to support self-sustaining 
populations. Land management agencies, in consultation with the 
Service, may establish desert wildlife management areas in which the 
desert tortoise will receive special consideration. Upon establishment 
of these areas, the Service may reevaluate the critical habitat 
designation.
    Issue 7: Several respondents stated that the designation should 
include other important desert tortoise habitats, especially the 
southern portion of Ft. Irwin, Joshua Tree National Monument, the 
Desert Tortoise Natural Area (DTNA), and the Desert National Wildlife 
Range. They stated that Congressional withdrawal of public lands within 
the DTNA from the general mining and mineral laws must be renewed after 
20 years (year 2000). If mineral extraction is allowed after that time, 
designation of the DTNA as critical habitat may be the only way to 
protect this habitat from the effects of mining. Some respondents 
questioned why management plans developed for the DTNA and Joshua Tree 
National Monument are sufficient to preclude critical habitat 
designation, yet the BLM's Conservation Plan of 1980 is ignored. One 
letter said that such inconsistencies degrade the Service's contention 
that the DTNA is protected so well that it need not be included in the 
critical habitat designation.
    Service Response: The critical habitat designation includes the 
southern 2 mile-strip of Ft. Irwin, which is south of where most 
existing military operations have already degraded or eliminated desert 
tortoise habitat. Joshua Tree National Monument, the DTNA, and the 
Desert National Wildlife Range were not included in the designation of 
critical habitat because the designation would not afford these areas 
any additional benefit. The mandates of the Service and the National 
Park Service provide for ecosystem management, and those of the BLM are 
for multiple use of public lands. The DTNA is managed specifically for 
the benefit of the desert tortoise as both a research natural area and 
an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The specified areas are 
considered important for recovery of the desert tortoise in the Draft 
Recovery Plan and will be considered in establishing desert wildlife 
management areas. If, in the future, mineral extraction or other 
actions that may adversely affect critical habitat are proposed to be 
allowed within these areas, the Service may reevaluate whether 
additional critical habitat should be designated.
    Issue 8: Several people were concerned that critical habitat would 
restrict access to their private lands or mining operations.
    Service Response: The Service anticipates being able to work with 
other Federal agencies to minimize effects on private landowners. 
Section 7 consultation requirements on Federal rights-of-way 
applications may, in some limited cases, result in additional 
mitigation requirements or modified access to private lands, but the 
Service cannot quantify the economic effects.
    Issue 9: A few letters stated that the critical habitat designation 
should include the Pahrump/Amargosa Valley.
    Service Response: The Service based its critical habitat proposal 
on those areas recommended for recovery in the Draft Recovery Plan. The 
Pahrump/Amargosa Valley was not one of those areas, and, therefore, it 
was not included in the proposed designation.
    Issue 10: A few respondents requested inclusion of additional areas 
as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. One letter suggested that 
inclusion of previously disturbed areas will provide buffer zones while 
recovery of the habitat occurs, thereby minimizing edge effects of 
incompatible land uses and providing smooth-edged boundaries that are 
preferable in minimizing the boundary-to-area ratio.
    Service Response: The Administrative Procedure Act requires Federal 
agencies to provide appropriate notification of proposed actions prior 
to making final determinations. Therefore, the Service cannot adopt a 
final rule that is significantly different from the proposed rule 
without first offering the public an opportunity to comment on the 
differences. Departmental policy is to waive notice and public comment 
only in special cases such as emergencies or instances where a proposed 
amendment makes only minor technical changes in a rule. The only 
addition to critical habitat in the final rule for desert tortoise 
critical habitat was the inclusion of 3 square miles of BLM land on the 
southern boundary of the Beaver Dam Slope CHU in Arizona. This request 
for inclusion came from the BLM, as the landowner, to ensure that its 
desert tortoise study plot was within desert tortoise critical habitat. 
No other landowners will be affected by this inclusion. Other requests 
for inclusions were considered significant and were not requested by 
the landowner. In order to meet the court-mandated schedule for 
designation of critical habitat, the Service was not able to prepare a 
second proposal including any of these areas for public review. Such 
inclusions may be considered during any future reevaluation of the 
designated critical habitat boundaries.
    Issue 11: The BIA opposes designation of any critical habitat on 
any tribal lands. The critical habitat proposal included lands within 
Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah-Shivwits Band (Paiute-Shivwits) lands. The 
BIA maintains that formal consultation under the section 7 jeopardy 
standard of the Act provides adequate protection for the desert 
tortoise.
    Service Response: The Service expects that all landowners, 
regardless of their status, will comply with the Act and will 
contribute to the conservation of the desert tortoise. Low, medium, and 
high density desert tortoise habitat exists on Utah tribal lands. 
Tribal lands were not excluded from final designation because no new 
biological or economic information was provided, and tribal lands 
contain desert tortoise habitat necessary for recovery of the Upper 
Virgin River Recovery Unit. This recovery unit is unique in that it 
contains some of the highest densities of desert tortoises known 
throughout the species' range, and it is the smallest recovery unit, 
requiring more intensive management to ensure long-term survivability 
and ultimate recovery of the unit. Desert tortoise habitat necessary 
for recovery within the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit is not 
distinguished by landownership boundaries, and it includes Federal, 
State, private, and Tribal lands. Following Service approval and 
implementation of a Washington County HCP, the Service will reevaluate 
the critical habitat boundaries and may propose to modify critical 
habitat, if appropriate.
    Issue 12: The Service received several comments concerning the 
Washington County HCP process, an effort that has been on-going for 
more than 2 years. The final critical habitat designation should 
reflect the final Desert Habitat Preserve, to be proposed under a 
Washington County HCP.
    Service Response: Washington County, Utah, is preparing an HCP 
under section 10 of the Act, as part of its application for a permit to 
take desert tortoises incidentally. To issue a section 10(a) permit, 
the Service must determine that, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
applicant will minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking. The 
mitigation for the Washington County permit includes establishment of a 
Desert Habitat Preserve, primarily for desert tortoise survival and 
recovery. Washington County has not yet submitted an application for a 
section 10(a) permit or an HCP to the Service. This final designation 
of critical habitat for the desert tortoise reflects in large part the 
habitat conservation planning process to date that, if successful, will 
result in a desert habitat preserve of sufficient size and 
configuration to provide for survival and recovery of desert tortoises 
in this recovery unit. If the Service approves a Washington County HCP 
and issues a permit to take desert tortoises incidentally, the Service 
may reevaluate critical habitat, and propose revisions, if appropriate.
    Issue 13: The designation of critical habitat will create ``dumping 
grounds'' for desert tortoises.
    Service Response: Handling (e.g., ``dumping'') of desert tortoises 
is prohibited by the Act, which defines ``take'' to mean to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any 
listed species. Critical habitat provides an extra layer of protection 
for desert tortoise habitat, but has no effect upon the other 
protections provided by the Act.
    Issue 14: The Desert Habitat Preserve boundary line north of the 
city of Washington was ``agreed upon'' by members of the Washington 
County HCP Steering Committee, and that exact line should be reflected 
in final designation of critical habitat.
    Service Response: The Service has not reviewed that ``agreed upon'' 
line, nor has it approved any aspect of a Washington County HCP to 
date. That line will be reviewed in the context of a Desert Habitat 
Preserve established under a Washington County HCP, as part of the 
mitigation for incidental take of desert tortoises and their habitat.
    Issue 15: Some respondents perceived critical habitat designation 
for the desert tortoise as a means by which the Federal government can 
seize and ``federalize'' public and private lands. One person saw 
designation of critical habitat as a Federal conspiracy. The Service 
has a hidden political agenda, is deliberately misinforming the public, 
and is attempting to control private property, much in the same regard 
as if under a communist regime.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat does not, in and 
of itself, impose additional legal restrictions on private lands except 
for actions that are authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies on those lands. Non-Federal, as well as Federal lands, with or 
without designated critical habitat, are still subject to the 
prohibitions against take of listed species on their land, pursuant to 
section 9 of the Act. Designation of critical habitat is not a 
conspiracy, but rather is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act 
for threatened and endangered species.
    Issue 16: Numerous comments were received from DOD agencies, 
requesting that military installations be excluded from designation of 
critical habitat. The agencies cited concern over their ability to use 
existing facilities, the existence of desert tortoise management plans, 
the increased cost of managing critical habitat, and existing 
regulatory mechanisms that make the designation of critical habitat 
unnecessary.
    Service Response: Numerous ongoing activities occur on Federal 
lands managed by the military. The Service has issued section 7 
biological opinions on many of these activities. These opinions contain 
terms and conditions, which were usually developed in coordination with 
the military, to reduce the take of desert tortoises. Many ongoing 
activities and existing uses, such as the bombing ranges at Edwards Air 
Force Base (EAFB), the Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) at China Lake, 
the Chocolate Mountains Air Gunnery Range, the communications 
facilities at the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations' 
Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, and the rocket test area 
at Leuhmann ridge on EAFB, have already resulted in the removal of the 
constituent elements of desert tortoise habitat and would not be 
affected by a designation of critical habitat. Therefore, military 
agencies would not be required to relocate existing facilities to areas 
outside of critical habitat.
    Issue 17: Several DOD agencies were concerned that expansion of 
existing facilities or the siting of new facilities would be prohibited 
by designation of critical habitat.
    Service Response: In the case of new or expanded facilities that 
may affect desert tortoises or designated critical habitat, the DOD 
agencies will be required to consult with the Service pursuant to 
section 7 of the Act. Through the consultation process, the Service 
will determine if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the desert tortoise or destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. The DOD provided no economic data 
for such future developments by which the Service could consider the 
economic costs of designating critical habitat in these areas.
    Issue 18: The NAWS and National Training Center at Ft. Irwin cited 
the existence of desert tortoise management plans on their lands and 
the increased costs of managing critical habitat as reasons for 
excluding these lands from critical habitat designation.
    Service Response: The Service fully acknowledges the positive 
efforts on behalf of the desert tortoise already implemented by the 
Navy and the Army. Such plans should be considered in establishing 
recovery areas for the desert tortoise, as recommended by the Draft 
Recovery Plan. The DOD should work closely with the BLM and the Service 
in determining where these recovery areas will be located and what 
actions will be implemented within them to effect recovery of the 
desert tortoise. Following establishment of recovery areas, the Service 
will reevaluate its designation of critical habitat.
    Issue 19: EAFB expressed concern that designation of critical 
habitat would prevent use of supersonic corridors in the desert.
    Service Response: The primary potential adverse effects of 
supersonic flight on the desert tortoise would be to the tortoises 
themselves, as potential harm or harassment. Supersonic flight is not 
expected to destroy or adversely modify desert tortoise habitat.
    Issue 20: The Marine Corps requested that Twentynine Palms Air 
Ground Combat Center be removed from critical habitat designation in 
the Ord-Rodman CHU.
    Service Response: The Service has reevaluated the desert tortoise 
habitat within the Twentynine Palms Air Ground Combat Center. Off-road 
travel by armored vehicles, bombing and strafing with live ammunition, 
and emergency disposal of ordnance and fuel from aircraft have resulted 
in deterioration of habitat quality over large contiguous areas. Based 
on this reevaluation, the Service has refined the boundaries of the 
Ord-Rodman CHU to remove the Twentynine Palms Air Ground Combat Center 
from designation as critical habitat.
    Issue 21: A few commenters responded that there is no substantive 
evidence that directly links the decline in tortoise numbers with 
livestock grazing, nor is there any evidence that tortoises have 
suffered because their habitat has been grazed.
    Service Response: The Service is currently consulting informally 
with the BLM regarding impacts of livestock grazing on desert tortoise 
critical habitat. Although no definitive studies on the relation 
between livestock grazing and the welfare of desert tortoises have yet 
been completed, there is a significant amount of scientific literature 
on the adverse effects of livestock grazing on desert ecosystems, in 
terms of vegetation changes, soil compaction and erosion, and reduction 
of microorganisms in the soil. The Service will continue discussions 
with the BLM and the Desert Tortoise Recovery Team on this issue.
    Issue 22: Some letters stated that utility corridor expansion, road 
proliferation from illegal OHV activity, legal mineral exploration, and 
current grazing practices are existing activities that degrade tortoise 
habitat. Stopping these uses that are destructive to existing critical 
habitat is the answer to protecting the tortoise.
    Service Response: As stated previously, designation of critical 
habitat does not create a land management plan. Federal agencies will 
enter into consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act with the 
Service for all activities that they authorize, fund, or carry out. 
Through that consultation, the Service will determine if the actions 
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. The Federal land 
management agencies will address the multiple uses on lands under their 
administration in the process of establishing desert wildlife 
management areas to implement recovery actions for the desert tortoise.
    Issue 23: Some people questioned the existence of scientific data 
that reflects a true depiction of the distribution of desert tortoises 
in the West Mojave or elsewhere.
    Service Response: Although not every square inch of land in the 
Mojave Desert has been inventoried for the presence of desert 
tortoises, the BLM and other agencies and biologists have spent 
considerable time and effort conducting desert tortoise surveys 
throughout the range of the desert tortoise. Such information has been 
compiled into the BLM's category and density maps for the desert 
tortoise, which are used by many of the agencies involved in desert 
tortoise management. This information was also used in preparing the 
Draft Recovery Plan. Issue 24: Some people stated that the Service 
should consider the custom and culture and the continued quality of 
existence of the human species. The customs and culture of the people 
should have the same consideration as biology and economics in 
determining critical habitat for the desert tortoise.
    Service Response: The designation of critical habitat is mandated 
by the Endangered Species Act and is based on the best scientific data 
available after taking into consideration the economic impact and any 
other relevant impact of specifying an area as critical habitat. In 
developing DWMAs, land management agencies will have the opportunity to 
consider local custom and culture in their decision processes.
    Issue 25: One respondent stated that the Service's statements about 
increasing OHV use as of 1980 statistics did not address the extent of 
lands made unavailable between the years 1980 and 1993. Currently less 
than 2 percent of the California desert is accessible for motorized 
recreation.
    Service Response: Although more roads have been closed since 1980, 
between 1980 and 1988, there were more open areas and limited access 
areas and fewer closed areas (Biosystems Analysis 1991). In addition, 
the impact of OHVs on tortoises has increased over the last decade due 
to changes in BLM zoning, increases in OHV use, and the proliferation 
of illegal roads, a factor that results in serious environmental 
impacts and a difficult management issue for the BLM.
    Issue 26: One letter stated that organized OHV activities in the 
West Mojave are regulated by section 7 permits issued by the Service 
through consultation with the BLM. Because OHVs have abided by these 
stipulations, expansive designation of critical habitat is not 
necessary in light of the protection available through the permitting/
stipulation process.
    Service Response: Through section 7 of the Act, the Service 
consults with Federal agencies that authorize, fund, or carry out 
actions that may affect a listed species. With the listing of a 
species, the Service determines through these consultations whether an 
action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species. 
The adverse modification standard may be applied when an action would 
likely preclude recovery of a listed species. Thus critical habitat 
provides additional protection to a species and its habitat through 
section 7 of the Act. After designation of critical habitat, the 
Service will also determine if an action is likely to destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat. Following designation of critical 
habitat, all current activities for which a Federal agency maintains 
discretionary action must undergo reinitiation of consultation to 
analyze whether or not they are likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. OHV activities within the designated critical habitat 
are not the only activities that may adversely affect the desert 
tortoise and its habitat.
    Issue 27: Some letters objected to the general statements that OHV 
activity results in negative impacts on desert tortoise habitat without 
quantifying such effects.
    Service Response: The negative impacts of OHV activity on desert 
tortoise habitat have been quantified extensively since the early 
1970s. Tortoises are adversely affected by OHVs through loss of forage 
and vegetative cover; increased mortality from crushing, collection, 
and vandalism; and soil compaction and loss of burrow sites. Because 
the use of OHVs in desert areas is a highly charged issue, much 
attention has been placed on the review of studies and the appropriate 
use of statistical tests in the quantifying the resultant data.
    Issue 28: Some respondents said that the BLM has already addressed 
protection of the desert tortoise in the Western Mojave Coordinated 
Management Plan and other management plans previously approved and 
implemented under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Further 
protection is not necessary.
    Service Response: The Western Mojave Coordinated Management Plan is 
still in the planning stages and, therefore, does not yet afford the 
desert tortoise any protection. Upon its finalization and 
implementation, the Service may reevaluate the critical habitat 
designation.
    Issue 29: One respondent said that the Service, as a government 
agency, has an obligation to the general public it serves to consider 
its actions that, in conjunction with the proposed rule, will affect 
all of the public, including those that engage in OHV recreation. There 
are no areas to which these activities can be relocated or restricted.
    Service Response: Protection measures were implemented by the BLM 
in 1988 through its Rangewide Plan to reduce OHV use throughout the 
range of the desert tortoise in category I and II habitats. As stated 
in the Draft Economic Impact Analysis, in its off-highway users guide, 
California listed 24 OHV recreational areas managed by Federal, State, 
and other agencies in Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. 
Four sites in the guide lie just outside proposed CHUs. Critical 
habitat designation as proposed will not affect OHV use at these four 
sites. The other three States also offer areas for use by OHV 
enthusiasts.
    Issue 30: One letter stated that hiking, camping, and birdwatching 
are listed in the proposed rule as examples of non-consumptive uses. 
All of these activities necessitate a vehicle, in most instances off of 
a paved road, therefore, acting as OHVs. Also, OHV activities are not 
``commercial,'' but rather ``recreational.'' The Service should 
reevaluate this classification.
    Service Response: Any use of vehicles off of designated roads and 
trails, for whatever the reason, can negatively impact the desert 
ecosystem. The Service is not singling out organized OHV user groups in 
this assessment. However, the actions of hiking, camping, and 
birdwatching, provided they do not involve use of vehicles off of 
designated roads and trails, are not likely to adversely modify 
critical habitat. The Service recognizes that most recreational 
activity is not commercial. However, most OHV races involve profits for 
the promoters, which is considered a commercial enterprise.
    Issue 31: Many respondents were concerned that designation of 
critical habitat would restrict all motorized access into these areas. 
Some stated that OHV recreation and desert tortoise protection are not 
mutually exclusive.
    Service Response: The Service anticipates that, although Federal 
land managers may close some roads as a result of critical habitat 
designation, there will still be opportunities for scenic touring and 
other motorized uses on designated roads and trails within CHUs.
    Issue 32: One letter stated that the management decision to set 
aside millions of acres violates the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act because it exceeds 100,000 acres and requires approval of Congress 
within 90 days thereafter. Therefore, the designation of critical 
habitat has no force and effect.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is not a land 
withdrawal nor a land management action, but rather an action required 
by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Land-use actions 
authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies must undergo 
section 7 consultation, whereby the Service will determine if such 
actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the desert 
tortoise or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Exclusion 
of activities is not automatic upon the designation of critical 
habitat.
    Issue 33: One letter stated that designation of critical habitat 
may severely limit the ability of State game agencies to travel off-
highway to develop wildlife enhancement projects involving construction 
of roads or other facilities.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat will not prohibit 
construction and maintenance of wildlife developments. Each such 
development will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through section 7 
consultation between the Federal land management agency and the 
Service. Although the land management agency may restrict off-road 
travel within critical habitat, delivery of construction materials can 
most often be accomplished by other means, such as by foot, horseback, 
or helicopter.
    Issue 34: Some letters recommended that areas that have 
traditionally been heavily used for recreation should be excluded, as 
enforcement will be costly and ineffective.
    Service Response: The Service has included those areas containing 
constituent elements consistent with recommendations in the Draft 
Recovery Plan. In the final rule, the Service, where practicable, has 
deleted areas that do not contain constituent elements. No such 
information was provided for the recreation areas described. Land 
management agencies can consider these recreation areas during their 
establishment of recovery areas for desert tortoises.
    Issue 35: Several people were concerned that designation of 
critical habitat would preclude the recreational use of lands that 
their families have used for generations, and they strongly opposed its 
designation.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is not synonymous 
with setting aside wilderness, locking up the lands within, or 
prohibiting all uses. The Service anticipates that the land management 
agencies will designate roads and trails within critical habitat, and 
that they will close some roads that are secondary and not necessary 
for access to private lands or mines. Also, designation of critical 
habitat could increase certain types of recreational use. Many people 
enjoy areas that show fewer signs of human activity. Activities 
considered not likely to adversely affect critical habitat include 
hunting, picnicking, casual horseback riding (on designated roads and 
trails), camping, birdwatching, bike riding (on designated roads and 
trails), hiking, and motor vehicle use on designated roads.
    Issue 36: Some local agencies and utility companies were concerned 
that designation of critical habitat would affect their ability to 
access, use, and maintain existing facilities, rights-of-way, and fee 
property. Some stated that existing utility corridors should be 
excluded from critical habitat designation. Several agencies were 
concerned that critical habitat designation would either exclude or 
significantly increase the cost of future public works projects.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat should not 
interfere with on-going maintenance of existing roads and utilities. 
These structures do not normally contain primary constituent elements, 
and they would, therefore, not be affected by the designation. Routine 
maintenance operations on existing pipelines, buried fiber-optic lines, 
and electrical transmission line rights-of-way are generally covered 
under existing section 7 consultations and are not likely to constitute 
adverse modification of critical habitat. Any expansion, addition, or 
modification within the rights-of-way or fee property will be subject 
to section 7 consultation if authorized, funded, or carried out by a 
Federal agency. Through such consultation, the Service will determine 
if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of the desert tortoise or destroy or adversely modify its critical 
habitat.
    Issue 37: Several individuals requested that the final rule contain 
a discussion of how CHUs will be managed. Other members of the public 
were concerned that critical habitat designation forces creation of a 
management plan, establishes population goals, or prescribes specific 
management actions.
    Service Response: The designation of critical habitat does not 
create a management plan for the listed species. It is the 
responsibility of land management agencies to ensure that actions they 
authorize, fund, or carry out do not destroy or adversely modify 
designated critical habitat. Several Federal agencies charged with 
management of the public's lands are preparing or already implementing 
management plans that include actions that will benefit the desert 
tortoise. Development of such land use plans should focus on 
recommendations provided in the desert tortoise recovery plan.
    Issue 38: Some people commented that the Service should prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) on the proposed designation of critical habitat prior 
to publishing a final rule.
    Service Response: The decision in Pacific Legal Foundation v. 
Andrus, 675 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981), held that as a matter of law, an 
Environmental Impact Statement is not required for listings under the 
Act. The decision noted that preparing Environmental Impact Statements 
on listing actions does not further the goals of NEPA or the Act. The 
Service believes that, under the reasoning of this decision, preparing 
an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed critical habitat 
designation would not further the goals of NEPA or the Act and is not 
legally required. NEPA documentation will be required for BLM plans and 
activities that involve critical habitat. The Service published a 
notice outlining this determination on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 
The decision in Douglas County v. Babbitt, 810 F.Supp. 1470 (D. Ore. 
1992), which held that the Service must comply with NEPA in designating 
critical habitat, has been stayed pending appeal of the decision to the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Issue 39: One letter stated that final designation should include 
more definitive guidelines and specific examples for measuring adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    Service Response: It is difficult for the Service to anticipate all 
activities that may be proposed within critical habitat. In addition, 
the Service should avoid prejudging the outcome of section 7 
consultations. The Service will make a determination, on a case-by-case 
basis, if the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat.
    Issue 40: A number of organizations and individuals requested that 
the Service include within critical habitat the proposed site for the 
low-level radioactive waste repository (LLRWR) in Ward Valley 
(Chemehuevi CHU). Commenters provided a variety of reasons for 
inclusion of the LLRWR site, including potential threats to the desert 
tortoise should the LLRWR leak radionuclide-contaminated fluids, 
leachate contamination of the aquifer underlying the LLRWR site, the 
potential for contamination of the Colorado River and subsequent 
adverse effects to listed species that inhabit the Colorado River, and 
the alleged poor operating record of the proposed licensee. Some 
commenters stated that allowing the proposed LLRWR in Ward Valley would 
violate sections 2, 4(b)(2), and 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act.
    Service Response: The Service has determined that the Ward Valley 
LLRWR facility site should be included in this critical habitat 
designation. Following designation of critical habitat, all current 
activities for which a Federal agency maintains discretionary action 
must undergo reinitiation of consultation to analyze whether or not 
they are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. As a 
result, the BLM will need to reinitiate consultation under section 7 to 
determine if its proposed transfer of lands to the State of California 
for the proposed LLRWR facility is likely to result in the adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    Issue 41: One group stated that the Service must consider the 
cultural value to native peoples of lands within critical habitat. 
Specifically, these individuals stated that the cultural values of Ward 
Valley should be considered in the decision to include or exclude from 
critical habitat the proposed LLRWR site in Ward Valley.
    Service Response: The Service designated critical habitat based on 
biological information regarding whether or not an area contains the 
primary constituent elements of desert tortoise habitat, after taking 
into account the economic costs of designating that area. Although the 
Service recognizes that Ward Valley is important culturally to 
indigenous peoples of the region, the Act does not address inclusion of 
areas within critical habitat for cultural reasons.
    Issue 42: Some respondents stated that critical habitat should not 
be designated because species like the tortoise that cannot adapt 
should be allowed to become extinct.
    Service Response: In section 2 of the Act, Findings, Purposes, and 
Policy, Congress found that numerous species of fish, wildlife, and 
plants had become extinct and that other species had become so depleted 
in numbers that these species were in danger of, or threatened with, 
extinction due to a lack of concern for their conservation. 
Furthermore, Congress found that these species of fish, wildlife, and 
plants are intrinsically valuable to the Nation and its people. These 
findings are the basis of the Endangered Species Act, the purpose of 
which is to conserve threatened and endangered species and the 
ecosystems on which they depend. The designation of critical habitat is 
one mechanism provided under the Act to facilitate the recovery of 
listed species. It would be contrary to the Act and the mission of the 
Service to allow the desert tortoise to become extinct without taking 
all reasonable preventative actions.
    Issue 43: Some respondents stated that the Service had not 
protected enough critical habitat, because even full implementation of 
the draft recovery plan gives the tortoise only a 50/50 chance of 
surviving 500 years.
    Service Response: The CHUs proposed by the Service were based on 
recommendations provided in the Draft Recovery Plan because those areas 
are necessary for the recovery of the desert tortoise. Some areas are 
larger than those recommended in the Draft Recovery Plan based on new 
biological information. The Draft Recovery Plan pointed out that 
implementation of recovery actions can increase the probability of 
survival of the species.
    Issue 44: One respondent stated that designation of critical 
habitat above that required or suggested by the Act as mitigation 
against threatened additional litigation is improper. Section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act defines the methodology to be used in the determination of 
critical habitat, as exemplified by the actions of the Recovery Team. 
However, the boundaries of the proposed CHUs extend beyond that 
recommended by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan for DWMAs. The Service 
should not arbitrarily designate additional acreage that is 
``unsuitable'' or excessive. Critical habitat should not include the 
entire range of the species. The Service neither identifies nor makes 
available the content or source of the additional information upon 
which these expansions are based so that the reviewing public has an 
opportunity to base its comments upon the same information. The 
proposed rule increased the number of DWMAs in California from four to 
eight.
    Service Response: The Service based its designation of critical 
habitat on biological information and recovery recommendations provided 
by the Draft Recovery Plan. The Draft Recovery Plan provided general 
areas in which recovery is necessary to ensure maintenance of viable 
populations of desert tortoises in each of the six recovery units. The 
Act requires that critical habitat boundaries be defined by legal metes 
and bounds. To refine the Draft Recovery Plan recommendations, the 
Service held regional meetings of desert tortoise biologists and agency 
personnel during preparation of the proposed rule. Information gathered 
during these meetings was evaluated and incorporated into the critical 
habitat boundaries, which were generally drawn to the nearest section 
line. Final designation of critical habitat also included an economic 
analysis of the costs of designating critical habitat.
    The Draft Recovery Plan recommends eight DWMAs within four recovery 
units in California. These include Chemehuevi DWMA (Northern Colorado 
Recovery Unit); Chuckwalla and part of Joshua Tree DWMAs (Eastern 
Colorado Recovery Unit); Ord-Rodman, Superior-Cronese, Fremont-Kramer, 
and part of Joshua Tree DWMAs (Western Mojave Recovery Unit); and 
Fenner and Ivanpah DWMAs (Eastern Mojave Recovery Unit). The Fenner 
DWMA is incorporated into the Piute-Eldorado CHU, which extends into 
Nevada. Joshua Tree National Monument, although still considered 
important for recovery, was not designated as critical habitat because 
such designation would not afford the desert tortoise any additional 
benefit due to the National Park Service's ecosystem management of the 
area. However, the BLM land north of the Joshua Tree National Monument 
was designated critical habitat, and was given the new name of the 
Pinto Mountains CHU.
    Issue 45: One letter disagreed with the use of recovery units as 
legally and biologically accepted subpopulations of the Mojave 
population. Behavioral, physiological, and ecological uniqueness have 
not been linked to the genetic and morphologic variability described 
for Nevada populations. The bounds of adaptive plasticity for the 
desert tortoise have not been determined.
    Service Response: The Service based the critical habitat 
designation on recommendations provided in the Draft Recovery Plan, 
which is the most comprehensive source of information on the desert 
tortoise at this time. Should the recommendations in the final recovery 
plan differ significantly from that of the draft, the Service will 
reevaluate the critical habitat designation.
    Issue 46: One respondent stated that the proposed critical habitat 
designation focused attention only on activities that impair 
vegetation, soil structure, or other physical attributes of the 
habitat, and considered this analysis to be too narrow. The criteria 
should also include rectifying biological imbalances that result from 
habitat alteration (e.g., ravens and non-native plant species). Feral 
predators, such as dogs, should be considered in the same way as feral 
horses and burros. Surface disturbances caused by such activities as 
utility rights-of-way, road construction, and real estate development 
should be included.
    Service Response: The Service already addresses those actions that 
may increase feral predators or ravens through section 7 of the Act to 
determine if such actions are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the desert tortoise. The Service agrees that habitat 
imbalances negatively affect desert tortoises and should be avoided 
within critical habitat. Such imbalances often result in increased 
exotic species, such as weedy vegetation, and have contributed toward 
the increase of ravens in the Mojave Desert. The final rule discusses 
road and utility construction and issuance of Federal housing loans as 
requiring consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to determine, 
on a case-by-case basis, whether or not such proposed actions are 
likely to adversely modify or destroy critical habitat.
    Issue 47: Several letters stated that desert tortoises are not 
native to the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit (nor CHU); they were 
imported into the area by humans. Therefore, critical habitat 
designation is really land acquisition, not a designation of natural 
habitat.
    Service Response: Listing of the Mojave population of desert 
tortoises as a threatened species affords it protection under the Act, 
regardless of speculation on the origin of populations.
    Issue 48: Several commenters pointed out that areas proposed as 
critical habitat within the Upper Virgin River CHU included areas that 
do not have desert tortoises present (e.g., developed areas, high 
elevations).
    Service Response: The Service has used readily recognizable land 
features and legal descriptions to define the boundaries of desert 
tortoise critical habitat. Only the land within those boundaries that 
is suitable desert tortoise habitat (i.e., contains the primary 
constituent elements) is treated as critical habitat. Although the 
Service has adjusted boundary lines to exclude non-habitat to a great 
extent in this final designation, it remains mechanically impossible 
for the Service to specifically identify all non-habitat by legal 
description, particularly because many of these lands are less than 40 
acres in size. Actions proposed within areas without the primary 
constituent elements of desert tortoise habitat will not be subject to 
section 7 of the Act, unless such actions may affect nearby critical 
habitat.
    In the case of unoccupied, suitable desert tortoise habitat, the 
Act states clearly that areas in need of special management (inside or 
outside of the current range of the species) can be included in 
designation of critical habitat. Recovery of the desert tortoise within 
the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit is dependent upon maintenance and 
improvement in the quantity, quality, and/or arrangement of habitat.
    Issue 49: One letter stated that critical habitat designated on 
Tribal land in Utah is insufficient to support a viable population of 
desert tortoises.
    Service Response: Population viability analysis is appropriate only 
at the population level. Therefore, the Service does not evaluate 
population viability of separate portions of a CHU. Although it 
requires more intensive management as it is a smaller population, the 
Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit, as recommended by the Desert Tortoise 
Recovery Team, is a viable and recoverable population of desert 
tortoises. The Tribal lands within Utah are considered part of this 
recovery unit. The Upper Virgin River CHU corresponds to this recovery 
unit.
    Issue 50: Several letters stated that the importance of mining and 
grazing in rural communities was not adequately addressed in the 
economic analysis.
    Service Response: The smallest subdivision with standard, 
meaningful economic data normally is an individual county; thus, 
economic impacts are based upon county data for regional effects, 
whereas statewide or nationwide data and effects are addressed only if 
they become economically relevant.
    Issue 51: A few people were concerned that inclusion of their 
private land within critical habitat boundaries would negate Ft. 
Irwin's desire to purchase their land for future expansion, and they 
asked if the Service was going to compensate them for their loss of 
revenue. In addition, some people submitted comments asking the 
government to compensate them for reductions in land values due to 
their inclusion within critical habitat boundaries.
    Service Response: The National Training Center at Ft. Irwin revised 
its expansion proposal in response to the Service's concerns for desert 
tortoises prior to the proposal of critical habitat.
    Therefore, designation of critical habitat would not affect private 
lands that were in the original proposed expansion area. In the future, 
the Federal government may pursue acquisition of private lands within 
the CHUs on a willing seller/willing buyer basis to further the 
conservation of the desert tortoise.
    Neither the Act nor any other law administered by the Service 
authorizes compensation for perceived decreases in land value as 
suggested by the comments. Consequently, this issue is a matter for 
other agencies and Congress to consider.
    Issue 52: Some respondents stated that the Service is 
underestimating economic impacts by separating impacts from the listing 
process and the designation of critical habitat. The economic analysis 
addresses only incremental impacts associated with designation of 
critical habitat and omits impacts resulting from previous management 
plans and consultations.
    Service Response: The Endangered Species Act specifies that the 
listing of species should be based solely upon the best biological 
information available. However, the Act specifies that the Service 
should consider economic and other relevant impacts in the designation 
of critical habitat. Listing a species provides protection under the 
jeopardy standard and incidental take; designating critical habitat 
provides additional protection through the adverse modification 
standard. These are intended to be separate standards to be addressed 
through section 7 consultation. The economic analysis clearly 
distinguishes between the costs and benefits of these independent and 
incremental actions and is not an effort to underestimate costs. The 
total cost of conserving the desert tortoise is greater than the cost 
of designating critical habitat alone, and it includes the costs of 
prior tortoise protection measures under other laws and costs resulting 
from listing under the Act, as well as the cost of designating critical 
habitat.
    Issue 53: A few respondents stated that the section 7 decisions to 
restrict grazing are currently under litigation and a stay of these 
decisions has been issued. Therefore, the economic analysis should be 
based on current (prelisting) grazing practices.
    Service Response: The Service based its economic baseline on the 
biological opinions rendered by the Service and the decisions issued by 
the BLM on livestock grazing in desert tortoise habitat. The Interior 
Board of Land Appeals may review land use decisions by Interior 
Department agencies, but lacks jurisdiction needed to review biological 
opinions issued by the Service. Therefore, the Interior Board of Land 
Appeals Judge's stay of these decisions does not alter the economic 
baseline.
    Issue 54: One respondent stated that no attempt to quantify the 
benefits of critical habitat designation was made by the Service. This 
is needed to balance the costs, even if found not be significant. The 
Economic Analysis (page 60) states, ``To properly compare benefits and 
costs, the full range of each must be considered.'' The study fails to 
do this; therefore, the existing study cannot be used to exclude any of 
the proposed critical habitat areas.
    Service Response: Conducting a quantitative study of species 
benefits is a costly and lengthy process that was not possible within 
the court-mandated deadlines. Even with results of such a study, 
allocating the benefits of preservation and recovery of an endangered 
species between the various actions required is an extremely difficult 
task. If species preservation were accomplished entirely through 
designation of critical habitat, then the full value of benefits could 
be attributed to that action. Typically, however, preservation is 
achieved with multiple interactive management actions (e.g., federally 
listing as threatened or endangered, protection under State laws), each 
of which may be essential to recovery and no one of which can be 
singled out as the sole means by which a species is preserved or 
recovery attained. Given the data available, and without a clear 
delineation of the results of each management alternative, it is not 
possible to disaggregate the sum of benefits to identify that portion 
directly attributable to critical habitat designation.
    Issue 55: One letter stated that the economic analysis does not 
address the impact of potential delays in both maintenance and new 
construction caused by designation of critical habitat.
    Service Response: Actions that are authorized, funded, or carried 
out by Federal agencies are already subject to the jeopardy standard 
pursuant to section 7 of the Act, if such actions may affect desert 
tortoises. These actions require consultation between the action agency 
and the Service to determine whether or not they are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise. With 
designation of critical habitat, the Service will also determine 
whether or not such actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Both assessments will be made concurrently through 
consultation between the Federal action agency and the Service; 
therefore, designation of critical habitat will not result in any 
additional project delays. The Act requires the Service to issue a 
biological opinion within 135 days of the receipt of a request for 
formal section 7 consultation from an action agency. Therefore, the 
requirement for Federal agencies to insure that their actions do not 
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely 
modify critical habitat would not result in project delays.
    Issue 56: One group stated that, given the long time frame 
necessary for recovery of the desert tortoise, the economic analysis 
should have considered the long-term effects of known or foreseeable 
projects.
    Service Response: Without knowing the details of future projects, 
the Service cannot know how or to what extent such projects may affect 
critical habitat or vice versa. The Service evaluated economic 
information provided on existing projects to determine if the benefits 
of excluding areas outweighed the benefits of designating those areas 
as critical habitat. The Service was unable to assign a cost to those 
projects that may or may not be proposed within critical habitat in the 
future.
    Issue 57: One group stated that the economic analysis of the 
effects of removing grazing from Federal lands was inadequate and 
understates the importance of grazing to the region's economy. Ranchers 
act as land managers for the Federal government. By eliminating 
ranching, the Federal government would have to expend additional monies 
for management. In addition, range improvements, associated with 
grazing on Federal lands, improve overall habitat quality by providing 
water sources and facilitating effective forage use.
    Service Response: According to a 1991 study by the GAO, the costs 
of administering the livestock grazing program by the BLM and 
Department of Agriculture (predator control and rangeland grasshopper 
control) far exceed the fees derived from the ranchers for their AUMs.
    Issue 58: One letter stated that the critical habitat economic 
analysis should have included the costs associated with implementation 
of the recovery plan. A 2006 date for delisting was selected in an 
arbitrary and capricious manner and designed to limit the amount of 
funding the Recovery Team had to report in the Draft Recovery Plan.
    Service Response: Implementation of the recovery plan for the 
desert tortoise is not a cost attributable to designation of critical 
habitat. The Draft Recovery Plan was prepared prior to proposing 
critical habitat and is mandated by the Endangered Species Act whether 
or not a species has designated critical habitat. Therefore, its 
implementation can be considered a cost of listing the desert tortoise 
as threatened versus a cost associated with designation of critical 
habitat.
    Issue 59: The DOD installations stated that the economic analysis 
failed to evaluate the costs to the public of relocating base 
activities or potential base closures that might result from inclusion 
in critical habitat.
    Service Response: After careful consideration of the activities 
that occur on the military installations, the Service concluded that 
designation of critical habitat should not result in the closure of 
military bases in the region. The Service maintains that most training 
conducted on the bases can be compatible with proper tortoise 
management and has concluded that concerns about military bases being 
rendered unusable due to designation of critical habitat are 
overstated. Areas that include existing facilities, or that have been 
highly degraded (e.g., high-impact bombing ranges), do not contain 
constituent elements of tortoise habitat. Therefore, they do not 
constitute critical habitat. Expansion or relocation of facilities or 
activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat within 
a CHU on a military base (e.g., relocation of high impact bombing 
targets) would require section 7 consultation to determine if the 
relocation is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
desert tortoise or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
    Issue 60: The Service should, on economic grounds, exclude the 
proposed site of the LLRWR facility in Ward Valley.
    Service Response: The Service is aware that including the Ward 
Valley site in critical habitat may threaten a portion of the 
investment made in siting the LLRWR facility and may result in 
potentially significant costs for the State of California. However, 
after considering these potential economic impacts, the Service has 
determined that the area should not be excluded from critical habitat 
designation.
    Issue 61: Several letters suggested that designation of critical 
habitat would result in taking of private property.
    Service Response: The courts have held that the mere enactment of 
laws that may result in restrictions on property does not necessarily 
equate to a taking of property for which compensation is required 
(Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 
264, 295 (1981), Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260-263 (1980)). 
Therefore, the Service concludes that publication of a final rule 
designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise does not equate to 
a taking of property requiring just compensation.
    Recognizing that governmental regulation involves adjustment of 
rights for the public good, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a 
regulation that curtails the most profitable use of one's property, 
resulting in a reduction in value or limitations on use likewise does 
not necessarily equate to a taking (Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 66 
(1979), Agins, 447 U.S. at 262, Hodel, 452 U.S. at 296). Where a 
regulation denies a property owner the economically viable use of his 
or her property, then a taking will likely occur (Agins, 447 U.S. at 
260). However, where regulations do not categorically prohibit use but 
merely regulate the conditions under which such use may occur, and do 
not regulate alternative uses, then no taking occurs (Hodel, 452 U.S. 
at 296). With the designation of critical habitat, a property owner is 
not denied the economical viable use of his or her land. Use of land is 
not categorically prohibited but rather certain restrictions may be 
imposed upon Federal agency actions that may result in the destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat. As such, the Service 
concludes that designation of critical habitat will not result in a 
taking of private property.
    Furthermore, a property owner must establish that a ``concrete 
controversy'' exists before the court may even reach the merits of a 
takings claim (Hodel, 452 U.S. at 294, Agins, 447 U.S. at 260). The 
property owner must show a specific and real impact to specific 
properties before judicial resolution of a takings claim is made 
(MacDonald, Sommer, and Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348-349, 
Agins, 447 U.S. at 260). As applied to critical habitat designation, a 
claim of takings of property would not be ripe for judicial resolution 
until the consultation process is completed and exemption from the 
Endangered Species Committee is denied. Even then, it is highly 
unlikely that a takings claim would be successful because designation 
of critical habitat does not categorically prohibit use of the property 
owner's land. Therefore, the Service has concluded that designation of 
critical habitat for the desert tortoise does not pose significant 
takings implications.
    Issue 62: One letter stated that designation of State lands as 
critical habitat violates the ``trust'' responsibility of the Federal 
government to the States. The main purpose of these State lands is to 
provide funding for the State's schools.
    Service Response: Critical habitat designation will not affect 
State lands unless proposed actions on these lands are authorized, 
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Such actions would then be 
subject to consultation if they may affect the desert tortoise or its 
habitat pursuant to section 7 of the Act. As with private lands, State 
lands are already subject to prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, 
which prohibit unauthorized take of listed species.
    Issue 63: Several groups stated that conferencing on projects in 
proposed critical habitat is illegal because the desert tortoise is 
already listed and because critical habitat has been proposed years 
beyond the statutory deadline for such designation.
    Service Response: Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and 50 CFR 402.10 of 
the regulations require Federal agencies to confer with the Service on 
any action that is likely to result in destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. With designation of critical 
habitat, Federal agencies will be required to enter into formal 
consultation with the Service for any actions that may affect desert 
tortoises or their critical habitat.
    Issue 64: One letter stated that the public did not receive an 
adequate opportunity to review the maps upon which the proposed rule 
was based because the maps provided in the Federal Register notice were 
too small to be useful.
    Service Response: The Service provided opportunities for the public 
to review maps at a scale of 1:100,000 at each of three public hearings 
and made the maps available at the field offices located in Arizona, 
California, Nevada, and Utah. Due to the court-mandated time frame for 
development of the proposed rule, the Service was unable to provide 
copies of these larger-scaled maps to other agencies.
    Issue 65: There was an insufficient amount of time for comment and 
review between the critical habitat proposal and final designation.
    Service Response: The Service provided 60 days for public comment 
on the critical habitat proposal, which included three public hearings. 
The schedule for designation of critical habitat follows a stipulation 
and order of dismissal filed on August 3, 1993, in two lawsuits filed 
against the Service (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. 
Bruce Babbitt et al. and Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) a 
threatened species; et al., v. Manual Lujan, Jr.). This court-mandated 
schedule requires publication of the final critical habitat rule by 
December 15, 1993. This short time frame for finalizing the rule does 
not allow for an extension of the public comment period.
    Issue 66: One letter stated that Tribal economic costs resulting 
from critical habitat designation were not considered in the proposal.
    Service Response: For a 60-day period after the draft economic 
analysis was made available to the public, the Service collected and 
considered other responses from State and Federal agencies, private 
land holders, the Tribe, and other entities regarding economic effects 
they might experience from the proposed designation. All responses that 
identified specific economic impacts were considered in completing the 
final economic analysis. During the public comment period, the Tribe 
commented that the proposed designation ``could eliminate or reduce 
economic development and other opportunities,'' but did not identify or 
describe specific effects that allowed estimation of economic impacts.
    Issue 67: The Aerojet-General Corporation and Wyle Laboratories 
have requested that the 42,800 acres that they have purchased (28,800 
acres) and leased (14,000 acres) from the BLM be excluded from critical 
habitat designation. The basis for the request was the Environmental 
Stipulations contained in the Land Exchange and Lease Agreements signed 
pursuant to the Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 1988, 
which established a detailed plan for the conservation of the desert 
tortoise on these lands. In addition Aerojet-General Corporation felt 
that statements that critical habitat does not affect private lands are 
misleading, because designation of critical habitat will affect these 
lands and their future use either through the section 7 process or 
through the section 10 permit process.
    Service Response: The Service recognizes the desert tortoise 
management plan for this area but does not believe that it adequately 
addresses the potential impacts of the transmission lines that are 
proposed through Coyote Spring Valley. Therefore, the Service has 
included this area in the designation of critical habitat. Whether or 
not critical habitat is designated, lands containing desert tortoises 
and their habitat are still subject to section 9 of the Act, which 
prohibits unauthorized take of listed species. The only avenues for 
authorizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities are 
the section 7 process for activities that are authorized, funded, or 
carried out by Federal agencies, and the section 10(a)(1)(B) permitting 
process for non-Federal actions on private or State lands.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that an Environmental Assessment and/or 
an Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination 
was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 
49244).

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 
Department of the Interior has determined that the final rule will not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
Based on the information discussed in this rule concerning public 
projects and private activities within CHUs, significant economic 
impacts will not result from the critical habitat designation. Also, no 
direct costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or 
recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small entities by this 
designation. Further, the rule contains no recordkeeping requirements 
as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.

Takings Implications Assessment

    The Service has analyzed the potential takings implications of 
designating critical habitat for the desert tortoise in a Takings 
Implications Assessment prepared pursuant to requirements of Executive 
Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.'' The Takings Implications 
Assessment concludes that the designation does not pose significant 
takings implications.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Field Supervisor, Nevada Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule and its associated CHU maps are 
Sheryl L. Barrett, Christine Mullen, Mark Maley, Michael Burroughs, and 
David L. Harlow, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section); Ray Bransfield, Kirk Waln, and Tim 
MacGillvray, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office; 
Marilet A. Zablan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah State Office; 
James Rorabaugh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Field Office; 
Arthur Davenport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field 
Office; Mel Schamberger and Dirk Draper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, Colorado.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 17.95(c) is amended by removing the critical habitat of 
the Beaver Dam Slope population of the desert tortoise and adding the 
following new critical habitat of the desert tortoise (Gopherus 
agassizii) in its place to read as follows:


Sec. 17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
* * * * *
Desert Tortoise--Mojave Population (Gopherus agassizii)
    Index map of approximate locations of critical habitat units 
follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.000


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    California. Areas of land as follows:


    1. Fremont-Kramer Unit. Kern, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino 
Counties. From BLM Maps: Victorville 1978 and Cuddeback Lake 1978. 
(Index map location A).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 29 S., R. 39 E., secs. 13, 14, 22-26, 
35, and 36; T. 29 S., R. 40 E., secs. 12-33; T. 29 S., R. 41 E., 
secs. 7, 8, 17-20, 27-30, and 32-36; T. 30 S., R. 38 E., secs. 24-
26, 35, and 36; T. 30 S., R. 39 E., secs. 1-36 except secs. 3-5; T. 
30 S., R. 40 E., secs. 4-9 and 13-36 except those portions of secs. 
13, 14, and 23 lying northwesterly of the Randsburg-Mojave Road; T. 
30 S., R. 41 E., secs. 1-36 except secs. 5-8 and 20 and those 
portions of secs. 17 and 18 lying easterly of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 30 
S., R. 42 E., secs. 7-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T. 31 S., R. 40 E., 
secs. 1 and 6 except that portion of sec. 6 lying southeasterly of 
the Randsburg-Mojave Road; T. 31 S., R. 41 E., secs. 1-17, 20-29, 
and 32-36 except those portions of secs. 20, 29 and 32 lying 
westerly of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 31 S., R. 42 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, 
and 27-34; T. 32 S., R. 41 E., secs. 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, and 34-36 
except those portions of secs. 4, 9, 16, 21, 27, 28, and 34 lying 
westerly of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 32 S., R. 42 E.; T. 32 S., R. 43 E., 
secs. 4-9, 16-21, and 28-33.
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 7 N., R. 5 W., secs. 2-11 and 14-18 
except that portion of sec. 18 lying west of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 7 N., 
R. 6 W., secs. 1-6, 12, and 13 except those portions of secs. 1, 12, 
and 13 lying westerly of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 7 N., R. 7 W., secs. 1-6; 
T. 7 N., R. 8 W., secs. 1-4; T. 8 N., R. 4 W., secs. 6, 7, and 18; 
T. 8 N., R. 5 W., secs. 1-35 except secs. 24 and 25; T. 8 N., R. 6 
W.; T. 8 N., R. 7 W.; T. 8 N., R. 8 W., secs. 1-28, and 33-36; T. 8 
N., R. 9 W., secs. 1 and 7-24; T. 9 N., R. 4 W., secs. 2-11, 14-23, 
30, and 31; T. 9 N., R. 5 W.; T. 9 N., R. 6 W.; T. 9 N., R. 7 W., 
secs. 1-4, 9-16, and 19-36; T. 9 N., R. 8 W., secs. 24, 25, and 31-
36; T. 9 N., R. 9 W., sec. 36; T. 10 N., R. 4 W., secs. 6, 7, 18-20, 
and 29-34; T. 10 N., R. 5 W.; T. 10 N., R. 6 W., secs. 1-36 except 
sec. 6; T. 10 N., R. 7 W., secs. 9-16, 21-28, and 33-36; T. 11 N., 
R. 5 W., secs. 2-11, 14-23, and 26-35; T. 11 N., R. 6 W., secs. 1-36 
except those portions of secs. 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, and 31 lying 
westerly of U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 11 N., R. 7 W., that portion of sec. 1 
lying easterly U.S. Hwy. 395; T. 12 N., R. 5 W., secs. 31-35; T. 12 
N., R. 6 W., secs. 31-36; T. 12 N., R. 7 W., that portion of sec. 36 
lying easterly of U.S. Hwy. 395.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.001


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    2. Superior-Cronese Unit. San Bernardino County. From BLM Maps: 
Cuddeback Lake 1978, Soda Mts. 1978, Victorville 1978, and Newberry 
Springs 1978. (Index map location B).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 29 S., R. 42 E., secs. 35 and 36; T. 29 
S., R. 43 E., secs. 25, 26, and 31-36; T. 29 S., R. 44 E., secs. 20-
36; T. 29 S., R. 45 E., secs. 14-16, 19-23, and 25-36; T. 29 S., R. 
46 E., secs. 30-32; T. 30 S., R. 42 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 
35, and 36; T. 30 S., R. 43 E.; T. 30 S., R. 44 E.; T. 30 S., R. 45 
E.; T. 30 S., R. 46 E., secs. 3-36; T. 30 S., R. 47 E., secs. 7-10, 
15-22, and 27-34; T. 31 S., R. 42 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, 
and 36; T. 31 S., R. 43 E.; T. 31 S., R. 44 E.; T. 31 S., R. 45 E.; 
T. 31 S., R. 46 E.; T. 31 S., R. 47 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 27-
34; T. 32 S., R. 43 E., secs. 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, and 34-36; T. 32 
S., R. 44 E.; T. 32 S., R. 45 E.; T. 32 S., R. 46 E.; T. 32 S., R. 
47 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34.
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 9 N., R. 1 W., those portions of 
secs. 1 and 2 lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 9 N., R. 1 
E., that portion of sec. 6 lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 
10 N., R. 2 W., secs. 1-29; T. 10 N., R. 1 W., secs. 1-28, 30, and 
33-36 except those portions of secs. 33-35 lying southwesterly of 
Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 10 N., R. 1 E., secs. 18, 19, 30, and 31; T. 
10 N., R. 2 E., secs. 1-5, 8-17, and 22-34 except those portions of 
secs. 25, 26, and 34 lying southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 
10 N., R. 3 E., secs. 1-12, 14-21, and 30 except those portions of 
secs. 11, 12, 14-16, 19-21, and 30 lying southeasterly of Interstate 
Hwy. 15; T. 10 N., R. 4 E., those portions of secs. 5-7 lying 
northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 11 N., R. 5 W., secs. 1 and 
12; T. 11 N., R. 4 W., secs. 1-7, 9, 11, and 12; T. 11 N., R. 3 W., 
secs. 1-18; T. 11 N., R. 2 W.; T. 11 N., R. 1 W.; T. 11 N., R. 1 E., 
secs. 1-31; T. 11 N., R. 2 E., secs. 1-36 except sec. 31; T. 11 N., 
R. 3 E.; T. 11 N., R. 4 E., secs. 1-34 except those portions of 
secs. 25, 26, 33, and 34 lying southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; 
T. 11 N., R. 5 E., secs. 1-11 and 15-20 except those portions of 
secs. 1, 2, 10, 11, 15-17, 19, and 20 lying southeasterly of 
Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 12 N., R. 5 W., sec. 36; T. 12 N., R. 4 W., 
secs. 31-36; T. 12 N., R. 3 W., secs. 31-36; T. 12 N., R. 2 W., 
secs. 31-36; T. 12 N., R. 1 W., secs. 31-36; T. 12 N., R. 1 E.; T. 
12 N., R. 2 E., secs. 3-36; T. 12 N., R. 3 E., secs. 7-36; T. 12 N., 
R. 4 E., secs. 7-36; T. 12 N., R. 5 E., secs. 1-5 and 7-36; T. 12 
N., R. 6 E., secs. 5-9, 15-22, and 27-34 except those portions of 
secs. 31-34 lying southerly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 13 N., R. 1 
E.; T. 13 N., R. 2 E., secs. 19 and 29-34; T. 13 N., R. 5 E., secs. 
26-28 and 32-36; T. 14 N., R. 1 E., secs. 5-10, 15-23, and 24-36.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.002


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    3. Ord-Rodman Unit. San Bernardino County. From BLM Maps: 
Newberry Springs 1978 and Victorville 1978. (Index map location C).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 6 N., R. 1 E., secs. 1-6, 10-15, 22-
27, and 34-36; T. 6 N., R. 2 E., secs. 1-11, 14-22, and 28-33; T. 7 
N., R. 1 W., secs. 1-4, 9-15, 22-26, 35, and 36 except those 
portions of secs. 4, 9, 10, 15, 22, 23, 26, and 35 lying 
southwesterly of State Hwy. 247; T. 7 N., R. 1 E.; T. 7 N., R. 2 E.; 
T. 7 N., R. 3 E.; T. 7 N., R. 4 E.; T. 7 N., R. 5 E., secs. 4-9 and 
17-19 except those portions of secs. 4, 8, 9, and 17-19 lying 
southerly of the northern boundary of Twentynine Palms Marine Corps 
Base; T. 8 N., R. 1 W., secs. 1-18, 20-29, and 32-36 except those 
portions of secs. 6, 7, 17, 18, 20, 29, 32, and 33 lying 
southwesterly of State Hwy. 247; T. 8 N., R. 1 E.; T. 8 N., R. 2 E., 
secs. 2-36; T. 8 N., R. 3 E., secs. 7 and 18-36; T. 8 N., R. 4 E., 
secs. 13-16 and 18-36; T. 8 N., R. 5 E., secs. 16-18, 19-21, 28-30, 
and 31-33 except those portions of secs. 16 and 17 lying northerly 
of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 6 E., secs. 18-21 and 27-36 
except those portions of secs. 18-21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 lying 
northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 1 W., secs. 19, 20, and 
25-36 except those portions of secs. 19, 20, and 29-31 lying 
westerly of State Hwy. 247; T. 9 N., R. 1 E., secs. 25-36 except 
those portions of secs. 25-27 lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; 
T. 9 N., R. 2 E., secs. 27-35 except those portions of secs. 27-30 
lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.003


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    4. Chuckwalla Unit. Imperial and Riverside Counties. From BLM 
Maps: Chuckwalla #18 1978, Parker-Blythe #16 1978, Salton Sea #20 
1978, and Midway Well #21 1979. (Index map location D).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 3 S., R. 13 E., secs. 19-21 and 27-
35; T. 4 S., R. 8 E., secs. 1-6, 8-16, 22-26, and 36; T. 4 S., R. 9 
E., secs. 6-10, and 15-36; T. 4 S., R. 10 E., secs. 19-21, and 27-
34; T. 4 S., R. 13 E., secs. 2-36 except secs. 12 and 13; T. 4 S., 
R. 14 E., secs. 27-36; T. 4 S., R. 15 E., secs. 31 and 32; T. 5 S., 
R. 9 E., secs. 1-4, 12, 13, and 24; T. 5 S., R. 10 E., secs. 2-36 
except sec. 31; T. 5 S., R. 11 E., secs. 19-21 and 28-33; T. 5 S., 
R. 12 E., sec. 36; T. 5 S., R. 13 E., secs. 1-36 except secs. 6 and 
7; T. 5 S., R. 14 E.; T. 5 S., R. 15 E., secs. 4-9, 16-21, 25, S \1/
2\ sec. 26, S \1/2\ sec. 27, and secs. 28-36; T. 5 S., R. 16 E., 
secs. 28-35; T. 6 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1-4, 9-16, 21-26, 35 and 36; 
T. 6 S., R. 11 E., secs. 4-36; T. 6 S., R. 12 E.; T. 6 S., R. 13 E.; 
T. 6 S., R. 14 E.; T. 6 S., R. 15 E.; T. 6 S., R. 16 E.; T. 6 S., R. 
17 E., secs. 5-9, and 14-36; T. 6 S., R. 18 E., secs. 29-36; T. 6 
S., R. 19 E., secs. 31-36; T. 6 S., R. 20 E., secs. 31-34; T. 7 S., 
R. 11 E., sec. 1; T. 7 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1-6, 9-15, and 23-25; T. 
7 S., R. 13 E., secs. 1-30 and 31-36; T. 7 S., R. 14 E.; T. 7 S., R. 
15 E.; T. 7 S., R. 16 E.; T. 7 S., R. 17 E.; T. 7 S., R. 18 E.; T. 7 
S., R. 19 E.; T. 7 S., R. 20 E., secs. 3-10, 14-23, and 26-35; T. 8 
S., R. 13 E., secs. 1, 2, and 11-14; T. 8 S., R. 14 E., secs. 1-18, 
and secs. 21-26; T. 8 S., R. 15 E., secs. 1-30 and 34-36; T. 8 S., 
R. 16 E.; T. 8 S., R. 17 E.; T. 8 S., R. 18 E.; T. 8 S., R. 19 E.; 
T. 8 S., R. 20 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 28-33; T. 9 S., R. 15 E., 
sec. 1; T. 9 S., R. 16 E., secs. 1-17, 20-29, and 32-36; T. 9 S., R. 
17 E.; T. 9 S., R. 18 E.; T. 9 S., R. 19 E.; T. 9 S., R. 20 E., 
secs. 5-8, 17-20, and 29-33; T. 10 S., R. 16 E., secs. 1-5, 9-16, 
and 22-26; T. 10 S., R. 17 E.; T. 10 S., R. 18 E.; T. 10 S., R. 19 
E.; T. 10 S., R. 20 E., secs. 3-36; T. 10 S., R. 21 E., secs. 18-21 
and 28-34; T. 10 \1/2\ S., R. 21 E., secs. 31-33; T. 11 S., R. 17 
E., secs. 1-5 and 8-15; T. 11 S., R. 18 E., secs. 1-24; T. 11 S., R. 
19 E., secs. 1-26, 35, and 36; T. 11 S., R. 20 E., secs. 1-23 and 
26-34; T. 11 S., R. 21 E., secs. 4-8; T. 12 S., R. 19 E., secs. 1, 
2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, and 36; T. 12 S., R. 20 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, 
and 27-34; T. 13 S., R. 19 E., secs. 1, 2, 11, 12, 22-27, and 34-36; 
T. 13 S., R. 20 E., secs. 3-10, 14-23, and 26-34.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.004


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    5. Pinto Mountain Unit. Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 
From BLM Maps: Yucca Valley 1982, Sheep Hole Mountains 1978, 
Chuckwalla 1978, and Palm Springs #17 1978. (Index map location E).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 1 S., R. 9 E., secs. 10-15, 24, 25, 
and 36; T. 1 S., R. 10 E., secs. 7-36; T. 1 S., R. 11 E., secs. 7-
36; T. 1 S., R. 12 E., secs. 7-36 except sec. 12; T. 1 S., R. 13 E., 
secs. 13-36; T. 1 S., R. 14 E., secs. 13-32; T. 1 S., R. 15 E., 
secs. 13-30 and 36; T. 1 S., R. 16 E., secs. 18, 19, and 30-32; T. 2 
S., R. 9 E., secs. 1, 12, and 13; T. 2 S., R. 10 E., secs. 1-24; T. 
2 S., R. 11 E., secs. 1-24; T. 2 S., R. 12 E., secs. 1-22 except 
sec. 13; T. 2 S., R. 13 E., secs. 3-6; T. 2 S., R. 15 E., sec. 1; T. 
2 S., R. 16 E., secs. 4-9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 32, and 33; T. 3 
S., R. 16 E., secs. 4, 5, 8, and 9.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.005


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    6. Chemehuevi Unit. San Bernardino County. From BLM Maps: Sheep 
Hole Mts. 1978, Parker 1979, Needles 1978, and Amboy 1991. (Index 
map location F).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 1 S., R. 22 E., those portions of 
secs. 3-5 lying northwesterly of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe 
Railroad; T. 1 S., R. 23 E., those portions of secs. 1-3 lying 
northerly of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad except that 
portion of sec. 1 lying easterly of U.S. Hwy. 95; T. 1 N., R. 22 E., 
secs. 1-4, 9-16, 20-29, and 32-36 except those portions of secs. 34-
36 lying southerly of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad; T. 
1 N., R. 23 E., secs. 1-36 except those portions of secs. 31-34 
lying southerly of Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad; T. 1 N., 
R. 24 E., secs. 4-9, 16-21, and 29-31; T. 2 N., R. 18 E., secs. 1-5, 
and 9-14; T. 2 N., R. 19 E., secs. 2-10, and 16-18; T. 2 N., R. 22 
E., secs. 1-5, 8-16, 21-28, and 33-36; T. 2 N., R. 23 E., secs. 5-8, 
17-21, and 26-36; T. 2 N., R. 24 E., secs. 31 and 32; T. 3 N., R. 17 
E., secs. 12, 13, 24, and 25; T. 3 N., R. 18 E.; T. 3 N., R. 19 E., 
secs. 1-35; T. 3 N., R. 20 E., secs. 5-8, 18, and 19; T. 3 N., R. 21 
E., secs. 1-5, 9-16, 23, and 24; T. 3 N., R. 22 E., secs. 1-36 
except sec. 31; T. 3 N., R. 23 E., secs. 2-11, 14-22, and 28-32; T. 
4 N., R. 18 E., secs. 1, 2, 10-15, 21-28, and 32-36; T. 4 N., R. 19 
E.; T. 4 N., R. 20 E., secs. 1-12, 16-20, and 29-32; T. 4 N., R. 21 
E., secs. 1-17, 20-29, and 32-36; T. 4 N., R. 22 E.; T. 4 N., R. 23 
E., secs. 1-35; T. 4 N., R. 24 E., Secs 6, 7, 18, and 19; T. 5 N., 
R. 15 E., secs. 1-6; T. 5 N., R. 16 E., secs. 4-6; T. 5 N., R. 18 
E., secs. 1-6, 8-17, 22-26, 35, and 36; T. 5 N., R. 19 E.; T. 5 N., 
R. 20 E.; T. 5 N., R. 21 E.; T. 5 N., R. 22 E., secs. 2-36; 
(Unsurveyed) T. 5 N., R. 23 E., protracted secs. 19, and 29-33; T. 6 
N., R. 14 E., secs. 1-3, 10-15, and 23-25; T. 6 N., R. 15 E.; T. 6 
N., R. 16 E., secs. 1-23, and 27-34; T. 6 N., R. 17 E., secs. 1-18, 
22-26, and 36; T. 6 N., R. 18 E.; T. 6 N., R. 19 E.; T. 6 N., R. 20 
E.; T. 6 N., R. 21 E.; T. 6 N., R. 22 E., secs. 3-10, 15-23, and 26-
35; T. 7 N., R. 14 E., secs. 1-5, 8-17, 21-28, and 33-36; T. 7 N., 
R. 15 E.; T. 7 N., R. 16 E.; T. 7 N., R. 17 E.; T. 7 N., R. 18 E.; 
T. 7 N., R. 19 E.; T. 7 N., R. 20 E.; T. 7 N., R. 21 E.; T. 7 N., R. 
22 E., secs. 18-20, and 28-34; T. 8 N., R. 14 E., secs. 13, 23-28, 
and 31-36 except those portions of secs. 13, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 
32, and 33 lying northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 15 
E., secs. 9-36 except those portions of secs. 9-12, 17, and 18 lying 
northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 16 E., secs. 1, 2, 
and 7-36 except those portions of secs. 1, 2, and 7-10 and 11 lying 
northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 17 E., secs. 1-36 
except those portions of secs. 1-6 lying northerly of Interstate 
Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 18 E., secs. 1-36 except that portion of sec. 6 
lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 19 E.; T. 8 N., 
R. 20 E.; T. 8 N., R. 21 E., secs. 7, 17-21, and 27-35; T. 9 N., R. 
18 E., those portions of secs. 31-36 lying southerly of Interstate 
Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 19 E., secs. 23-29 and 31-36 except those 
portions of secs. 23, 24, 26-29, 31, and 32 lying northerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 20 E., secs. 19, 20, and 29-33 
except those portions of secs. 19 and 20 lying northerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 40 and S\1/2\ S\1/2\ sec. 27, SW\1/4\ SW\1/4\ sec. 
26, and W\1/2\ W\1/2\ sec. 35.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.006


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    7. Ivanpah Unit. San Bernardino County. From BLM Maps: Amboy 
1991, Ivanpah 1979, and Mesquite Lake 1990. (Index map location G).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 9 N., R. 12 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 
and 24; T. 9 N., R. 13 E., secs. 4-9, 16-21, and 28-30; T. 10 N., R. 
12 E., secs. 25, 35, and 36; T. 10 N., R. 13 E., secs. 3-10, 16-21, 
and 28-33; T. 11 N., R. 12 E., secs. 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36; T. 
11 N., R. 13 E., secs. 1-12, 15-21, and 28-33; T. 11 N., R. 14 E., 
sec. 6; T. 12 N., R. 11 E., secs. 1-5 and 9-15; T. 12 N., R. 12 E., 
secs. 1-18, 21-27, 35, and 36; T. 12 N., R. 13 E.; T. 12 N., R. 14 
E., secs. 4-9, 16-21, and 29-32; T. 13 N., R. 10 E., secs. 1-5, 10-
14, 24, and 25; T. 13 N., R. 11 E.; T. 13 N., R. 12 E.; T. 13 N., R. 
13 E.; T. 13 N., R. 14 E., secs. 3-9, 16-21, and 28-33; T. 14 N., R. 
9 E., secs. 1, 12, 13, and 24; T. 14 N., R. 10 E.; (Unsurveyed) T. 
14 N., R. 11 E., Protracted secs. 1-35; T. 14 N., R. 11 E., sec. 36; 
T. 14 N., R. 12 E.; T. 14 N., R. 13 E.; T. 14 N., R. 14 E., secs. 1-
5, 8-17, and 19-35; T. 14 N., R. 15 E., secs. 1-12, and 14-22; T. 14 
N., R. 16 E., sec. 6; T. 15 N., R. 9 E., secs. 24, 25, and 36; T. 15 
N., R. 10 E., secs. 1-36 except sec. 6; T. 15 N., R. 11 E.; T. 15 
N., R. 12 E.; T. 15 N., R. 13 E., secs. 3-11 and 14-36; T. 15 N., R. 
14 E., secs. 12, 13, 23-28, and 33-36; T. 15 N., R. 15 E.; T. 15 N., 
R. 16 E., secs. 1-11, 14-22, and 28-33; T. 15\1/2\ N., R. 14 E., 
secs. 24 and 25; T. 15\1/2\ N., R. 15 E., secs. 19-36; T. 15\1/2\ 
N., R. 16 E., secs. 19-35; T. 16 N., R. 10 E., secs. 25, 35, and 36; 
T. 16 N., R. 11 E.; T. 16 N., R. 12 E.; T. 16 N., R. 12\1/2\ E., 
secs. 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36; T. 16 N., R. 13 E., secs. 7, 17-20, 
and 29-33; T. 16 N., R. 14 E., secs. 24, 25, 35, and 36 except those 
portions of secs. 24 and 35 lying northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 
15; T. 16 N., R. 15 E., secs. 1-3, 10-14, and 23-36; T. 16 N., R. 16 
E., secs. 6-8, 16-22, and 26-36; T. 17 N., R. 11 E., secs. 1-5, 8-
17, 20-29, and 31-36; T. 17 N., R. 12 E., secs. 3-10, 14-23, and 26-
36; T. 18 N., R. 11 E., secs. 13, 14, 22-28, and 33-36; T. 18 N., R. 
12 E., secs. 18-20, and 28-33.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.007


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    8. Piute-Eldorado Unit. San Bernardino County. From BLM Maps: 
Amboy 1991, Needles 1978, and Ivanpah 1979. (Index map location H).
    San Bernardino Meridian: T. 8 N., R. 14 E., secs. 1-4, 8-17, 19-
24, 26-30, 32, and 33 except those portions of secs. 13, 23, 24, 26-
28, 32, and 33 lying southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., 
R. 15 E., secs. 1-12, 17, and 18 except those portions of secs. 1, 
8-12, 17, and 18 lying southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., 
R. 16 E., secs. 1-10 except those portions of sections 1-3 and 6-10 
lying southerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 8 N., R. 17 E., those 
portions of secs. 1-6 lying northerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 
N., R. 14 E., secs. 1-3, 10-15, 22-28, and 33-36; T. 9 N., R. 15 E.; 
T. 9 N., R. 16 E.; T. 9 N., R. 17 E., secs. 1-36 except that portion 
of sec. 36 lying southerly of Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 18 E., 
secs. 1-36 except those portions of secs. 31-36 lying southerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 19 E., secs. 1-24 and 26-32 except 
those portions of secs. 26-29, 31, and 32 lying southerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 40; T. 9 N., R. 20 E., secs. 3-8 and 17-20 except 
those portions of secs. 19 and 20 lying southerly of Interstate Hwy. 
40; T. 10 N., R. 14 E., secs. 11-14, 22-27, and 34-36; T. 10 N., R. 
15 E., secs. 1-3, 9-16, and 18-36; T. 10 N., R. 16 E.; T. 10 N., R. 
17 E.; T. 10 N., R. 18 E.; T. 10 N., R. 19 E.; T. 10 N., R. 20 E.; 
T. 10 N., R. 21 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 28-31; T. 11 N., R. 15 
E., secs. 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 25-29, and 33-36; T. 11 N., R. 16 E., 
secs. 9, 15, 16, 21-23, 25-28, 31, and 33-36; T. 11 N., R. 17 E., 
secs. 8, 12-17, and 19-36; T. 11 N., R. 18 E., secs. 1-4 and 7-36; 
T. 11 N., R. 19 E., secs. 1-13, 18, 19, 23-27, and 29-36; T. 11 N., 
R. 20 E., secs. 1-11, 14-23, and 26-35; T. 12 N., R. 19 E.; T. 12 
N., R. 20 E., secs. 3-11 and 13-36; T. 12 N., R. 21 E., secs. 19, 
30, and 31; T. 13 N., R. 19 E., secs. 3-11 and 13-36; T. 13 N., R. 
20 E., secs. 19 and 29-33; T. 14 N., R. 19 E., secs. 19 and 29-33.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.008


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    Nevada. Areas of land as follows:

    9. Piute-Eldorado Unit. Clark County. From BLM Maps: Mesquite 
Lake 1990, Boulder City 1978, Ivanpah 1979, and Davis Dam 1979. 
(Index map location H).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 23 S., R. 64 E., secs. 31-36 except that 
portion of sec. 31 lying northwesterly of the powerline and also 
except those portions of secs. 34-36 lying northeasterly of the 
powerline; T. 23 \1/2\ S., R. 64 E., secs. 31-36 except that portion 
of sec. 31 lying northwesterly of the powerline; T. 23 \1/2\ S., R. 
65 E., that portion of sec. 31 lying southwesterly of the powerline; 
T. 24 S., R. 63 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-15, 22-28, and 33-36 except those 
portions of secs. 1, 2, 11, 14, and 15 lying northwesterly of the 
powerline and those portions of secs. 22, 27, 28, and 33 lying 
northwesterly of U.S. Hwy. 95; T. 24 S., R. 64 E.; T. 24 S., R. 65 
E., secs. 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, and 31; T. 25 S., R. 61 E., secs. 13-15, 
E \1/2\ sec. 16, E \1/2\ sec. 21, secs. 22-27, E \1/2\ sec. 28, 
secs. 35 and 36; T. 25 S., R. 62 E., secs. 4-9, and secs. 16-36; T. 
25 S., R. 63 E., secs. 1-4, 9-16, and 19-36 except those portions of 
secs. 4, 9, and 16 lying northwesterly of U.S. Hwy. 95; T. 25 S., R. 
64 E., secs. 1-35 except secs. 13, 24, and 25,; T. 25 S. R. 65 E., 
sec. 6; T. 26 S., R. 61 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 24, 25, and 36; T. 26 
S., R. 62 E., secs. 1-36 except secs. 28 and 33; T. 26 S., R. 63 E., 
secs. 2-36 except sec. 12; T. 26 S., R. 64 E., secs. 18-20, and 29-
33; T. 27 S., R. 62 E., secs. 1-3, 5-8, 10-15, 22-26, 35, and 36; T. 
27 S., R. 62 \1/2\ E., secs. 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36; T. 27 S., R. 
63 E.; T. 27 S., R. 64 E., secs. 4-9, 16-21, and 26-36; T. 27 S., R. 
65 E., secs. 31-35; T. 28 S., R. 62 E., secs. 1-3, 9-16, 21-28, and 
33-36; T. 28 S., R. 63 E., secs. 1-20, and 29-32; T. 28 S., R. 64 
E., secs. 1-18, 21-26, 35, and 36; T. 28 S., R. 65 E., secs. 2-11, 
14-21, and 28-35; T. 29 S., R. 62 E., secs. 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, 34, 35 
and 36; T. 29 S., R. 63 E., secs. 5-10, 15-23, and 26-36; T. 29 S., 
R. 64 E., secs. 1-3, 9-16, 21-28, and 31-36; T. 29 S., R. 65 E., 
secs. 2-36 except secs. 12 and 13; T. 29 S., R. 66 E., secs. 30-32; 
T. 30 S., R. 62 E., secs. 1, 2, and 11-14; T. 30 S., R. 63 E., secs. 
1-36 except secs. 30 and 31; T. 30 S., R. 64 E.; T. 30 S., R. 65 E., 
secs. 1-26, 30, 31, 35, and 36; T. 30 S., R. 66 E., secs. 4-9, 16-
21, and 28-33; T. 31 S., R. 63 E., secs. 1-5, 8-16, 22-26, and 36; 
T. 31 S., R. 64 E.; T. 31 S., R. 65 E., secs. 1, 2, 6, 11-14, and 
23-36 except that portion of sec. 36 lying southwesterly of State 
Hwy. 163; T. 31 S., R. 66 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34 except 
that portion of sec. 31 lying southwesterly of State Hwy. 163; T. 32 
S., R. 64 E., secs. 1-6, 8-16, 22-26, and 36; T. 32 S., R. 65 E., 
secs. 1-12, 17-20, and 29-32 except those portions of secs. 1 and 9-
12 lying southeasterly or easterly of State Hwy. 163; T. 32 S., R. 
66 E., those portions of secs. 3-6 lying northerly of State Hwy. 
163; T. 33 S., R. 65 E., sec. 5.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.009


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    10. Mormon Mesa Unit. Clark and Lincoln Counties. From BLM Maps: 
Pahranagat 1978, Clover Mts. 1978, Overton 1978, Indian Springs 
1979, Lake Mead 1979, and Las Vegas 1986. (Index map location I).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 9 S., R. 62 E., secs. 13-15, 22-27, and 
34-36 except those portions of secs. 15, 22, 27, and 34 lying 
westerly of the easterly boundary line of the Desert National 
Wildlife Range; T. 9 S., R. 63 E., secs. 18, 19, 30, and 31; T. 10 
S., R. 62 E., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-25, and 36 except those portions 
of secs. 14, 23, 35, and 36 lying westerly of the easterly boundary 
line of the Desert National Wildlife Range; T. 10 S., R. 63 E., 
secs. 6, 7, 13-15, 18-20, and 22-36; T. 10 S., R. 64 E., secs. 13-24 
and 26-34; T. 10 S., R. 65 E., secs. 18, and 19; T. 11 S., R. 62 E., 
that portion of sec. 1 lying easterly of the easterly boundary line 
of the Desert National Wildlife Range; T. 11 S., R. 63 E.; T. 11 S., 
R. 64 E., secs. 4-9, 17-20, 30, and 31; T. 11 S., R. 66 E., secs. 
31-36; T. 12 S., R. 63 E.; T. 12 S., R. 64 E., secs. 6, 7, and 25-
36; T. 12 S., R. 65 E., secs. 1, 12, 13, and 24-36 except those 
portions of secs. 1, 2, 13, and 24 lying westerly of Union Pacific 
Railroad; T. 12 S., R. 66 E.; T. 12 S., R. 67 E., secs. 6-8, 16-22, 
and 27-33; T. 12 S., R. 68 E., secs. 23-29 and 31-36; T. 12 S., R. 
69 E., secs. 1-5, 8-17, and 19-36; T. 12\1/2\ S., R. 62 E., that 
portion of sec. 36 lying easterly of the easterly boundary line of 
the Desert National Wildlife Range; T. 13 S., R. 62 E., those 
portions of secs. 1, 12, 13, 24, and 25 lying easterly of the 
easterly line of the Desert National Wildlife Range; T. 13 S., R. 63 
E.; T. 13 S., R. 64 E.; T. 13 S., R. 65 E., secs. 1-24, N \1/2\ 26, 
N \1/2\ 27, N \1/2\ and SW \1/4\ sec. 28, 29-32, and W \1/2\ 33; T. 
13 S., R. 66 E., secs. 1-26, W \1/2\ sec. 27, 35, and 36; T. 13 S., 
R. 67 E.; T. 13 S., R. 68 E., secs. 1-36 except those portions of 
secs. 25 and 33-36 lying southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 13 
S., R. 69 E., secs. 1-30 except those portions of secs. 25-30 lying 
southerly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 13 S., R. 70 E., secs. 6, 7, 18, 
19, 30, and 31 except those portions of secs. 30 and 31 lying 
southerly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 13\1/2\ S., R. 63 E., secs. 31-
36; T. 13\1/2\ S., R. 64 E., secs. 31-36 except that portion of sec. 
36 lying southwesterly of State Hwy. 168; T. 14 S., R. 63 E., secs. 
1-23, and 26-35; T. 14 S., R. 64 E., secs. 2-6, 8-11, 15, and 16; T. 
14 S., R. 66 E., secs. 1, E \1/2\ sec. 2, 12, E \1/2\ sec. 13, and E 
\1/2\ sec. 24; T. 14 S., R. 67 E., secs. 1-12 and 14-22 except those 
portions of secs. 12, 14, 15, 21, and 22 lying southerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 14 S., R. 68 E., those portions of secs. 4-7 
lying northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 15 S., R. 63 E., secs. 
2-11, 14-22, and 27-34; T. 16 S., R. 63 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 
28-33; T. 17 S., R. 63 E., secs. 7-9, 16-21, and 28-32 except those 
portions of secs. 29 and 32 lying easterly of the westerly boundary 
line of the Apex Disposal Road; T. 18 S., R. 63 E., secs. 5-8, 17-
19, and 29-31 except those portions of secs. 5, 8, 17-19, and 29-31 
lying easterly of the westerly boundary line of the Apex Disposal 
Road and that portion of sec. 31 lying westerly of the easterly 
boundary line of Desert National Wildlife Range.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.010


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    11. Gold Butte-Pakoon Unit. Clark County. From BLM Maps: Overton 
1978 and Lake Mead 1979. (Index map location J).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 13 S., R. 71 E., secs. 32-34; T. 14 S., 
R. 69 E., secs. 24-26, and 34-36; T. 14 S., R. 70 E., secs. 1, and 
10-36; T. 14 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T. 15 S., 
R. 69 E., secs. 1-3, 9-16, 21-28, and 33-36; T. 15 S., R. 70 E., 
secs. 2-11, 15-22, and 28-33; T. 16 S., R. 69 E., secs. 1-36 except 
secs. 6, 7, and 29-32; T. 16 S., R. 70 E., secs. 4-36 except sec. 
12; T. 16 S., R. 71 E., secs. 19, and 29-32; T. 17 S., R. 69 E., 
secs. 1-3, 11-14, 24, 25, and 36; T. 17 S., R. 70 E.; T. 17 S., R. 
71 E., secs. 4-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T. 18 S., R. 69 E., sec. 1; T. 
18 S., R. 70 E., secs. 1-6, 10-15, 22-27, and 34-36; T. 18 S., R. 71 
E., secs. 3-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T. 19 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3, 4, 9, 
10, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 33 and 34; T. 20 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3 
and 4.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.011


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    12. Beaver Dam Slope Unit. Lincoln County. From BLM Maps: Clover 
Mountains 1978 and Overton 1978. (Index map location K).
    Mt. Diablo Meridian: T. 8 1/2 S., R. 71 E., that portion of sec. 
34 lying south of a westerly extension of the north line of sec. 26, 
T. 41 S., R. 20 W. (Salt Lake Meridian), Washington County, Utah; T. 
9 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3, 10, 15-17, 20-22, 27-29, and 32-34; T. 10 
S., R. 70 E., secs. 19-36; T. 10 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3-5, 7-10, 15-
22, and 27-34; T. 11 S., R. 70 E.; T. 11 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3-10, 
15-22, and 27-34; T. 12 S., R. 70 E., secs. 1-12, 14-23, and 28-33; 
T. 12 S., R. 71 E., secs. 3-10.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.012


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    Utah. Areas of land as follows:

    13. Beaver Dam Slope Unit. Washington County. From BLM Maps: St. 
George 1980 and Clover Mts. 1978. (Index map location K).
    Salt Lake Meridian: T. 40 S., R. 19 W., S 1/2 sec. 28, S 1/2 
sec. 29, S 1/2 sec. 31, secs. 32 and 33; T. 41 S., R. 19 W., S 1/2 
sec. 2, S 1/2 sec. 3, secs. 4, 5, 6, E 1/2 sec. 7, secs. 8-11, 15-
17, E 1/2 sec. 18, and secs. 19-22, and 28-33; T. 41 S., R. 20 W., E 
1/2 sec. 1, secs. 24-26, 35, and 36; T. 42 S., R. 19 W., secs. 4-9, 
16-22, and 27-34; T. 42 S., R. 20 W., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, 
and 36; T. 43 S., R. 18 W., secs. 7, 8, S 1/2 sec. 16, secs. 17-21, 
and 27-34; T. 43 S., R. 19 W., secs. 1-36 except N 1/2 sec. 1; T. 43 
S., R. 20 W., secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 23-26, 35, and 36.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.013


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    14. Upper Virgin River Unit. Washington County. From BLM Map: 
St. George 1980. (Index map location L).
    Salt Lake Meridian: T. 41 S., R. 13 W., secs. 17-21 except NW 1/
4 NW 1/4 sec. 18, also W 1/2 and W 1/2 E 1/2 sec. 27, sec. 28 except 
that portion lying westerly of Gould Wash, N 1/2 sec. 29, N 1/2 sec. 
30, N 1/2 N 1/2 sec. 33 except that portion lying westerly of Gould 
Wash, and N 1/2 NW 1/4 and NW 1/4 NE 1/4 sec. 34; T. 41 S., R. 14 
W., S 1/2 S 1/2 and NE 1/4 SE 1/4 and SE 1/4 NE 1/4 sec. 13, that 
portion of sec. 14 lying westerly of Red Cliff Road, secs. 15-17 
except N 1/2 NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 NW 1/4 sec. 17, secs. 19-22, that 
portion of sec. 23 lying westerly of Red Cliff Road and westerly of 
Interstate Hwy. 15, sec. 24, E 1/2 and N 1/2 SE 1/4 and SW 1/4 SE 1/
4 sec. 25, and those portions of secs. 26, 27, and 32-34 lying 
northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 41 S., R. 15 W., secs. 14, 
19, 20, and 22-36; T. 41 S., R. 16 W., secs. 4, 9, 10, S 1/2 sec. 
14, 15-16, 19, 21, W 1/2 sec. 22, secs. 24-25 except W 1/2 SW 1/4 
sec. 24 and W 1/2 NW 1/4 and NW 1/4 SW 1/4 sec. 25, and W 1/2 W 1/2 
sec. 25, SW 1/4 NE 1/4 and NW 1/4 NW 1/4 and S 1/2 NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 
and W 1/2 SE 1/4 sec. 27, E 1/2 and E 1/2 W 1/2 and NW 1/4 NW 1/4 
and SW 1/4 SW 1/4 sec. 28, N 1/2 and SE 1/4 and E 1/2 SW 1/4 sec. 
30, NE 1/4 sec. 31, N 1/2 sec. 32, N 1/2 and SE 1/4 and N 1/2 SW 1/4 
sec. 33, sec. 34, SE 1/4 SE 1/4 and that portion of sec. 35 lying 
westerly of State Hwy. 18, and sec. 36; T. 41 S., R. 17 W., secs. 9, 
14-16, NE 1/4 sec. 21, N 1/2 sec. 22, NW 1/4 and E 1/2 sec. 23, sec. 
24, and NE 1/4 sec. 25; T. 42 S., R. 14 W., those portions of secs. 
5 and 6 lying northwesterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 42 S., R. 15 
W., sec. 1, N 1/2 and N 1/2 S 1/2 sec. 2, NE 1/4 and W 1/2 sec. 3, 
secs. 4-9, W 1/2 W 1/2 sec. 10, N 1/2 N 1/2 sec. 12, secs. 16-18, N 
1/2 and N 1/2 SE 1/4 and NE 1/4 SW 1/4 sec. 19, and W 1/2 NW 1/4 and 
NW 1/4 SW 1/4 sec. 20, except those portions of secs. 1 and 12 lying 
southeasterly of Interstate Hwy. 15; T. 42 S., R. 16 W., secs. 1-2, 
NW 1/4 and E 1/2 sec. 3, NE 1/4 NE 1/4 sec. 4, NE 1/4 sec. 10, NW 1/
4 and E 1/2 sec. 11-12, E 1/2 and NW 1/4 and N 1/2 SW 1/4 sec. 13 
except that portion lying westerly of State Hwy. 18, and N 1/2 NE 1/
4 sec. 24.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.014


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    Arizona. Areas of land as follows:


    15. Beaver Dam Slope Unit. Mohave County. From BLM Maps: Overton 
1978 and Littlefield 1987. (Index map location K).
    Gila and Salt River Meridian: T. 41 N., R. 14 W., secs. 6, 7, 
18, and 19; T. 41 N., R. 15 W., secs. 1-24, 26-28, 30, and 31; T. 41 
N., R. 16 W., secs. 1-5, 8-17, 20-29, and 32-36; T. 42 N., R. 14 W., 
sec. 31; T. 42 N., R. 15 W., secs. 31-36; T. 42 N., R. 16 W., secs. 
32-36.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.015


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    16. Gold Butte-Pakoon Unit. Mohave County. From BLM Maps: 
Overton 1978, Littlefield 1987, Mount Trumbull 1986, and Lake Mead 
1979. (Index map location J).
    Gila and Salt River Meridian: T. 32 N., R. 15 W., secs. 1-18 
except those portions of secs. 13-18 lying south of the Lake Mead 
National Recreation area boundary line; T. 32 N., R. 16 W., secs. 1, 
2, 12, and 13; T. 32 1/2 N., R. 15 W., secs. 31-36; T. 32 1/2 N., R. 
16 W., secs. 35 and 36; T. 33 N., R. 14 W., secs. 4-8, 18, 19, and 
28-31; T. 33 N., R. 15 W.; T. 33 N., R. 16 W., secs. 1-14, 17-20, 
23-26, 29-32, 35, and 36; T. 34 N., R. 14 W., secs. 4-9, 17-19, 30, 
31, 33, and 34; T. 34 N., R. 15 W.; T. 34 N., R. 16 W.; T. 35 N., R. 
14 W., secs. 3-9, 16-22, and 28-35 ; T. 35 N., R. 15 W.; T. 35 N., 
R. 16 W.; T. 36 N., R. 14 W., secs. 2-11, 14-22, and 27-34; T. 36 
N., R. 15 W.; T. 36 N., R. 16 W., secs. 1-36 except secs. 4-9; T. 37 
N., R. 14 W., secs. 15, 22, 27, 31, and 33-35; T. 37 N., R. 15 W., 
secs. 5, 8, 17-22, and 27-36; T. 37 N., R. 16 W., sec. 35; T. 38 N., 
R. 15 W., sec. 6; T. 38 N., R. 16 W., secs. 1-12 and 14-22; T. 39 
N., R. 15 W., secs. 2-10, 16-21, and 29-32; T. 39 N., R. 16 W., 
secs. 1, 12, 13, 20, 23-29, and 32-36; T. 40 N., R. 14 W., sec. 6; 
T. 40 N., R. 15 W., secs. 1, 10-15, and 21-36.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TR08FE94.016


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    Primary constituent elements: Desert lands that are used or 
potentially used by the desert tortoise for nesting, sheltering, 
foraging, dispersal, or gene flow.

    Dated: December 20, 1993.
Richard N. Smith,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-2694 Filed 2-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P